...received compensation, not that the compensation was slow in coming. Demonstrably, that assertion is false. If we're going to talk speed of resolution, well one would have to note that 3 July, 1988 to 9 February, 1996 is rather a briefer period than 21 December, 1988 to 14 August, 2008.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Not the point, JPD. The Lockerbie "retaliation" (if that's what it was) came mere months after the Iran "accident" (if that's what it was.)

First incident was in July, 1988.
Second incident was in December, 1988.

It's not a question of whether compensation was or was not eventually received but that the second incident took place long, long before any talk of hearings or any settlement was even on the table so those who carried out that plan could not have any knowledge of settlements.

(Actually, to be fair, there was some "talk" of hearing to be held, as I Google this period, but Iran and the US had all kinds of obstacles to negotiation that had first to be cleared.)

Also, while the court did find that Iran and the victims families were to be compensated with specific amounts, a further reading does seem to suggest that actually may not have taken place - something about prohibited transfers of funds between US and Iran. Not sure. Would have to dig into this further. No time. Up to somebody else.

The initial public offering of compensation to the Iran Air families was made on 11 July, 1988.

Me, I'm not a big believer in the notion that Iran had any direct operational involvement in PA 103 - the evidence for Libyan involvement is much, much more cohesive.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Iran Air Flight 655

Especially... In 1996, the United States and Iran reached "an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, differences, claims, counterclaims" relating to the incident at the International Court of Justice. As part of the settlement, the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed.

SNIP

The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or liability for what happened.

My point is that, regardless of their nationality, those (theoretically) intent on exacting revenge over the May 1988 Vincennes incident, who planned and carried out the Lockerbie tragedy six months later that year, could not possibly have been aware of any settlement because that didn't take place for another 8 years.

Also note, further to the terms of compensation note, from the same WIKI item 'The United States government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice with respect to the incident; they have however never admitted wrongdoing, nor apologised for the incident,'... the latter being a particularly big deal in those parts of the world, n'est pas?

Lifted from WIKI just 'cause the crew actions are so jaw dropping.

* The psychology and mindset after engaging in a battle with Iranian gunboats. There are claims that Vincennes was engaged in an operation using a decoy cargo ship to lure Iranian gunboats to a fight. However, those claims are denied by Fogarty in "Hearing Before The Investigation Subcommittee and The Defense Policy Panel of The Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session, 21 July 1992". Also, the initial claims of Vincennes being called for help by a cargo ship attacked by Iranian gunboats have been ruled out. That leads to claims that the Iranian gunboats were provoked by helicopters inside Iranian waters and not the other way around.[31] This might have contributed to the mistakes made. The actual reasons for the Vincennes' engagement with gunboats is not so clear to this date.

* Software development book author Steve McConnell said:

“ Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes' Aegis system in 1988, killing 290 people. The error was initially attributed to operator error, but later some experts attributed the incident to the poor design of the Aegis user interface.[32] ”

* A lack of training contributed to the disaster.

“ It was, however, a known fact that many of the senior officers on board the Vincennes knew very little about computerized warfare. The tactical officer for surface warfare, Lt Cmdr Guillory, knew so little that he routinely used his computer screens as a surface for sticky notes instead. Petty Officer Anderson, who missed Flight 655 on the schedule because it was so dark, also later claimed that he was confused by the gulf's four different time zones, something proper training could have easily helped with. Lt Clay Zocher was the boss of Air Alley, which was responsible for air warfare, but he had only stood watch at that post twice before and had never fully learned and mastered the console routines. In fact, when he was finally given the green light to fire upon the incoming aircraft, he pressed the wrong keys 23 times, until a veteran petty officer leaned over and hit the right ones. Nerves were shattered, and the training seemed nonexistent."[29]

You originally asserted that the proceedings between Iran and the United States didn't happen until "long after the Lockerbie tragedy". This is clearly untrue, in that legal proceedings commenced on 17 May, 1989.

You then asserted that the incident took place well before any settlement was "even on the table". Again, clearly untrue - initial offer was made mere days after the Iran Air incident on 11 July.

Now you've walked it back to asserting that a settlement hadn't been reached by the point of the Lockerbie bombing. Finally, we've gotten to something that's an actual fact.

Look, stop googling wikipedia for isolated rhetorical points and think about the larger context for a second - if Pan Am 103 is somehow related to Iran Air, what explains the very similar case of UTA 772? Somebody is pissed about the USS Vincennes splashing Iran Air 655, so they first take down a French carrier using the same MO? Sorry, doesn't make so much with the sense. The notion that Libya was pissed at France over their Chad adventure and at the US for El Dorado Canyon and downed both aircraft makes a whole hell of a lot more sense.

As to the not admitting wrongdoing or apologizing, welcome to the realities of international diplomacy. The Libyans have done exactly the same thing WRT to UTA 772 and PA 103 - coughed up the cash, but not admitted any wrongdoing.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

that I'm far out of my depth here on subjects that are clearly very broad in their implications and still intensely controversial. Nevertheless, I do remain confident in my ability at simple arithemetic and a settlement agreed upon after 8 years does qualify as "long after" imo - or if the hair can possibly be split one more time, assuming your date of May 17, 1989 for the commencement of legal proceedings, that's still many months later and still "long after" I'd say, and for that matter, "long after" the Lockerbie tragedy several months earlier, too.

