>>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".

My only point in posting the link was to illustrate that this rumor is causing a bigger blip on the world radar screen. It was not offered as proof of anything.

>>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?

Reagan took office 444 days after the embassy attack. The hostages taken were released twenty minutes after his inaguration. The attack was the act of war. Carter had plenty of time to decide to do something, and failed. However, if the Iranians had continued to hold the embassy staff hostage into Reagan's first term, I feel certain there would have been some military action.

AFAIK they still occupy the building.

>Also, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the Iran Contra scandal.

This has no bearing over a discussion regarding embassy attacks being an act of war. Stay on topic.