Friday News Roundup — April 24, 2020
Demanding Competent Governance; COVID Crisis Financial Woes; Withdrawing from Afghanistan; COVID in Russia; Jury Developments; Remembering the Iranian Revolution; Plus News You May Have Missed
Good morning, and happy Friday from everyone here at CSPC. As we continue our virtual Roundups, we hope our readers are happy and healthy as the quarantine drags on. That said, we continue to see a modest flattening of the COVID-19 curve, as physical distancing and the use of masks contributes to halting the spread of the disease.
This week, CSPC President & CEO Glenn Nye and David M. Abshire Chair Mike Rogers analyzed how the COVID pandemic challenges U.S. leadership in already trying times.
As we have adapted our programming, we’re also pleased to announce our virtual book series. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be hosting a range of authors examining the cutting edge issues for American security and prosperity. A full list of upcoming events will now follow news you may have missed, but, first and foremost, next Wednesday, April 29th, at 10:30 a.m. ET, we’re welcoming author and security researcher David Kilcullen to discuss his book “Dragons & Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West.” Please email Joshua via Joshua.Huminski@thepresidency.org to join this virtual book event.
We have another jam packed roundup this week, with a broad swath of issues covered under the umbrella of COVID-19. Dan discusses populism, institutions, and competent governance, while Michael covers the expanding financial impact of the crisis at hand. Joshua contributes two pieces again, first analyzing the latest developments in Afghanistan and then offering another update on COVID in Russia. Chris covers recent rulings on juries and criminal procedure, and, at the 40th anniversary of the attempted rescue of Iranian hostages in 1980 Ethan takes a deep dive into that failed mission and how it led to the creation of U.S. Special Operations Command. Our news section wraps with news you may have missed.
A Competent Leviathan
Dan Mahaffee
During pandemic quarantine, there is a lot of time to catch up on streaming services. On the to-do list had been the HBO-Channel 4 co-production entitled “Brexit: The Uncivil War,” or simply “Brexit” in the United States. With Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead role of campaign guru, and now advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, it provides an entertaining and revealing look at how the Leave campaign unfolded. Spoiler alert, they win, but the program starts to ask, at what cost?
As the telefilm and the history of Brexit tell us, a key factor was Cummings’ message that to vote leave would be to “take back control” — a simple message combined with some of the most advanced data analysis and social media outreach yet seen in electoral politics. Brexit, of course, like many of the populist movements we have seen in western politics was part of a populist wave challenging the political class. In many ways, the political class deserved the kick in the backside that they received from their electorates. Yes, it is clear that Russia has been keen to exploit the cleavages in our politics, but these cleavages are exploited, not created, by outside actors.
On the left and right, populism has been driven by the feelings of a loss of control, political systems stacked against “the little guy,” and inequalities in wealth and opportunity that rival the gilded age. Thus the campaign to leave the European Union focused on taking back control, and as Tory MP and Brexit campaigner Michael Gove famously said, “people in this country have had enough of experts.”
Far from seeming to drive a newfound unity in western politics, the COVID pandemic seems to be deepening the political fault lines. The international health emergency is driving one of the deepest economic crises that we have faced, yet many still say that this is a “black swan.” Contrary to that, I agree with Chicago-based author and strategist Michele Wucker, that this is not the unforeseen “black swan,” but rather the “gray rhino.” She describes it as, “the massive two-ton thing with its horn pointed at you, stomping the ground and getting ready to charge — and, most important, giving you the chance to act.”
We had known the risks of the pandemic, first from competent leaders like CSPC Trustees Governor Tom Ridge, the co-chair of the Bipartisan Commission on biosecurity, and Chairman & Abshire Chairholder Mike Rogers, a shepherd of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act. Then the evidence was even more acute, especially as the story was clear from Wuhan, China, and Lombardy, Italy. The data from China was likely suspect, but the lockdown required to stop the disease was plain to see. Still, as Olga Khazan points out in The Atlantic, our own psychology makes it difficult to understand the large, looming disaster, and often our intuition makes us overly optimistic. One of the key roles for government is to anticipate those crises that we cannot tackle as individuals — and across the political spectrum, save for the most ardent anarchist, we agree on basic roles of government for public safety, national defense, and commercial regulation. As of late, our politics, growing ever more divisive, focused less on the role of government, or even the size of government, but mainly on making sure “the other side lost.”
In watching the Brexit film, it was abundantly clear what the political calculus for the referendum was — making sure that 50%+1 of the British electorate voted leave, or remain. Making that happen, rather than any long-term consideration of the factors at hand, won the day.