I've been unable to find the exact terms of the offer to civilian victims made by the President on July 11, only his general statement,

Details concerning amounts, timing, and other matters remain to be worked out.

and more as per post below. Do you have a link with more substantive information?

Then again, does any of this matter?

---

""If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?" - Will Rogers (1879-1935)

---

...mentioned no specific dollar amounts (you can find coverage of it in the New York Times archive*). There was a statement made approximately one year later (also in the New York Times archive*) that made mention of specific dollar amounts. As I allude to in a post below the payment was made under the auspices of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (you'll find that the dedicated web site is extremely opaque and that even if you know the specific case number, no further information is forthcoming without access to the database, which resides behind a password firewall).

By all means remain confident in your arithmetic and the time required for coming to a final settlement - however, don't overstate things in saying that the United States didn't attempt to come to a more timely settlement.

This isn't just a fest of pedantry on my part - the fact that there were offers made comparatively early in the process really matters to understanding US-Iran relations. The downing of Iran Air 655 was interpreted by the Khomeini regime as a deliberate act and it is thought by many observers to be a key event (and perhaps the key event) that made him finally accept* the notion of conflict termination in Persian Gulf War (i.e., the Iran-Iraq War), something that he was bitterly opposed to (famously saying at the time of acceptance that he would rather drink poison than accept the settlement). Whether this was an honestly held belief or a flag of convenience, the notion that it was used to justify ending the war helps explain why the issue couldn't be allowed to go away too readily.

Fast forward less than a year from the incident to June 3, 1989 and Imam Khomeini dies*, locking the Iranian government into quite the little power struggle. At this point, lots of positions ossify beyond this one (e.g., the totally counter-productive Rushdie fatwa) and no one can back down from them for fear of ending up being grist for the mill of revolution. Once this dynamic becomes locked in, the issue becomes just one more incredible irritant in the relations between the two states. If one wants to see them break out of that cycle, it's necessary to have a clear understanding of how it is that they got there and to squeak up when folks unthinkingly mis-characterize things - particularly when they do so in casual drive-bys like Chuckman's above that got this whole foofera started. I'm not big on folks helping fuck over what chance Iran and the US have for some sort of normalization of relations just because they reflexively lay all they see as ill in the world at the foot of the United States, as does Chuckman above.

* See why I keep saying that it's possible to come to a good understanding of what's happening in the world with the New York Times and well chosen books to contextualize it all?

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

As always, I greatly appreciate receiving the benefit of your understanding of these events. Computer? 1000 bux. Log on to the Agonist? A few bux worth of time. Clarifications from JPD? Priceless.

And I'm not kiddin'.

I love your typo though, Dave, encouraging people to ...squeak up when folks unthinkingly mis-characterize things.

Wouldn't this be kind of like the 500 bux per dead kid thing the US offers in Afghanistan? Irrelevant in any case. This compensation never happened. It does appear that the terms of acceptance seemed very broad reaching.

HERBERT S. OKUN WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, JULY 11, 1988

The President has reviewed U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf where our military forces are protecting vital interests of the free world. He has expressed his complete satisfaction with the policy and reiterated his belief that the actions of the U.S. S. Vincennes on July 3 in the case of the Iranian airliner were justifiable defensive actions. At the same time, he remains personally saddened at the tragic death of the innocent victims of this accident and has already expressed his deep regret to their families.

Prompted by the humanitarian traditions of our nation, the President has decided that the United States will offer compensation, on an ex gratia basis, to the families of the victims who died in the Iranian airliner incident. Details concerning amounts, timing, and other matters remain to be worked out.

It should be clearly understood that payment will go to the families, not governments, and will be subject to the normal U.S. legal requirements, including, if necessary, appropriate action by Congress. In the case of Iran, arrangements will be made through appropriate third parties. This offer of ex gratia compensation is consistent with international practice and is a humanitarian effort to ease the. hardship of the families. It is offered on a voluntary basis, not on the basis of any legal liability or obligation.

The responsibility for this tragic incident, and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other innocent victims as a result of tbe Iran-Iraq war, lies with those who refuse to end the conflict. A particularly heavy burden of responsibility rests with the Government of Iran which has refused for almost a year to accept and implement Security Council Resolution 598, while it continues unprovoked attacks on innocent neutral shipping and crews in the international waters of the gulf In fact, at the time of the Iran Air incident, U.S. forces were militarily engaged with Iranian forces as a result of the latter's unprovoked attacks upon neutral ships and a U.S. Navy helicopter The urgent necessity to end this conflict is reinforced by the dangers it poses to neighboring countries and the deplorable precedent of the increasingly frequent use of chemical weapons by both sides, causing still more casualties.

...the US-Iran Claims Tribunal per decision of 22 February, 1996.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass