I was thinking about how different things are then just 35 years ago.
I don't want to get into the weeds about what Reagan did, but the short version he struck a deal with the Ayatollah prior to the election to get credit for the release of hostages and promised arms to fight Iraq in return. He did this because his bigger strategy was that to win the cold war we couldn't have a real war in the middle east. So the ends justified the means; and if you accept this narrative it is kind of hard to argue otherwise.
Why I bring this up: it seems that today it would be impossible for a President to take that course of action. Is this a good thing? I don't think so...
I don't want to get into the weeds about what Reagan did, but the short version he struck a deal with the Ayatollah prior to the election to get credit for the release of hostages and promised arms to fight Iraq in return. He did this because his bigger strategy was that to win the cold war we couldn't have a real war in the middle east. So the ends justified the means; and if you accept this narrative it is kind of hard to argue otherwise.
Why I bring this up: it seems that today it would be impossible for a President to take that course of action. Is this a good thing? I don't think so...