Trust me, while fortunate enough to be able to continue to work from home and watch streaming television, watching “Brexit: The Movie” would not be my first choice — I know how it ends. Frankly, I’d much rather be watching baseball, but the only leagues in operation right now are the major leagues in Taiwan and South Korea. Perhaps we may soon see Korean baseball on ESPN, but the reason those leagues are operating rests solely on the competency of their governments’ responses to this pandemic. Taiwan, for obvious reasons, did not trust China’s approach to the virus, while South Korea moved at great haste to test and trace. Our example, on the other hand, is laid out in the human and economic toll.
Now, if we want to “take back control,” we’ll have to listen to the experts. The efforts of doctors, epidemiologists, and scientists will bring about the reopening of society, as the virus is not something that can be spun away or accommodated via some kind of deal. In a memo from Bill Gates, the challenge ahead is clearly outlined. In describing the challenge as similar to World War II, Gates sees that innovation is the only way out of this. As we address this challenge, we must continue to grade government not on its size or scope, but whether it is marshalling the expertise needed to overcome this pandemic.
The Shape of Things to Come
Michael Stecher
Prices are not supposed to be negative. In our normal lives, we rarely pay to part with goods — with the possible exception of the collected detritus that has accumulated in the back of your closet over the decades. This week, however, the price for U.S. crude oil, West Texas Intermediate, collapsed. On Monday, the price per barrel closed at -$37.63, which means that if you bought a barrel of crude, the seller would pay you $37.63 to take it off their hands. It is easy to read too much into this fact — there are technical, rather than economic reasons why this happened — but it does provide some insight into the growing sense that the economic destruction that COVID-19 caused in a month will not be rebuilt in the same amount of time.
Commodities like crude oil — gold, silver, platinum, heating oil, cocoa and sugar, and of course frozen concentrated orange juice — trade on futures contracts, an agreement for the seller to provide the buyer a fixed amount of product on a specific date. For WTI, that amount is increments of 1,000 barrels, 42,000 gallons, that are delivered to Cushing, OK based on the price on the closing day; for the May contracts, closing day was Monday. Futures contracts were developed so that producers (historically farmers) could agree on a price in advance and eliminate the risk of price volatility. In recent years, however, regular investors have also become players in futures markets, through exchange traded funds like $USO. These funds buy the next month’s contract (the “front month”), but do not have the ability to either store or refine the oil. As the closing day approaches, these investors sell the front month and buy the next month. This event, called “the roll” is usually pretty seamless.
The roll on Monday did not go so well. The storage capacity in Cushing is about 75% full and the free space represents about 2 days worth of U.S. oil production. Consumers are not driving very much nor flying on airplanes, two of the primary end-uses of crude oil, so oil refiners have slowed down the pace of their work. Producers of crude oil, however, have kept on pumping because they carry a lot of debt and have to continue to make payments. A month-long game of hydrocarbon musical chairs ensued and a lot of retail investors were left with nowhere to sit. More pain is coming in the oil sector. Despite unprecedented production cuts, June WTI contracts are trading below $20/barrel at time of writing. Oil producers will go bankrupt at those levels and the holders of debt issued by energy companies, mostly banks and investors in high-yield debt funds, will take more losses.
Leaving the strange price movements in oil to one side, these financial losses moving through the economy are the real concern. 3 weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the unemployment rate in March was 4.4%, but this is a vast undercount. For one thing, the survey that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate the unemployment rate takes place on the week that includes the 12th of the month. More than 10 million Americans lost their jobs in the month of March, 95% of them did so in the weeks after March 12. Dan likes to call this the “3.6 roentgen moment,” because, like with radiation at Chernobyl, we cannot even measure how bad things are in the economy.
These people — and many others — are cutting spending, which is causing losses across many consumer-focused businesses. In 2016, JPMorgan Chase calculated that the average small business could survive less than one month of regular expenses if they stopped receiving cash inflows from revenues. While that is not a perfect analogue for what is happening right now, it demonstrates how, the longer the crisis lasts, the more economic damage spreads. Nor is it certain that announcing the “reopening” the economy will provide quick relief for these firms and new jobs for workers. According to FiveThiryEight’s poll tracker, nearly 70% of Americans are still very or somewhat concerned that they or someone they know will contract coronavirus. Until that trends down, it is unlikely that people will go on spending sprees, which will delay when companies can go on hiring sprees; meanwhile, the losses will keep piling up.
