Instigation of the hostage crisis of 1979 - Essay Example

Instigation of the hostage crisis of 1979 Rondal Morgan History 290 Dr Mina Yazdani November 12, Research Topic: The Significance of the U.S accepting Shah Pahlavi in causing the "Hostage Crisis of 1979" Research Question: The Iran Hostage Crisis was described by the media in the western countries Western media to be as an act of vengeances vengeance. The crisis was viewed by the western media to perceived as be a very huge blow on the side of to the US government, which had, over the years struggled to maintain strong ties with the Iranian government since 1953.1 The Iran Hostage Crisis began on November 4, 1979; when the pro Ayatollah students broke into the US embassy in Iran and took about 66 90 people hostage, of which 66 were Americans. Thirteen hostages were later freed, bringing the number down to 53. Almost all of these 13 hostages released were believed to be African-American women, who in their view had a history of oppression by the very country they were citizens of2. Another hostage was later released in 1980 bringing the total number of hostages held down to 52.3 The hostages were finally set free after 444 days on 21st January 1981.This coincided with the inaugural address of President Ronald Reagan. There are several questions that are being asked on what could have been the actual cause of the attack on the US embassy in Tehran by the pro Ayatollah students. There are varied views on what could have motivated them into the act. No need to start a new paragraph. The topic has not changed. You open a new paragraph only when you switch to a new topic. It is generally said that the acceptance of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in New York may have been the cause of the crisis. Despite the acceptance of Shah into US soil being taken to be the immediate cause of the attack, the hostage taking was actually motivated by much more than Shah’s acceptance.4 Even though, on the surface, Shahs acceptance into the U.S. soil was alleged to be the main cause behind the hostage crisis, the real reasons behind the motivation ran much deeper than that. This The hostage crisis was an avenue hence used as front by that the participants in the act used to make their displeasure known and to show that they were breaking away from the past where the Americans had been interfering with the Iran’s internal affairs by supporting the Shah. Moreover, they used it to raise the profile of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The immediate cause of this crisis was the decision by the Carter administration to accept the Shah into the US.5 It was purported that Shah, who was suffering from cancer had travelled to the US to seek medical attention. This was a few months after his government had been toppled by the Muslim Students Followers of Imam’s Line Iranian students and other revolutionary groups in Iran that were opposed to the Shah’s rule. The students were angered by the fact that Shah was accepted into the US despite the fact that he had committed atrocities against the Iranians. As a way of showing their disappointment, they decided to raid the US embassy. The group considered the USA to be the country that was responsible for the crimes that were committed by Shah and the decision by the Carter administration to accept Shah into the US was an act of disrespect to the Iranians.6 It is widely agreed that the students were motivated to storm the US embassy when Shah stepped into New York. However, the real motivation of the attack lies deeply beyond the mere act of Shah going to America to seek medical attention.7 The Shah and his administration have been blamed for the hostage crisis that took place on 1979.8 This is because he allowed the US to dictate how things were run in Iran especially when it came to matters related to oil. Pahlavi had been put into the position of power by the US government after the US overthrew the democratically elected prime minster Mohammad Mosaddeq, in what came to be called the Operation Ajax. The Shah was reinstated in his position as the leader of Iran, since he was viewed as pro-western and could accommodate the western demands. It is due to the ties and support that he had from the US government that he moved to New York after his government was toppled. His decision to move from Egypt to USA and his subsequent acceptance by the Cater administration resulted in the attack of the US embassy by the revolutionary students. The initial plan that the students had was to be able to hold the embassy for only a short duration of time. This was to enable them to gain the much-needed media attention after the revolutionary forces had brought down Shah’s government, which had been backed by the various US governments. The plan changed when the students realized that the attack had huge support. It also had the backing of their radical leader Khomeini. Thus what was meant to be a simple hostage mission blew out of proportion based on several factors including the increased media attention, the tremendous support from the People of Iran, and the internal Iranian politics. The decision by President Jim