On November 4, 1979 in Tehran, Iran, The United States Embassy was taken over by a group of Muslim students who supported Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Revolution. During the take over of the embassy, 52 American citizens who worked in the embassy were taken hostage for a total of 444 days. The hostage crisis and the revolution were known frequently around the world. However, with the help of the media and prior events of U.S policy in Iran, the American citizens were well aware of the situations occurring in Iran during the Hostage Crisis.
The history of the United States’ intervention in Iran started well before the beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In fact, the United States had been intervening in Iran since the 1950’s
…show more content…
The American public saw it as President Carter’s obligation to make sure all of the hostages got home safely. Some people were upset with President Carter for not turning the Shah over to Iran. He was seen as an inadequate leader, whose administration did not know how to handle the crisis occurring in Iran. People wanted the Shah out of the United States if it meant that the hostages would be released. The Event made Americans feel obligated to support the hostages. A wife of one of the hostages tied a yellow ribbon around a tree and said that it would stay there until her husband came home to untie it. The yellow ribbon after that became the symbol of the Iranian Hostage Crisis in America. People placed yellow ribbons on trees, telephone poles, streetlights, and even wore pins with yellow ribbons on. The 1980 Super Bowl even had a giant yellow ribbon wrapped around the entire …show more content…
Many people wanted to help get their fellow countryman home safely and supported in anyway that they could, such as ribbons worn on their clothing to symbolize the hostages. People paid close attention to the events that took place during the 444 days in which Americans were held hostage. The media played a significant part in informing the people in the United States what was going on. What they broadcasted influenced the people’s opinions of Iran and appealed to the emotions of the people who watched at
Taken Hostage by David Farber is book about the Iranian hostage crisis that occurred 1979-1981. Farber looks into the causes of the hostage crisis, both at home and abroad, relations between Iran and the United States, and what attempts were made in order to rescue the hostages. Farber wrote the book in order to give insight into an issue that is considered to be a huge blemish and embarrassment on America’s history. He looked at it from all perspectives and gave an objective overview of the conflict.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
The Iran-Contra Affair involved the United States, Iran, and Lebanon. The affair coincided with the Iranian hostage crisis, which promoted the United States’ actions in sending weapons to Iran. The Reagan administration decided to trade arms for hostages in hopes of successfully retrieving American hostages from Iran. Iran was at the time under the power of Ayatollah Khomeini, who had put his full support behind the hostage crisis and believed there was nothing that the United States could do to Iran. America’s only chance of rescuing the hostages was to put their support behind Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which involved the shipment of weapons to Iran f...
...w the United States’ close ally Shah. Countless modernizers were persecuted, arrested and executed. In November 52 United States diplomats were held hostage by student revolutionaries who’d seized the American embassy in Tehran. America took immediate action and seized all Iranian assets. The United States attempted to negotiate. The negotiation, to the dismay of the American people dragged on for 444 days. There was a large push for President Carter to use military forces as means of negotiations; he however opted for peaceful means, which proved to be unsuccessful. Finally in April 1980 the President sanctioned a rescue mission. The attempt failed due to technical difficulties, eight men died; as a result the nation became extremely unnerved. Carter's dialogue with Iran continued throughout 1980. This was yet another failure on Carter’s part to rectify an issue.
Amanpour, Christiane. "1979 Hostage Crisis Still Casts Pall on U.S.-Iran Relations." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
While it is unknown as to what occurred with every hostage during the crisis, one retired diplomat on a special assignment in Tehran, Robert C. Ode, kept a journal detailing his experience: “I strongly protested the violation of my diplomatic immunity, but these protests were ignored…Some students attempted to talk with us, stating how they didn’t hate Americans—only our U.S. government, President Carter, etc.” Ode’s description of his captivity and his captors beliefs led to an insight into the motives of the Iranians. This valuable source allows historians to understand that President Carter and the United States government were responsible for the Iranian hatred. However, Ode’s journal is limited in it’s credibility due to possible alterations of the story in response to fear or pain. In addition to the declared state of hate for the Carter Administration, the government’s poor decisions throughout an attempted rescue attempt of the hostages displayed the weakness of the United States. According to
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the CIA’s first successful overthrow of a foreign government. It was seen as an action to stop a possible Iranian communist takeover led by Mohamed Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister at the time. But in actuality, the U.S. and Britain were more afraid of the imposing Soviet threat in the region. Because Britain and other western countries issued sanctions on Iran as a consequence to oil nationalization, the Britain and the U.S. feared that Mossadeq would turn to the Soviet Union in an effort to stabilize Iran’s economy. Fearing that Iran would soon be influenced by communism, the U.S. looked at the option of regime change as an answer to the ongoing crisis. In 1953, under the Eisenhower administration, a CIA coup to overthrow Mossadeq was authorized. After three days of CIA organized riots in Iran, Mossadeq surrendered, Fazlollah Zahedi, as chosen by the CIA, succeeded Mossadeq as prime minster of Iran. Now that Mossadeq, once a leader of the democratic movement in Iran, was no longer a political force, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came back to power, now with little political opposition and supported by the United States and Britain. The CIA coup was originally intended as a solution for the Iranian oil crisis, but its occurrence later caused undesirable results in future. Although the real reason for the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government was to protect geopolitical interests from the Soviet threat in the region, the United States, did not foresee the negative, long term effects of coup, some of which are still evident today.