Looking ahead to what so many hope will be the recovery phase, there is one more shoe that we should expect to drop in the months ahead. Decreased income and consumer spending will also mean lower tax receipts. For the federal government, this does not matter; the U.S. Treasury appears to be nowhere near the limit for how much the market will allow it to borrow, as evidenced by the fact that 10 year inflation expectations are still at around 1.1% per year (and 1 year inflation expectations are negative). States, however, are much more constrained in their borrowing capacity. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, most have formal balanced budget requirements. As their tax receipts shrink, they will need to cut budgets, which means more tough times ahead for police officers, teachers, and recipients of public assistance.
A month ago, people were talking about a “V-shaped recession,” short, sharp losses followed by a quick recovery. As conditions deteriorated, there has been more conversation about a “U-shaped recession.” This still feels like incautious optimism. Ryan Avent at the Economist pointed out that it took a decade for unemployment to recover after the 2008 financial crisis, the losses we are seeing now are going deeper than that, and we cannot expect the turnaround to even start until the fears of COVID-19 have passed. In a sense, however, he is being too optimistic: the unemployment rate recovered, but even in January 2020 the prime age labor force participation rate — the share of people aged 25–54 who are either working or looking for work — was still below what it was in January 2008.
I hope I am wrong. I really hope that this week’s bout of pessimism and last week’s prove to be off in some fundamental way and we quickly return to the status quo ante morbum. But we need to start thinking about what happens if things move more slowly than that, or there will be a lot of pain in economics and politics, possibly for a very long time.
Afghanistan, Withdrawal, and COVID
Joshua Huminski
With the world’s focus on COVID-19, it seems as though the tentative peace deal signed between the United States and the Taliban was signed years ago. In reality, it was just February when Washington agreed to the gradual withdrawal of forces in exchange for an agreement by the Taliban to prevent Afghanistan from being used for future attacks and to sever ties with al-Qaeda.
Two months later, the future of the agreement remains very uncertain, yet there has been a lot of activity in Afghanistan, even if Washington has not been paying attention.
Earlier this month Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security arrested the leader of the Islamic State of the Khorasan Province (ISKP), Abdullah Orokzai, also known as Aslam Farooqi, along with two other “high ranking commanders”. Farooqi is most recently accused of being involved in an attack against a Sikh house of worship in Kabul that killed 25 people. Shortly following the arrest, Pakistan requested his extradition. Farooqi is a Pakistani-national and is wanted by Islamabad in connection with Islamic State attacks in that country. Kabul rejected the extradition request, saying “Aslam Farooqi will be dealt with based on Afghanistan’s law.”
Both Afghan and U.S. officials claim the Islamic State is greatly weakened as a result of sustained military operations against the group as well as attacks by the Taliban, a rival of the Islamic State in that country. Indeed, part of the peace agreement saw that the Taliban would push back against the Islamic State, which is seen as a more pressing threat to the United States.
The future of that deal remains, however, very uncertain. According to the New York Times, the United States is now considering reducing the presence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operators in Afghanistan in a bid to further reduce violence and smooth the way for eventual total withdrawal. This is in contrast with earlier plans to increase the CIA presence in the country as conventional forces withdrew. The CIA is actively involved in advising and supporting the government of Afghanistan and its security forces, and its presence is a significant bone of contention for the Taliban and associated groups like the Haqqani Network.
Simply, the Taliban and the Haqqani network hope that the withdrawal of the CIA advisers and material support will weaken the government of Afghanistan and its security forces and, concurrently, allow the illicit business — extortion, smuggling, narcotics, etc… — to continue uninterrupted. The removal of CIA personnel from the periphery to Kabul, and, eventually, entirely, would severely hamper the intelligence agency’s ability to collect human intelligence and monitor the activity of the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and the Islamic State.
Washington, for its part, is trying to find tools and leverage to force the Taliban to reduce violence against the government of Afghanistan and its forces, and pave the way for peaceful coexistence, such as is possible in that country.
For their part, the Taliban warned in early April that the peace deal is near the breaking point as a result of continued strikes against the group and the unwillingness of the government of Afghanistan to hand over 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The Taliban claimed that they had curtailed their attacks, restricting them to rural outposts and not against international forces. This should not be taken at face value as immediately after the signing of the agreement the Taliban increased attacks country-wide. A Taliban statement added, “We are seriously asking the Americans to abide by the contents of the agreement and to alert their allies to fully abide by the agreement.” It is somewhat naïve of the Taliban to expect, agreement or not, for the U.S. to suspend any military operations — pressure on the Taliban, particularly kinetic, is the only way in which Washington will be able to assert any measure of influence on the dynamic in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the domestic political situation in Afghanistan is not helping the dynamic, either. In early April, Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah were locked in a dispute over the presidential election. In February, Ghani was declared the winner of the September election, but Abduallah claimed widespread irregularities in the vote count. The dispute was so substantial, both held separate inaugural events in March. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Kabul to force a resolution to the post-election dispute, threatening to cut $1 billion in U.S. aid and immediately pull all forces out of the country. According to reports, Ghani is still working to resolve the dispute with Abduallah and form an “inclusive” government.
