Editing Iran–Contra affair (section)

==Background==
Prior to the [[Iranian Revolution]], the U.S. was the largest seller of arms to Iran under [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]], and the vast majority of the weapons that the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] inherited in January 1979 were U.S.-made.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} To maintain this arsenal, Iran required a steady supply of spare parts to replace those broken and worn out.

In November 1979, after Iranian students [[Iranian hostage crisis|stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage]], U.S. President [[Jimmy Carter]] imposed an [[arms embargo]] on Iran.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} In September 1980, [[Iran–Iraq War|Iraq invaded Iran]] and Iran desperately needed weapons and spare parts for its current weapons. After Ronald Reagan took office as president on 20 January 1981 and the hostages were released, he vowed to continue Carter's policy of blocking arms sales to Iran on the grounds that Iran supported terrorism.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} However, a group of senior Reagan administration officials in the Senior Interdepartmental Group conducted a secret study on 21 July 1981 and concluded that the arms embargo was ineffective because Iran could always buy arms and spare parts for its U.S. weapons elsewhere, while, at the same time, the arms embargo opened the door for Iran to fall into the [[Soviet sphere of influence]] as the Kremlin could sell Iran weapons if the U.S. would not.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} The conclusion was that the U.S. should start selling Iran arms as soon as it was politically possible.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} This was made more difficult politically due to [[Ayatollah Khomeini]]'s openly declared goal of exporting his Islamic revolution all over the Middle East and overthrowing the governments of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the [[Eastern Arabia|other states around the Persian Gulf]], which led to the Americans perceiving Khomeini as a major threat to the U.S.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}}

In the spring of 1983, the U.S. launched [[Operation Staunch]], a wide-ranging diplomatic effort to persuade other nations all over the world not to sell arms or spare parts for weapons to Iran.{{sfn|Kornbluh|Byrne|1993|p=213}} This was at least part of the reason the Iran–Contra affair proved so humiliating for the U.S. when the story first broke in November 1986 that the U.S. itself was selling arms to Iran.

At the same time that the U.S. government was considering its options on selling arms to Iran, [[Contras|Contra]] militants based in [[Honduras]] were waging a guerrilla war to topple the [[Sandinista National Liberation Front|FSLN]] revolutionary government of [[Nicaragua]]. Almost from the time he took office in 1981, a major goal of the Reagan administration was the overthrow of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua and to support the Contra rebels.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=965}}

The Reagan administration's policy toward Nicaragua produced a major clash between the executive and legislative branches as Congress sought to limit, if not curb altogether, the ability of the White House to support the Contras.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=965}} Direct U.S. funding of the Contras insurgency was made illegal through the [[Boland Amendment]], the name given to three U.S. legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984 aimed at limiting U.S. government assistance to Contra militants. By 1984, funding for the Contras had run out; and, in October of that year, a total ban came into effect. The second Boland Amendment, in effect from 3 October 1984 to 3 December 1985, stated:<blockquote>During the fiscal year 1985 no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose of or which may have the effect of supporting directly or indirectly military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, organization, group, movement, or individual.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=965}}</blockquote> In violation of the Boland Amendment, senior officials of the Reagan administration continued to secretly arm and train the Contras and provide arms to Iran, an operation they called "the Enterprise".<ref name="Johnston">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/09/us/secord-is-guilty-of-one-charge-in-contra-affair.html |title=Secord Is Guilty of One Charge in Contra Affair |work=The New York Times |edition=National |at=sec. A. p. 24 |first=David |last=Johnston |access-date=19 July 2011 |date=9 November 1989 |archive-date=18 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118183321/https://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/09/us/secord-is-guilty-of-one-charge-in-contra-affair.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Corn |first=David |title=Is There Really A 'Secret Team'? |work=The Nation |date=2 July 1988}}</ref> Given the Contras' heavy dependence on U.S. military and financial support, the second Boland Amendment threatened to break the Contra movement and led to President Reagan ordering in 1984 that the [[United States National Security Council|NSC]] "keep the Contras together 'body and soul{{' "}}, no matter what Congress voted for.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=965}}

A major legal debate at the center of the Iran–Contra affair concerned the question of whether the NSC was one of the "any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities" covered by the Boland Amendment. The Reagan administration argued it was not, and many in Congress argued that it was.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=965}} The majority of constitutional scholars have asserted the NSC did indeed fall within the purview of the second Boland Amendment, though the amendment did not mention the NSC by name.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=966}}

The broader constitutional question at stake was the power of Congress versus the power of the presidency. The Reagan administration argued that, because the [[Constitution of the United States|constitution]] assigned the [[Powers of the president of the United States#Commander-in-chief|right to conduct foreign policy]] to the executive, its efforts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua were a presidential prerogative that Congress had no right to try to halt via the Boland Amendments.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=964}} By contrast, congressional leaders argued that the constitution had assigned Congress control of the budget, and Congress had every right to use that power not to fund projects they disapproved of, such as attempting to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=964}}

