>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.

OK.

>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.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the act of taking the embassy was an act of war, yet occupying the embassy was not.

>AFAIK they still occupy the building.

Yes, that is my understanding also.

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

It does. You seem to be arguing that the Iranians committed an act of war against the U.S., and Carter is to be blamed for doing nothing, while Reagan sold arms to the same government who committed the act of war not too much later. While they were occupying our embassy. I'm sorry, your argument just doesn't make sense to me.