Against this backdrop, there is, of course, COVID-19. At least 40 members of the presidential palace have tested positive for the virus, but thus far the president, Ghani, seems uninfected. The full tally of the infected remains unknown. Only 7,000 tests have been conducted and at least 1,000 are confirmed infected. The influx of Iranians into Afghanistan, a flow the government of Kabul was unable to stop, undoubtedly brought considerable numbers of infected into the country. The governor of Herat, which borders Iran, ordered a lockdown for that province, but was largely unsuccessful as holiday gatherings continued uninterrupted.
What happens next in Afghanistan remains, as is fairly consistent, uncertain. Domestically the country is ill equipped to handle the COVID pandemic and certainly does not need any additional pressures on an already strained political system and situation. The Taliban will continue to cry foul and protest, certainly too much, that they are abiding by the agreement and that the United States is not acting in good faith. Short of full and immediate withdrawal, the Taliban will always argue Washington is not moving fast enough. The impact of the arrest of Farooqi, while impressive, is unlikely to have a significant impact. He will certainly be replaced by another, but sustained military operations against the Islamic State will prevent it from being able to consolidate and expand its reach.
COVID may be dominating the news, but forgetting Afghanistan will be a considerable disservice to the sacrifices made in that country to date.
Russia COVID Update
Joshua Huminski
In a televised press conference with health officials, Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin said the country was making progress against COVID. “On the whole we’re managing the first issue in the fight against the epidemic — slowing its spread,” Putin said. He cautioned, “But that shouldn’t comfort us… As you tell me, the peak is still ahead.” According to Johns Hopkins, Russia has nearly 63,000 confirmed cases and 550 deaths.
After much speculation, Putin decided to postpone the Victory Day parade. In another televised meeting with members of Russia’s Security Council, he said “The risks associated with the epidemic… are still extremely high, and this does not give me the right to begin preparations for the parade and other mass events.” Although a rescheduled date for the parade has not been set, Putin said “We will force the threat that we face today to retreat, and then we will certainly carry out all the events planned…this year.” Putin was lobbied by some veterans’ groups to postpone the parade and, prior to its postponement, soldiers who were scheduled to participate were actually quarantined.
It does appear, at least anecdotally, that Moscow is taking COVID much more seriously than it initially did. Videos have emerged of Russian police forcibly detaining people for violating the quarantine and social distancing laws. Additionally, Moscow and other cities are now requiring passes to travel by car or public transport.
The COVID crisis is highlighting interesting frictions between Russia and China. In January, the border between the two countries was closed and while China — allegedly — has the pandemic under control, it’s working to prevent the importation of cases from Russia. Suifenhe and Harbin, in Heilongjiang, are mandating nearly 30 days of quarantine from arrivals from Russia. Suifenhe is one of the few remaining transit points from Russia into China since air travel between the two was suspended. Beijing fears Chinese nationals returning from Russia with the virus could start a second wave and, as such, is working to aggressively control the border, prompting tensions, albeit mild, between the two allies.
Juries, Dissent, and Quarantine
Chris Condon
While the nation has rightfully been focused on the COVID-19 crisis this week, it is worth noting that developments continue to occur in the legal sphere. First and foremost, the Supreme Court is using “modern” technology — the telephone — to hear oral arguments for the first time to protect the safety of the justices and counsel in the midst of the pandemic. The Court is also accepting case documents virtually for the first time in its history, although decisions have been posted online for a number of years. For an institution notorious for its hesitancy to change the procedural status quo and for a reluctance to adopt technological advances, this in and of itself is big news.
However, a recent decision by the High Court has stolen the spotlight. This week, 6 out of 9 justices agreed that the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict to convict applies not only to federal trials, but also those conducted in state-level courts. Although only Oregon still allows split jury verdicts in criminal trials, this case originated in Louisiana, which only recently mandated unanimous convictions. While such a decision may not normally have drawn headlines, the strange coalitions and structure of this case is uniquely noteworthy. The controlling opinion, penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was joined in full only by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer (decidedly not ideologically similar to the author). The document was also signed in part by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor, while Justice Clarence Thomas concurred only in the bottom-line judgement.
