This week, twenty five years ago, the US Embassy in Tehran was taken over by Iranian “students” at the instigation of the Ayatollah Khomeni.
In retrospect, how should the USA have responded to this incident?
It was an act of war. And it should have been handled accordingly.
That’s kind of how I’m looking at it. But how? Are the lives of the hostages irrelevant? Would they just be casualties of war?
I don’t think it ever would have come to any actual action. Some believable sabre-rattling, decisive intent and non-equivocal signals and the Iranian would have backed down. As it were, the Iranians had the most nerve and the Americans blinked first. But if it had come to blows, it’s nearly universally respected that diplomats are inviolable in war and I still don’t the Iranians would have broken that tabu. And if they had they would have effectively have prevented any future negotiation and doomed their own regime, as the only answer could have been unrestrained war. (Like when the Athenians threw the Persian ambassadors into the well. Funny how the tables turn.)
The Mullahs didn’t invent Islamism but they were its most visible exponent for the decades following. Had they been effectively restrained there at the beginning I think much later grief could have been avoided.
The Mullahs used the students as a front group/fig leaf. But it’s clear enough who was in charge all along.
It was also universally respected that embassies are the territory of the nation wherever they are- that the hostages were taken on US soil. The “students” weren’t interested in these long standing diplomatic customs.
I think Carter did the right thing. We got them back, eventually. If Bush had been president, the US would have invaded Iraq over it. To go in with guns blazing, shooting first and asking questions later makes for good cowboy movies but bad diplomacy.
The fact is, the cooler heads in the Iranian leadership (like Abolhassan Bani-Sadr) realized all along that the hostages were an embarrassment and an impediment to Iran getting respectability. Bani-Sadr in fact had a plan to have the hostages declared to be medically ill, and hence requirng hospitalixzation-the plan was to transfer the custody (of the hostages) to the Iranian Army, from whence they would be transferred out of the country (to Turkey).
What queered the deal: the stupid American media published all of the details, and caused Bani-Sadr considerable embarrassment-he very nearly wound up getting lynched! So the media turned a minor incident (which could have been solved, with face-saving for BOTH governments) into a major crisis, which cost the lives of the American troops who later attempted the failed rescue.
**Ralph]/b] pretty much summed up the correct answer. Carter handled it perfectly until a leak sprung. After that, there was not much you could do.
Of course, the whole mess could have been avoided in the first place if the US hadn’t destroyed Iranian democracy in the '50s in favor of a brutal dictatorship that annihilated all legitimate forms of opposition, aside from fundamentalist Islam.
Classic case of blowback.
They shouldn’t have fucked up.
You’ll need to be a little more specific.
Neurotik, what pretext did the US use for installing the Shah over an elected government?
Pretext? There was no pretext because they never publicly acknowledged doing it. According to the US government, it was a completely legitimate, independent popular uprising against a prime minister who was about to take Iran into the arms of the communists and the US was just as surprised anyone that it happened.
Which, of course, was total BS since the whole thing was planned and funded by the CIA, with the knowledge of the Eisenhower Administration.
It seems Tagos has answered my question; I was just as interested in the logic/reasoning by the CIA and Eisenhower. If it was for stability of oil then I assume their justification involved the Soviets somehow. Assuming this is true I am very embarassed by my country’s actions. I imagine it’s not the most ethical thing the Brits have ever done, either.
I don’t buy it. The US is hated all over the middle east, even in countries we have helped like Kuwait. The fact that we helped screw Iran over doesn’t make me think things would’ve been any different. Britian also screwed Iran over and Iran and Britian still have official relationships.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1567302.stm
We were an empire - our hands are pretty dirty. Suez 1956 and a whole lot of crap in the Middle East before that. I’d like to think we’ve learned from our mistakes but I doubt it.
As far as I know, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East only really kicked off with the current massive fervour with the Iranian revolution in the late '70s, though US support for Israel meant it was simmering beforehand. Before that most of the Iranian and Arab street looked to the US in aspirational terms. And of course Al Qaeda were CIA-trained US allies. Someone correct me if I’m misinformed.
Yes we were an Empire. So were France, Britian, Russia under the USSR and a crapload of other countries. Even third world countries are trying to get in on empire building. Iraq, Indonesia (with the annexation of East Timor), China, muslim fanatics, etc.
I was talking about Britain. Being British and all.
Sorry, I should have said the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, from which Al Qaeda emerged, were US allies.
Wesley, I think the “we were an empire” refers to the UK.
Ah. Nevermind then.
I suppose it would be too much to ask that you might have learned our lesson for us while you were at it?
