This is a not-unreasonable position without context, but I think the American public reasonably expects the American president to handle foreign revolutions vis-a-vis hostage taking.
The Iranian revolution was not a big issue in the election. It was the fact that American embassy staff was held at gunpoint for nearly two years so they could put the Shah on Trial. People were not happy about that.
I get it but what did they expect Carter to do? Secretly sell Iran stinger missiles and use the proceeds to fund a civil war in Nicaragua while supplying Saddam Hussein weapons for his invasion of Iran?
What are you talking about? It was literally the main news item for the second half of his term. Every evening Walter Cronkite began his broadcast with "day xxx of the hostage crisis". The administration was consumed by it.
It also didn't help that Carter ordered a military rescue option that ended in disaster. The Iranians shot down our helicopter.
To clarify: it was the hostages that upset people - not the revolution. The revolution led to the hostages but it wasn't a big news item on its own. Walter Cronkite focused on day four hundred and something of the hostage crisis. The revolution itself did not get nearly as much attention. None of the cold war era revolutions that went for or against American foreign interests were that big of issues in American Electoral politics. Eisenhower lost Cuba, Ford lost Angola, Reagan lost half of Latin America, but the one we remember is is the one with the hostages.
Good point. Although the Iran revolution was slightly more in the news with the drama about the shah of Iran. He was ill with cancer. Carter would not allow him into US for treatment, so he had to go to Mexico. I think he eventually got into US though, because Mexico could not care for him. The shah of Iran had quite a following among many. He sort of the royal family of the middle east.