The opposing side was similarly atypical, consisting of a dissent by Justice Samuel Alito joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and in part by Justice Elena Kagan. What is perhaps most interesting is that every justice agreed with the fundamental question at hand: the 1972 precedent overturned by the majority’s decision was incorrectly decided in the first place. Each justice agreed that the guarantee of a jury trial includes the right to a unanimous verdict, and that such a right applies to the states. What they disagreed on, however, was whether there was sufficient reason to overturn the established precedent in this case. Such is a question of stare decisis, an element of judicial philosophy that compels justices to protect precedent wherever possible. Justices Roberts, Alito, and Kagan argued that while perhaps the precedent at hand is not perfect, altering it would contradict stare decisis to an impermissible degree and cause an unnecessary burden to befall Louisiana and Oregon.
The construction of the majority opinions was just as interesting. While overturning a longstanding precedent would be rather unusual, Justice Gorsuch argued that no such precedent was properly established in the first place. Since the 1972 case Apodaca v. Oregon contradicted two well-established principles of the Court — the right to a unanimous conviction verdict and incorporation through the 14th Amendment — it did not even set a true precedent that could even be overturned in the first place. Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor disagreed with this assessment. Both separately expressed similar sentiments: that the case, while wrongly decided, did still set a precedent, but the Court was perfectly justified in overturning it. Justice Thomas wrote that the majority simply used the wrong vehicle to incorporate the right to a unanimous verdict [he would have used the privileges and immunities clause rather than the due process clause (and incorporation is a topic for another op-ed)].
Ultimately, the Court’s fractured decision does have important implications for the future of jury trials, even if only in Oregon at this point in time. Coincidentally, another important decision was made in regard to juries recently, albeit on a smaller scale. The Georgia Supreme Court nullified a conviction for a shooting that occurred in 2017 on procedural grounds, opining that the judge’s conduct in the case created an unjust situation. Specifically, the judge and district attorney dismissed a juror from the case for simply disbelieving the witnesses and evidence provided by the prosecution. The state supreme court ruled that since the juror was fit to serve, simply being unconvinced by the state was an inappropriate reason for dismissal. Although Georgia has stated its intention to retry the case, the fact that they must do so is a victory for the rights of the accused in and of itself.
In this time of uncertainty in our society, nothing is totally immune from change. The Supreme Court, famous for its reluctance to embrace any alterations to the status quo, has begun adopting new practices in the face of the present crisis. Although this is not an easy or comfortable time, there is some cause for optimism in the news, as those accused of a crime now enjoy one more right that they are afforded under our Constitution.
“The Most Successful Failure”
Ethan Brown
Four decades ago, students of an Iranian university, loyal to the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and radicalized by his teachings, stormed the US Embassy in Tehran, kicking off what would ultimately be a 444-day long hostage situation. 1979 was a tumultuous year in the Middle East, with events such as the Iran hostage crisis directly shaping the unstable region. The Hostage Crisis falls under the umbrella of what is colloquially referred to as the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and echoes of the unrest and turmoil from that timeframe continue to this day.
Readers of our analyses are likely familiar with the 1979 Revolution’s impact on geopolitics, however, this analysis will address a lesser known but still influential outcome of that year’s events. For the US Military, the Iran hostage crisis would forever alter the construct of Special Operations Forces (SOF) — their deployment, mission specialization, command and control, while initiating the organization of the Joint Force paradigm. In what was the inaugural attempt at a truly “joint” endeavor, SOF elements of the Air Force and Army, along with conventional Navy and Marine Corps forces, attempted to execute an exceptionally daring and complicated operation. Today, April 24th, marks the 40th Anniversary of Operation EAGLE CLAW — the failed rescue mission intended to recover “The 66”. Not only was the mission unsuccessful in recovering the U.S. hostages detained at the embassy, it resulted in the loss of six RH-53D helicopters, one MC-130, and eight service members.
* * *
What follows is a timeline of the circumstances leading up to the storming of the embassy and a summary of events describing the execution of EAGLE CLAW, followed by the invaluable lessons learned from the mission and their ultimate outcome: The US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).
1951:
Muhammed Mossadegh, an outspoken nationalist and newly elected Prime Minister of Iran, announces plans to nationalize Iran’s petroleum production, wresting control of its prolific “black gold” reserves from decades-long U.S and British control.
August, 1953:
The Central Intelligence Agency and its British Intelligence partners staged a coup, removing Mossadegh from power and instilling the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The Shah leads a secular, anti-communist, pro-western government who agrees to terms with the United States and United Kingdom on transferring control of nearly half of Iran’s oil production. Three decades of western aid begin and the Shah occupies a key role in the fight against communism. Despotism becomes the hallmark of the Pahlavi regime.