Carter in October 1979 to allow Shah into the US was like putting a branch that is on fire into a container that was full of kerosene.9 Despite President Cater arguing that his decision to allow Shah into the US was on humanitarian grounds rather than political, the revolutionary Iranians saw it as an act of support to Shah. The radicals and revolutionary students were of the opinion that Shah went to the US to seek the protection of his masters since he felt safer in the US than anywhere else. This was compounded by the fact that the Shah had initially been given medical attention in Switzerland but preferred to move to the US after the treatment in Switzerland. This was viewed by the Iranians as an act of protection of the Shah by the Cater government and this promoted the decision to attack the US embassy. The argument that the Iran hostage crisis was motivated by factors that are more than the mere acceptance of Shah Pahlavi into the US is widely supported. The Muslim Student Followers of Imam’s Line had opposed the involvement of America in the Iranian affairs.10 Even during the time that Shah was in Egypt, they had demanded that he be returned to Iran to be tried for collaborating with the Americans to marginalize and undermine the Iranians and allowing the US and Britain to benefit more from the Iranian resources. The group therefore used the opportunity that they had to seize the embassy as a way of sending a strong message to the US and to the world that Iran had broken way from the past where its internal affairs were interfered with. They wanted to use this chance to make the Americans apologize to the Iranians for interfering with the internal affairs of the country and accepting Shah in New York. This was not taken well by the Carter administration which responded to these allegations as blackmail and categorically stated that US was a sovereign nation that could not be intimidated and blackmailed by the Muslims Student Followers of Imam’s line. Source? The group that carried out the embassy raid and held the officers in the embassy hostage in 1979 was further motivated by the support that the hostage taking had received from different sources.11 Many Iranians had supported the act of taking hostage of the embassy as a way of sending a message to the US to bring back Shah to Iran for trial. Moreover, the Iranians wanted to use this act to force the US to release Iran’s frozen assets in the US.12 The decision by the radical leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to back the attack greatly motivated the hostage takers. Ayatollah was a radical cleric who many Iranians saw as the person who could help them break away from the past and return autonomy to the Iranian people. He was also of the opinion that Shah should be tried in Iran for the crimes that he had committed. When Carter had accepted the Shah in America on the grounds of humanitarian concerns, Ayatollah decided to give backing to the hostage taking.13 This is despite the fact that he had no prior knowledge of the planned attacks. His backing greatly motivated the revolutionary students to hold the hostages even for a longer time than was anticipated resulting in the crisis that was witnessed between the US government and the Iranian government that was installed by Ayatollah.14 What is the significance of your study? What is a counterargument in your paper? Ron, as I told you in person, your initial draft is much better than the earlier stages of your paper. It is obvious you have worked on it. However, you still need to spend some more time and energy impoving it. You need to elaborate on some of the issues you have raised, using at least seven sources. As it is, you have not used all the sources in your bibliography, or have used them very little (for example, Arjoman’s excellent source has been used just once). Try to explain the events and issues involved rather than repeating yourself. Also, there are some issues regarding the structure and organization of your paper. You need to finish discussing one topic (e.g.,the 1953 Coup) before switching to another one (resignation of Bazargan). Also, please note that you had to include two scholarly journals in your sources. Make sure to include them in your final paper. I can explain more in person. Please try to come see me on Monday Dec. 1st either around 11:30 am, or after our class. Bibliography All the entries must be single spaced Arjomand, Said. Turban for the Crown: The Islamic Revolution in Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Bowden, Mark. Guests of the Ayatollah, The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in Americas War with Militant Islam. New York: Grove Press, 2006. Ebtekar, Massoumeh and Reed, Fred. Takeover in Tehran: the inside story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture. Burnaby: Talonbooks, 2000. Engelmayer, Sheldon. Hostage: a Chronicle of the 444 Days in Iran. New York: Caroline House Publishing, 2011. Gary Sick. October Surprise: Americas Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. New York: Random House, 2011. Houghton, David Patrick. US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Read More