The Reagan administration is often celebrated for its role in ending the Cold War and championing conservative values in the 1980s, but there’s a dark chapter that rarely gets the attention it deserves: allegations that Reagan’s campaign worked behind the scenes with Iran to delay the release of American hostages in 1980. If true, this betrayal isn’t just a footnote in history—it’s a scandal that should fundamentally change how we view Reagan’s rise to power and his presidency.

Here’s what you need to know.

---

The Context: A Nation Held Hostage

In November 1979, Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. The crisis dominated headlines and paralyzed the Carter administration, as months turned into over a year of tense negotiations. With the 1980 presidential election looming, Carter’s inability to resolve the crisis made him look weak and ineffective, contributing to his declining approval ratings.

Reagan, then the Republican challenger, saw an opportunity. If the hostages were still in captivity on Election Day, it would further damage Carter’s campaign and bolster Reagan’s chances of winning the presidency.

---

The Allegation: The October Surprise

The term “October Surprise” refers to a last-minute political event that could sway an election. In this case, the allegation is that Reagan’s campaign team secretly negotiated with Iranian officials to delay the release of the hostages until after the election. In return, Iran would reportedly receive military equipment and arms—a promise that would later be fulfilled during the Iran-Contra scandal.

There’s evidence suggesting that William Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager and later CIA director, met with Iranian intermediaries in Europe. Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr has also claimed that such meetings occurred. These backchannel dealings ensured that Carter couldn’t claim the release of the hostages as a last-minute victory, all but sealing his electoral defeat.

---

The Outcome: Hostages Released, Reagan Triumphant

On January 20, 1981, mere minutes after Reagan took the oath of office, Iran released the hostages. To many, the timing was too perfect to be coincidental. Reagan’s team denied any involvement, framing the release as proof of his strong leadership. However, if the allegations are true, the release wasn’t about leadership—it was the result of a calculated political gamble at the expense of American citizens and international norms.

---

Why This Matters

1. Undermining Democracy: If Reagan’s campaign did negotiate with a foreign government to influence an election, it represents one of the most egregious betrayals of democratic principles in U.S. history. It’s a stark reminder that power often takes precedence over ethics in politics.
2. Setting a Dangerous Precedent: Backchannel deals like this undermine U.S. foreign policy and encourage adversaries to exploit political divisions. It’s a dangerous game that prioritizes short-term political gains over long-term national security.
3. Reevaluating Reagan: Reagan is often held up as an icon of conservative values and strong leadership. However, these allegations suggest a willingness to engage in morally questionable and potentially illegal actions to secure power. It’s a narrative that’s rarely discussed but crucial to understanding the full scope of his presidency.

---

Connecting the Dots

The alleged October Surprise isn’t just a conspiracy theory—it’s a puzzle piece that fits into a larger pattern of questionable behavior by Reagan’s administration. The Iran-Contra affair, which saw senior officials secretly selling arms to Iran and funneling the proceeds to Contra rebels in Nicaragua, is a documented scandal. The throughline is clear: a willingness to bend or break the rules to achieve political goals.

---