1963:
The Ayatollah Khomeini is arrested at the direction of the Shah, and is ultimately exiled to Iraq. This decade sees suppression of protests by an increasingly corrupt Pahlavi government and its SAVAK (Secret Police), as the Ayatollah begins a campaign of rhetoric denouncing the corruption. In particular, Khomeini charges the Shah’s regime with kowtowing to foreign (American) influence.
January, 1977:
Jimmy Carter takes office as the newly elected President of the United States, and praises Iran as an “island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world”. The rising tensions in Iran due to the regimes continued violent repression of opposition are approaching a revolutionary fever pitch.
January 16, 1979
Pahlavi flees to Egypt amidst growing protests and two weeks later, the Ayatollah Khomeini returns to fan the flames of revolution. The following months are marked by ethnic and tribal uprisings, political demonstrations, and sectarian violence as a religiously conservative, radically militant government rapidly upends and liquidates the elitist class left behind by the Shah.
October 1979
The Shah is allowed to enter the United States to receive treatment for advanced lymphoma. The decision by President Carter to permit entry is a humanitarian choice, not a political one. Just days after Pahlavi’s arrival in New York City, tensions peaked in Tehran.
November 4, 1979
As many as 3000 students attack the US Embassy in Tehran following another bout of riots and protests, taking 62 Americans captive. Over the following months, attempts at diplomatic solutions are undermined by President Carter’s swift application of economic sanctions. In early April, 1980, 212 days after the beginning of the crisis, the United States embargoed all food imports and cut all diplomatic ties with Iran. President Carter had directed the DoD to develop a military solution in the event of failed negotiations, with options ranging from total blockades, the mining of ports, and covert operations. The decision to conduct a rescue operation was made, and now was the time to execute.
Operation EAGLE CLAW
The operation consisted of four main elements- two separate ground forces — a contingent of Army Delta Force with US Army Rangers who would conduct the hostage recovery at the embassy, and an element of Rangers who would be responsible for seizing and securing the austere staging airfield and alternate extraction sites if necessary; eight RH-53D Sea Stallion Helicopters; and six USAF MC-130 Combat Talon fixed wing aircraft.
On the night of April 24th, 1980, the assault forces totaling 132 personnel loaded onto three of the Combat Talons in Masirah Island, Oman, just over 1,000 miles from the target — having been forward staged at Qena Air Base, in Egypt, several weeks prior awaiting the order to go. The MC-130s flew nap-of-the-earth (between 400–1,000 feet in altitude) in order to avoid the sophisticated Russian-built Anti-aircraft radar as they crossed the Gulf of Oman and into sovereign Iran, landing at an austere patch of hard dirt over 200 miles southeast of Tehran dubbed ”DESERT ONE.” The assault force of the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment secured the site and waited for the arrival of the next three MC-130s, loaded with fuel for refitting the inbound helicopters. Once refueled, the fixed-wing aircraft would reset at Masirah while the assault force would cross-load onto the RH-53s, who would infiltrate the Delta Force/Ranger assault contingent just outside of Tehran to meet with CIA agents who would lead a ground vehicle convoy to the embassy. During the rescue phase, the helicopters and the remaining Rangers would reset to ”DESERT TWO’’, in the hilly terrain 15 miles northeast of Tehran, and await the successful extraction of the hostages. On order, the helo assault force and its Ranger contingent would secure the abandoned airstrip at Manzariyeh (35 miles southeast of the embassy) in order to facilitate the final exfiltration of the hostages and ground forces via C-141s out of Saudi Arabia. The helicopters would be destroyed on site prior to exfil.
The eight RH-53s lifted off from the USS Nimitz, staged in the Gulf of Oman approximately 600 miles from DESERT ONE, and began their low-level, nape-of-earth flight into Iran. Early on, one of the helos began to experience main rotor stability failure indicators, and was forced to land in the desert and was abandoned, as its crew loaded onto another RH-53. Soon after, the aerial force ran into a cyclonic sandstorm. This miraculously did not lead to a collision or crash, but the seven remaining aircraft were forced to approach DESERT ONE individually — flying solely on instruments for the remainder of the night flight. The aircrews piloted the massive, boxy helicopters through the vertigo-inducing winds as they gazed through Night Vision Goggles — eventually arriving at DESERT ONE, a full two hours behind the planned rendezvous. At this point, a second RH-53 had experienced navigational issues and returned to the Nimitz, leaving the ground force commander (Col. Charles Beckwith) with the minimum number of helicopters (six) required to complete the mission. Col. Beckwith ordered the ground forces and aircrews to continue mission.
