On the Right

New York, Jan. 26—President Reagan, on the day he was inaugurated, faced a problem as nearly insoluble (one hopes) as any he will come upon during his Presidency. The fever for the return of the hostages had reached one of those near-undeniable pitches. True, if the Iranians had stuck to their demands of last December—that we deposit $24 billion in gold in reparations for our role in depriving Iran of the blessings of the Ayatollah for three decades —the American people would not have stood for it. But when the Iranians scaled down their demands, our intense anxiety to bring our people home left little time for analysis by a President elected, but not yet installed. So that when, exactly 22 minutes before Mr. Reagan took the oath of office, the news spread that the prisoners were actually airborne toward freedom, it seemed indelicate to raise questions about the terms to which our harried negotiators had been driven.

So: they are back. The money deal will require much thought, analysis, and even experience finally to understand the full inflections of it—though it is not too early to predict that, indeed, we will have paid ransom. But two elements of the deal stand out in albescent clarity. We have “promised” not “again” to interfere in Iranian affairs. And we have promised to require everyone in the United States who ever had any knowledge of where the Shah or members of his family invested their money to relate such knowledge to the U.S. Government; which government “promises” to freeze those assets, pending a determination by the relevant court as to proper ownership of them. That’s quite a number. A legacy of Carter’s Administration.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, Jan. 26—President Reagan, on the day he was inaugurated, faced a problem as nearly insoluble (one hopes) as any he will come upon during his Presidency. The fever for the return of the hostages had reached one of those near-undeniable pitches. True, if the Iranians had stuck to their demands of last December—that we deposit $24 billion in gold in reparations for our role in depriving Iran of the blessings of the Ayatollah for three decades —the American people would not have stood for it. But when the Iranians scaled down their demands, our intense anxiety to bring our people home left little time for analysis by a President elected, but not yet installed. So that when, exactly 22 minutes before Mr. Reagan took the oath of office, the news spread that the prisoners were actually airborne toward freedom, it seemed indelicate to raise questions about the terms to which our harried negotiators had been driven.

So: they are back. The money deal will require much thought, analysis, and even experience finally to understand the full inflections of it—though it is not too early to predict that, indeed, we will have paid ransom. But two elements of the deal stand out in albescent clarity. We have “promised” not “again” to interfere in Iranian affairs. And we have promised to require everyone in the United States who ever had any knowledge of where the Shah or members of his family invested their money to relate such knowledge to the U.S. Government; which government “promises” to freeze those assets, pending a determination by the relevant court as to proper ownership of them. That’s quite a number. A legacy of Carter’s Administration.