>The Iranians would be stupid to confirm it, don't you think?

Yes, but there is much speculation and contrary speculation in that article. A lot of "we think", and "they think", and "maybes".

>Carter specifically. I don't recall any embassy attacks under Reagan's watch.

No, but the embassy was certainly occupied under Reagan's watch. Is it just the attack that is the act of war, or is it also not the occupation? Also, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the Iran Contra scandal. Your argument seems to suggest that Carter was wrong for doing nothing about it, but Reagan was right for not doing anything about it, and also selling Iranians arms.