While awaiting the arrival of the helicopters, a busload of civilians had approached the landing strip from the nearby highway, resulting in the detention of multiple persons who were to be loaded onto one of the MC-130s returning to Masirah. As the cross load of civilians and assault force personnel started, one of the RH-53 pilots determined a major hydraulic issue with the aircraft, and the air mission commander determined it would have to be abandoned at DESERT ONE. Thus, there were not enough aircraft to conduct the operation. The ground force commander elected to abort the mission, and the various contingents began a hasty breakdown of the site and prepared for exfiltration.
Chaos and confusion ensued at the DESERT ONE site, due to the sheer number of aircraft, personnel, major changes to the plan, and the assortment of delays. In those moments of disorder, disaster struck.
In order for one of the MC-130s to take off and clear the area, one of the RH-53s had to move to allow the bigger fixed wing aircraft to depart. One of the aircrew members from another MC-130–whose responsibilities included connecting the lines from the fuel blivets to the waiting helicopter nozzles — was standing nearby assisting with the refuel. While stationary, the airman was the helicopter pilot’s only frame of reference in the sand and dust churned up by the MC-130 which had just taken off. The buffeting prop-wash and haze caused the airman to step backward while directing the helo. The RH-53 pilot assumed the helo was drifting backwards based on the airman’s movement, and creeped forward. The rotor blades made contact with the tail of the MC-130 containing the fuel blivet, igniting JP-8 and ammunition and killing all eight of the air crew. The remainder of the assault force crammed into the last MC-130s and departed DESERT ONE, leaving the other five RH-53s intact and still containing sensitive data in their systems. The mission was an absolute, gut-wrenching failure in every conceivable way.
The Outcome: USSOCOM
Operation EAGLE CLAW failed for a multitude of reasons- poor intelligence regarding the location of the DESERT ONE site, improper/non-existent communication between the assorted air components, a lack of clear command and control (no overall mission commander- split between Air and Ground commanders), and a lack of effective rehearsal and preparation prior to execution.
The unfortunate reality is that there were too many problems to list in a limited space. As Col. Beckwith testified to Congress before the Senate Armed Services Committee when asked what the takeaways were from the failed mission: “If coach Bear Bryant at the University of Alabama put his quarterback in Virginia, his backfield in North Carolina, his offensive line in Georgia and his defense in Texas and then got Delta Airlines to pick them up and fly them to Birmingham on game day, he wouldn’t have his winning teams…my recommendation is to put together an organization that would include Delta, the Rangers, the Navy SEALs, Air Force, its own staff, its own support people, its own aircraft and helicopters. Make this organization a permanent military unit. Allocate sufficient funds. And give it sufficient time to recruit, assess, and train its people.”
The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1987 with its Cohen-Dunn amendment brought Col. Beckwith’s vision to reality with the creation of the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)- a Title 10-authorized entity within the Department of Defense, but independent of the budgetary limitations of the individual service branches. For all intents and purposes, USSOCOM is another branch of the DoD, composed of hand-selected men and women trained to the most elite and harsh standards of any modern military. The complexity of the EAGLE CLAW mission is now commonplace in today’s SOCOM portfolio, owed entirely to the harsh and difficult lessons learned from its significant challenges. Unequivocally, Operation EAGLE CLAW is the most successful failure in modern military history- though it failed to rescue the hostages detained from the US embassy, it led to the creation of the most elite Joint Force on earth which continues to operate in quiet professionalism to this day.
News You May Have Missed
U.S. Marine Corps Bans Display of Confederate Flag
A mere 155 years, 1 week, 4 days after the surrender at Appomattox effectively ended the slaveholders’ insurrection against the United States, General David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps banned the display of the battle flag of the self-styled “confederacy” by Marines. The Commandant did not weigh into questions of what that image represents, merely saying that creating a functional warfighting team requires cohesion, which can be degraded by symbols that cause division.
While it may be tempting to say that the Marine Corps’ delay in addressing this stems from the relative paucity of casualties among the Corps in the U.S. Civil War, it does not explain why the United States Army has not yet taken that step and still has bases named for men who levied war on the United States like Henry Benning, Braxton Bragg, John Brown Gordon, A.P. Hill, John Bell Hood, Robert E. Lee, and Leonidas Polk.