As part of the effort to circumvent the Boland Amendment, the NSC established "the Enterprise", an arms-smuggling network headed by a retired U.S. Air Force officer turned arms dealer [[Richard Secord]] that supplied arms to the Contras. It was ostensibly a private sector operation, but in fact was controlled by the NSC.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|p=966}} To fund "the Enterprise", the Reagan administration was constantly on the look-out for funds that came from outside the U.S. government<!-- examples of where such funds were found/searched for? -->, thus not technically violating the exact phrasing of the Amendment regardless of the money's ultimate purpose.{{sfn|Hicks|1996|pp=966–967}} Ironically, military aid to the Contras was reinstated with congressional consent in October 1986, a month before the scandal broke.<ref>{{cite news |last=Lemoyne |first=James |title=Ortega, Faulting Reagan, Warns of Coming War |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/world/ortega-faulting-reagan-warns-of-coming-war.html |access-date=15 November 2018 |work=The New York Times |date=19 October 1986 |edition=National |at=sec. 1. p. 6 |archive-date=19 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719234902/https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/19/world/ortega-faulting-reagan-warns-of-coming-war.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Payton |first=Brenda |title=Is U.S. Backing Contras with Drug Funds? |work=Oakland Tribune |date=4 April 1988}}</ref>

In his 1995 memoir ''My American Journey'', General [[Colin Powell]], the U.S. [[Deputy National Security Advisor]], wrote that the weapons sales to Iran were used "for purposes prohibited by the elected representatives of the American people [...] in a way that avoided accountability to the President and Congress. It was wrong."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Powell|first1=Colin L.|last2=Persico|first2=Joseph E.|title=My American Journey|place=New York|publisher=Random House|year=1995|page=341|isbn=0-679-43296-5}}</ref>

In 1985, Panamanian dictator [[Manuel Noriega]] offered to help the U.S. by allowing [[Panama]] as a staging ground for operations against the FSLN and offering to train Contras in Panama, but this would later be overshadowed by the Iran–Contra affair itself.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's complex US ties suggest lessons for Trump era, historians say|url=https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429|access-date=2021-11-07|website=ABC News|language=en|archive-date=7 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107033255/https://abcnews.go.com/International/panamanian-dictator-manuel-noriegas-complex-us-ties-lessons/story?id=47722429|url-status=live}}</ref> At around the same time, the Soviet Bloc also engaged in arms deals with ideologically opponent buyers,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Plaut|first=Martin|title=Apartheid, guns and money: book lifts the lid on Cold War secrets|url=http://theconversation.com/apartheid-guns-and-money-book-lifts-the-lid-on-cold-war-secrets-105226|access-date=2021-11-07|website=The Conversation|date=30 October 2018|language=en|archive-date=8 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211108114952/https://theconversation.com/apartheid-guns-and-money-book-lifts-the-lid-on-cold-war-secrets-105226|url-status=live}}</ref> possibly involving some of the same players as the Iran–Contra affair.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Van Vuuren|first=Hennie|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HgyXDwAAQBAJ|title=Apartheid guns and money : a tale of profit|date=2018|isbn=978-1-78738-247-3|location=London|pages=260–269|oclc=1100767741}}</ref> In 1986, a complex operation involving [[East Germany]]'s [[Stasi]] and the Danish-registered ship ''Pia Vesta'' ultimately aimed to sell Soviet arms and military vehicles to South Africa's [[Armscor (South Africa)|Armscor]], using various intermediaries to distance themselves from the deal. Noriega was apparently one of these intermediaries but backed out on the deal as the ship and weapons were seized at a Panamanian port.<ref name=":02">{{Cite web|last=Plaut|first=Martin|title=The Chinese and Soviets had a bigger role in supporting apartheid than we previously knew|url=https://qz.com/africa/1449906/china-soviets-backed-both-south-africa-apartheid-and-liberation/|access-date=2021-11-06|website=Quartz|date=3 November 2018|language=en|archive-date=7 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107005551/https://qz.com/africa/1449906/china-soviets-backed-both-south-africa-apartheid-and-liberation/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Guerrero|first=Alina|date=1986-06-18|title=Danish Ship Caught Carrying Soviet-Made Weapons|work=[[Associated Press News]]|url=https://apnews.com/article/c13b61653d7e8d3204fbea0ce6308da1|access-date=7 November 2021|archive-date=28 September 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220928110424/https://apnews.com/article/c13b61653d7e8d3204fbea0ce6308da1|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":1" /> The ''Pia Vesta'' led to a small controversy, as the Panama and Peru governments in 1986 accused the U.S. and each other of being involved in the East Germany-originated shipment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tyroler|first=Deborah|date=1986-12-17|title=The Pia Vesta Caper: A New Dimension To Contragate|url=https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/noticen/255|journal=NotiCen|access-date=7 November 2021|archive-date=11 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211211145021/https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/noticen/255/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":1" />