Barack Obama and the History of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Barack Obama and the History of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Two men traveled to Iran on November 18, 1979, two weeks after the seizure of the American embassy. The first man wore a kafiya and army fatigues. Paradoxically, his nation didn’t have a standing army. In fact his nation didn’t have borders to protect. The man’s name was Abu Ammar (in Arabic, the father of construction). Outside the Middle East, the world knew him as Yasser Arafat.
The second man had pockmarks everywhere, on his neck, all over his face, on his earlobes, covering his forehead. He wore the dark, oversized sunglasses preferred by Hollywood starlets. In this man’s case, he wore the sunglasses for more than disguise purposes or sunblock. One of his eyes had been disgorged back in 1972 when a bomb went off in his hands. The bomb had been a gift. One of Mossad’s favorite mail deliveries.
The man’s name was Bassam Abu-Sharif. Time Magazine dubbed him, “The face of terror.”
At Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, a chauffeur picked up the PLO chairman and his chief lieutenant and drove the 125 miles south to Qom. There, in the small home of the spiritual leader of Iran, Arafat and Ayatollah Khomeini negotiated a hostage release. The Abu Ammar Accord, as it is known in Iran, was signed on November 20, 1979. In the agreement, Khomeini promised to release “all non-essential hostages on embassy grounds.”
Sixty-six hostages were then held on embassy grounds. Thirteen hostages were set free. Khomeini released the hostages as a gesture to Yasser Arafat. He didn’t mention this to the Americans. To this day, few Americans have ever heard of the Abu Ammar Accord.
What did President Jimmy Carter gain from the Abu Ammar Accord? Gallup conducted a poll. His approval rating in the aftermath of the embassy seizure stood at 30 percent. After the hostage release of Thanksgiving, his approval rating jumped to 61 percent. George Bush should take notice.
What did Arafat and the PLO gain from the Abu Ammar Accord? Arafat craved legitimacy from the United States. He figured that negotiating the release of some American hostages would begin that process. He would be right, eventually. In the late 1980s American policy changed in terminology. The “combatant” PLO became the “friendly” PLO.
What did Khomeini gain from the Abu Ammar Accord? The Ayatollah, in his wish to export his revolution, viewed the PLO as a template. For all of its problems, for all of its warring factions, the PLO under Yasser Arafat understood struggle, the PLO understood the jarring effect of terrorism, the PLO understood the impact of propaganda, the PLO understood guerilla warfare. Khomeini wanted his Iran to have a PLO essence. Specifically, he wanted the Revolutionary Guard, then in its infancy, to have a PLO core.
What did Arafat agree to in the Abu Ammar Accord? In exchange for the hostage release, Arafat promised to train Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guard in PLO-style guerilla warfare. He placed Bassam Abu-Sharif in charge of that mission. Abu-Sharif, the face of terrorism, stayed in Iran for nearly six months.
Why is this relevant today? In September of 2007, an amendment sponsored by the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, and the man who’s gone Iraq crazy, Joe Lieberman, pushed for a new definition of Iran. Specifically, Kyl-Lieberman wanted to designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. According to Kyl-Lieberman, with evidence supplied by General David Petraeus, the Revolutionary Guard has been supplying weapons to various anti-American militias in Iraq, as well as supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.
Kyl-Lieberman passed, 76-22.
Among the Democrats running for president in the senate, only one voted for the amendment. Her name was Hillary Clinton. In recent weeks, Clinton has come under attack for that vote from many sides. The most strenuous attack, no surprise, has been voiced by Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. I asked Obama’s campaign spokesman, Reid Burton, about the attack.
“The resolution,” Burton asserted, “was a near carbon copy of the war powers the senate gave to President Bush on Iraq…”
Not true. Certainly the senate gave Bush the right to use force in Iraq. Kyl-Lieberman, however, was non-binding. It essentially called a spade a spade. “Do you think the Revolutionary Guard isn’t a terrorist organization?” I asked Reid Burton.
He wasn’t having any of my argument. Burton declared triumphantly, “This was a very important resolution – a message-sending resolution – and Senator Clinton essentially hopped on President Bush’s bus. And not for the first time. Senator Clinton voted for the first resolution in Iraq. Now she’s voted for this one. Hasn’t she therefore lost her right to criticize?”
Perhaps, I conceded. I then asked a question, “How did Senator Obama vote? I take it, against the amendment.”
Reid Burton met my question with silence. Our conversation took place over the phone. I could hear the hustle and bustle in the background. There was the tinny noise of bodies lifting off aluminum chairs and then heavy footsteps all around and then the tinny noise of bodies sitting in aluminum chairs.
Reid Burton and I spoke during the presidential debates, three days before the New Hampshire primaries. The Republican debate preceded the Democrats’ debate. Apparently, the entire crowd changed over during the intermission.
Burton’s response, when it came, was suddenly meek. “The Senator didn’t vote,” he answered. “He wasn’t in Washington on that day.”
“Where was he?” I asked.
“Out campaigning,” Burton answered.
“How do you explain that?” I responded. “You’re saying that this was an important amendment, but not important enough for the Senator to take part in?”
“The Senator is running for president,” Burton responded. “That’s more than a full-time job.”
“True,” I responded. Joe Biden, also running for president in September, voted against the amendment. Chris Dodd, also running for president, voted against the amendment. Senator Clinton, as we all know, voted for the amendment. Where was Barack?
“Out campaigning,” Reid Burton said for a second time.
And so, on a “very important” amendment, to quote Reid Burton, “a message-sending” amendment, Barack Obama chose to be absent.
Now tell me, who has the right to criticize?

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web