Elite Colleges Back Away From Rescue Cash Amid Criticism of Endowments
Aida Olivas
Among the stimulus packages universities around the country are receiving, wealthy institutions such as Harvard University, Yale University, Stanford University, Princeton University, and Penn State are rejecting their share of emergency funds. Many have asked the Department of Education that the funds be redistributed to less wealthy schools in their home states, although the request does not factor into any decision making on the Department of Education’s part. The decisions from these universities comes after having received strong criticisms from high level politicians (trump being one of them) about schools with large endowments from receiving stimulus aid packages aimed at helping those who have been significantly and negatively impacted by the virus. A large part of the higher education funding under the CARES Act is being given to public institutions and with the amount being decided by a formula in the law based on the number of enrolled students per generation and how many of those students are low-income Pell Grant recipients.
House Scraps Plan for Remote Voting
This week, Democratic House leadership planned to hold a vote on allowing members to cast votes remotely during the coronavirus crisis. Such a move would be the first allowance for any form of remote voting in congressional history, an initiative meant to protect members (many of whom are in the high-risk demographic for COVID-19. However, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scrapped her planned vote on the matter today after opposition from House Republicans, who prefer to reopen the chamber. If food service and grocery workers can head to work, they argue, so should members of Congress. “If we can have our ambulances, our health care workers and folks in grocery stores — and all of those brave Americans out there taking those risks — I’m ready to take those risks, too,” said GOP Representative Michael Waltz of Florida.
Supreme Court Eases Path to Deport Immigrants For Crimes
Aida Olivas
The U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold a decision made by a lower court to deport a legal permanent resident on Thursday. This decision will affect thousands of legal immigrants in the United States who have criminal convictions, even for minor offenses. Longtime legal residents will not be exempt from this new ruling, which is a strong contrast from past actions that allowed these legal residents avoid removal based on the crime and the 1996 “Stop-Time Rule” in U.S. immigration law that instead stops the counted time of their continuous residency. This rule was the main focus of the case but while Barton (a legal long time Jamaican immigrant) argued he couldn’t be found inadmissible to the “Stop-Time Rule” because he had been lawfully admitted, the Trump administration argued Congress had authorized “the removal of noncitizens — even lawful permanent resident — who have committed certain serious crimes”.
Upcoming CSPC Virtual Events
David Kilcullen — “Dragons & Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West.”
Wednesday, April 29, 2020–10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET
Noted Australian strategic thinker David Kilcullen joins CSPC to discuss his latest book “The Dragons and the Snakes: How the Rest Learned to Fight the West”. In this book, Kilcullen explores how insurgent movements such as the Islamic State as well as nation-states like Russia and China adapted their strategies and tactics to counter America’s overwhelming military dominance, and what this means for the United States’ long-term national security. Kilcullen will be in conversation with Chairman Mike Rogers and Rep. Nye and explore how America’s adversaries responded and, how, in turn, the United States should prepare for a more contentious future. “The Dragons and the Snakes” was reviewed by CSPC’s own Joshua C. Huminski in the Diplomatic Courier. Please RSVP for this event by emailing Joshua.Huminski@thepresidency.org
Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon: Webinar on COVID, Intelligence, & Great Power Competition
Friday, May 15, 2020–9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ET
The Honorable Sue Gordon, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, joins CSPC to discuss the future of the Intelligence Community in light of the return of Great Power Competition and the COVID-19 pandemic. Bringing with her over 30 years of experience across the IC, Ms. Gordon is well placed to provide novel insights into how the Community has changed and could change going forward in these uncertain times and when the United States is facing complex and dynamic trans-national and global issues.
Thomas Rid — “Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation & Political Warfare”
Friday, May 22, 2020–10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET
Johns Hopkins University professor, Dr. Thomas Rid, joins CSPC to discuss his latest book “Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare”. Brought into the public consciousness by the 2016 elections, active measures, as Dr. Rid shows, have a long and complex history that span the globe. In a conversation with Chairman Rogers and Rep. Nye, Dr. Rid will explore what active measures are, and are not, and how democratic society can be better prepared to address and more resilient to resist these adversarial campaigns.
August Cole — “Burn-In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution”
Friday, May 29, 2020–10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. ET
Author August Cole joins CSPC to discuss his latest book, “Burn-In: A Novel of the Robotic Revolution”. A fictional work based on real world technologies and forecasted developments, this techno-thriller follows in the footsteps of the “Ghost Fleet”, written with P.W. Singer, which quickly became mandatory reading inside the Department of Defense as prescient about how a future conflict with China may playout. In “Burn-In” Cole and Singer explore a future America where AI, robotics, remote work, etc. are even more common than they are today, and explore the significant new security threats and implications they will bring as a FBI agent tracks down a terrorist amidst the new technological and industrial revolution.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.