Iran was a country ruled by the Shah (King), who began his rule in the beginning of the 1950’s. He would help Iran greatly improve conditions. He began to improve relations with the United States securing oil deposits throughout Iran with American companies. However, the shah slowly became more and more dependent on the United States. He began asking the United States for advice on almost every decision he made. Although no such reports were printed in the United States (to my knowledge) there are sources, which lived in Iran and experienced a...
The group of students claim that attack was carried out because of all of the prior years of US attempt of reform on Iran (Bryne). However, others claim that the attack was motivated by the US treatment of the Shah. These two motives were enough for the students to take their anger out on the people occupying the US Embassy. The government was not aware of the attack beforehand, however they did side with conspirators for political reasons, along with the people of Iran (Bryne). President Jimmy Carter did not let the Shah in because for political reasons, but for humanitarian reasons (Iran Crisis). Although President Carter had good intentions by doing this it unleashed a dislike toward Americans in the minds of of almost every Iranian (Iran Crisis). Underlying the attack on the United States Embassy were anti-American and anti-Carter
Thesis Statement: I want to show Iran’s dramatic change of regimes and the way its people were treated starting with Pahlavi’s authoritarian rule. I also want to discuss the turbulant realtionship bewteen Iran and the United States, and how this all makes the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Watson, Stephanie. "Iranian Hostage Crisis." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 158-60. U.S. History in Context. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
Media texts are created from past events that have occurred and often times Hollywood would try and manipulate the event so it represents the past and the reception it gets through different communities. The film Argo (2012) is no exception trying to show a “Hollywoodize” event of the Iranian Hostage Crisis which received mixed receptions and is controversial on how the event is portrayed. The film is often criticized for the authenticity and accuracy of how the event is portrayed; the film directed by Ben Affleck chose to add “drama” and manipulate the actual event in order to obtain a wider audience. With the film involving a variety of government during the hostage crisis, the film focuses only specific on U.S. government and Canadian government. The film focuses on showcasing how powerful C.I.A. and American government is. While the Canadian government portrayed played a minor role in the film and other governments was not even mention. The film was criticized by United States, Canada, and British and New Zealand’s critics for the role each country had in the film as it shows the film is deceptive in telling the truth and accuracy of the event. United States had its role glorified that it seemed to have done most of the work; while Canada had its role minimized, and that the film was made out to have a small role that Canada had with United States, but some countries like New Zealand was not even mentioned. Therefore, with the mixed reception the film received it makes the understanding of Iranian Hostage Crisis on how that event better understands the role of government in cinema is shown between countries: U.S., British and New Zealand, and Canada.
Although the Iranian Revolution was caused by combination of political and religious motivations and ideas, the desires of the people supporting the movement were more dominantly religious ideas that were wished to be imposed in society and in a new government. The Shah, or king, of Iran at the time was Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who had developed relations with nations in “western” world, specifically with the United States. The United States supported the White Revolution, which was a series of social reformations the Shah made to remove Islamic v...
Iran lost the support of the US in 1979 after the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran. In Tehran, “66 members of the US embassy staff were taken hostage by Khomeini’s supporters” (Steele 12). The hostages were held for 444 days (Steele 12). The aftermath of the crisis was the international isolation of Iran. The US being a superpower, drove similar responses in its allies. Iran had lost a majority of their allies, which would hurt them during the war. In addition to the loss of the support of the Western countries, the Arab countries were also against Iran and supporting Iraq. The Arab countries also shared Iraq’s trepidations about the Iranian rhetoric of “exporting Islamic Revolution” (Karsh). As reported by graduate Mr. Jacek, Iran was left to defend itself economically and militarily. The other superpower at the time, the Soviet Union, had a positive relationship with Iran in the beginning. The Soviet Union had been supporting Iran in the beginning of the war. The Soviet Union then carried out an invasion of Afghanistan, and Tehran opposed the Soviet role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Iran’s relations with the Soviet Union became problematic, which negatively affected Iran (Karsh). The war with Iraq slowed down Iran’s research. Near the end of the Iran – Iraq War, Iran started working with a rogue nation, North Korea. The countries partnered up to work