My name is Malcolm Byrne. I recently published a book called Reagan’s Scandal: Iran-Contra and the Unchecked Abuse of Presidential Power. It’s based on research in a large number of declassified documents and interviews with people from the US, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Iran-Contra was one of the biggest Washington political scandals of the late 20th century – a bizarre story about a president entangling himself in a pair of foreign policy disasters (in Iran and Nicaragua) that brought him perilously close to impeachment. The affair brought to light a wild cast of characters and exposed a lot that can go wrong in our system – in all three branches. But despite its impact and implications, for a variety of reasons it’s mostly been forgotten.
It’s great to be able to take part in this forum. Looking forward to your questions.
Was Oliver North really just a scapegoat for the big fishes?
There is a significant amount of debate over the suspected Government involvement in the Crack Cocaine Epidemic of the 1970s and 80s, particularly in the African-American Community, as a means of securing funding for the Contras. Based on your research, do you think there are links between the explosion of domestic drug use and Oliver North and the CIA?
What are some of the reasons we forget about iran Contra and idolize Regan today?
How big was the profit made from the arm sales?
Hello, Malcom! This is James Brooks. When I spoke to you by email, I mentioned that today would be an appropriate date because it's the 29th anniversary of the date that President Reagan appeared on TV to speak to the nation about the scandal.
What was the popular thought on this date 29 years ago? Did a majority of Americans believe the scandal, or did it have a life akin to the 9/11 "truther movement" where a vocal proportion of the population disbelieve it?
So just how much was Reagan really complicit in? Did he know everything that was going down? Can we ever really know?
What was the most interesting things you learned from the interviews with Iranians? What is the Iranian opinion of this scandal?
Did President Reagan and/or his supporters actively derail the impeachment movement? If so, how?
What went wrong in the legislative and judicial branches? How did Reagan's reputation survive the affair? To what extent were you able to learn who knew what, when and how did you come to those conclusions?
Thank you, very much.
How did Israel and the US start selling weapons to Iran, a regime that regularly denounced them? Was this a scandal in Iran?
The sale of weapons was justified within the US government as this was a sale to moderate elements within the regime. Is there any truth to that?
Were the weapons that Israel sold ever used against Israel by one of Iran's proxy's in Lebanon? Was the Iran part of Iran-Contra a scandal in Israel?
Why did Mehdi Hashemi announce the weapons deals to a Lebanese? If he hadn't, would the weapons sales gone on indefinitely?
I'll preface this question by saying it's not intended to delve into conspiracy theory in any way. But I've always been curious what sort of continuity of government planning was occurring as a part of Iran-Contra. Specifically, I always wondered what the background was behind this exchange between Rep. Brooks and Sen. Inouye:
Were any other major allies (UK, Canada, etc) knowingly entangled or involved directly besides the major parties (Israel, US) ?
Hello Malcolm! I've written a couple of papers on the ICJ's decision on Nicaragua as part of my law degree.
I'm not sure if it's exactly within the scope of your research, but I'd be interested to read any insights you have on the Reagan administration's reaction and approach to the case. Particularly in the early stages when it was attempting to avoid jurisdiction, and the reaction of the American public to the case.
When Reagan testified that "I cannot recall", is it possible that, given his advanced age and his later diagnosis with Alzheimers, that he actually couldn't recall? Is there evidence that he was already suffering from the disease while still in the White House? If so, how did those in his inner circle deal with it? Was it understood as such by them at the time?
What role did the hostage release play in the whole affair?
I have heard claims that a lesson from Iran Contra was that the Executive Branch would learn to use the DOJ to first create the legal framework to justify future questionable actions (such as torture or drones), how much truth is there in this claim?
How do you think the times have changed for the media reporting of this event? With the influx of so many news sites on the Internet would this have been a bigger deal today or shrugged off?
One of the little side shows to this was the conviction- and then pardon- of Caspar Weinberger. It seemed at the time as though he agreed to be the fall-guy for Reagan, in exchange for his pardon. Do we know anymore about this deal?
Guess I'll end this AMA for now. Thanks to everyone for really excellent questions, and thanks to James Brooks for the invitation. I enjoyed it a lot.
MB
Thank you for doing this AMA, I recently added your book to my reading list and it looks quite interesting! Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with the era as I would like, and the Iran-Contra affair was before my time, so my knowledge is not as detailed as some others here, but I do have a couple of general questions for you.
Most older adults I've spoken to, from a variety of backgrounds, and regardless of their current political affiliation, say they were aware of the scandal, but still seem to hold a neutral or positive image of Ronald Reagan. ( I include my parents in this, who campaigned for Reagan in 1980, but have also voted for Clinton and Obama) In contrast the opinion today of many historians, professors of political science and others with an expertise if you will, in politics and history, seems overwhelmingly negative. Can you offer any insight to the discrepancy between the "average" and the "expert" view of Reagan?
AskHistorians has a "20 year rule", before a topic can be considered sufficiently historical. I've noticed that many books on presidents or major events of the past few decades seem more political than historical, especially the kind penned by TV or radio hosts with unabashed right/left wing biases. Were there any particular difficulties you faced in researching a relatively modern president? What amount of time do you think must elapse before one can make a truly objective assessment of political figure?