when they occupied the US embassy in the 70’s? I was young at the time but thinking back, it would have been an easy victory.
Brainwave… the hostages. But was that the only reason?
They did, by backing the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This has not improved the image of America in Iran.
WAG, but this wasn’t too long after the end of Vietnam. To get into another war, this one right on the Soviet Union’s doorstep, may have been a tough sell. Besides, it wasn’t a Communist revolution, it was an Islamic revolution, and I’m sure diplomats keep in the back of their minds the risk of an uprising in the country they’re working in.
It was a hostage situation; when the Iranians see the tanks rolling in, it imperils the hostages.
There was a military attempt to rescue the hostages, Operation Eagle Claw (Wiki.) However, it failed rather spectacularly; three helicopters malfunctioned in a dust storm, a fourth crashed into a transport plane while refueling, and in the ensuing chaos the remaining choppers were abandoned.
My History teacher mentioned this once; it’s my understanding that Ross Perot also sent in his own guys (basically mercenaries) to rescue people working for him that had been taken hostage (not at the embassy). Does anyone have the details on this? Also, wasn’t one of the problems with Operation Eagle Claw that a bus full of Iranian tourists had passed right through their refueling point and they were forced to take them hostage to keep the Iranians from being forewarned?
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
Perot’s people were not take hostage. They saw what was coming down and went into hidding until they were rescued.
The book “On the Wings of Eagles”, I believe, chronicles the adventure there. But, from what I can recall from the book and having worked at EDS (where the tale is often told…):
EDS (founded by Ross Perot) had a contract with the Iranian gov’t to get the equivalent of a Social Security program infrastructure up and running. This was running further and further behind, as they dealt with the dissolving government of the Shah.
Eventually, the heads of the team working on the project were arrested. This basically meant they were thrown in jail and the jailers would wait for someone to come pay enough to release them.
Ross Perot refused to hand over money, and instead put together a team of EDS employee’s with relevant skills (which was funny… one of them was a Karate Black Belt. That was his only skill, iircc). Several former military personell were put on this team. I think there may have been one “pro” picked up by Perot as well(pro in this case being, essentially, a mercenary).
They smuggled themselves into the country just as things started getting even more hairy. They befriended a local kid, who showed them around.
Eventually a riot developed totally independant of our hardcore EDS guys. This riot led to the prison getting overrun, and the EDS guys (as well as a host of other guys) escaping the prison. The local kid picked up the EDS guys, brought them to the EDS strike team, and they smuggled themselves out of the country to safety.
Not quite the A-Team, but an interesting bit of corporate history.
Don’t be so sure of the “easy victory” thing. Iran is a big country, and what would war be attempting to accomplish: reinstall a US friendly government in a country that just underwent a revolution against what was perceived by many Iranians to be a government that was little more than a puppet to the US? Just a brief look at history shows this to be an extremely difficult task.
Aside from that, there is the element of proportionality. How many US troops would be reasonably expected to be killed in an attack on Iran? It is a no-brainer to say, “LOTS.” Countries generally do not act like 18th century noblemen who challenge each other to duels based upon modest slights or insults. Yes, the seizure of the US Embassy was a serious matter, but serious enough to warrant thousands of US casualties, to say nothing of questioning the probability of success or the possibilities of resolving the crisis with less bloodshed and expense?
Let us see. America had just come out of an “easy victory” in Vietnam. Does that explain anything?
Look what happened recently in Iraq where a fool who forgot about Vietnam thought he could also gain an easy victory.
Sometimes war is not the answer. America does not have the resources to invade every single country which does something America doesn’t like. Not to mention that America right now is holding captive citizens of other countries. Do you really expect other countries to automatically declare war or impose sanctions?
Looking back now I would say the situation was better resolved by not starting a war. So the answer is that cooler heads prevailed and did what was best.
How this is in GQ and not in GD I have no idea.
Vietnam protests had resulted in bombings and turmoil in the USA as all the young persons protesting finally got enough momentum to get a pullout. The president that declared war at the time of that hostage taking to get out a few hostages would have had riots in the streets. The event did however make Iranians a permanently hated people for Americans as a whole that lived through it where as they weren’t before it. Everybody I know my age and older mark it as unwarranted Iranian aggression toward some USA citizens and the ones that are the generation after me, go what event if I mention it. You also need to to realize that the news service was the only way the citizens of other countries interacted and formed opinions about each other back then. You had the cold war going strong at that time, with the major players ready to rain nuclear bombs on the world if you were thought aggressive. We were still trying very hard not to have the world sterilized in a few hours, and Iran having a bunch of riots close to the USSR and China was not worth risking conflict with those two no matter what. The nuclear weapons ready to end the world back then were still on a hairs trigger and it stopped many aggressive moves that would have occurred had it happened in the last 15 years. You always have to account for world ending nuclear conflict a button press away from happening when you think of events back then. You have to remember no instant communication around the world in the hands of the public either.
Initially, because the operation was not authorised by the new regime, Khomenies own reaction when he heard was “remove them”. It was only later that the realised that it could be useful as a bargaining chip.
As I understand it, the embassy is American soil. So the Iranians had actually invaded the US. Did the US government conveniently overlook this detail in order to avoid a military action?
According to this article, the last time the US declared war was June 5, 1942, when it declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Since the U.S. has commenced hostilities by other means in the last 66 years, it’s not surprising that it did not declare war on Iran.
Iranians had invaded US sovereign territory. Iran had not invaded US sovereign territory. The hostage-takers were a bunch of college kids with guns, essentially, not agents of the Iranian government.
An embassy is provided immunity from the local legal jurisdiction of the host country, but it is not outright property/soil of that guest-foreign nation.
(bolding mine)
Look, embassies have their property violated from time to time. Not to be dismissive of the seriousness of that, but everyone knows it happens.
Example, example, and, of course, the best example of all. Here’s a more complete list.
Just because an embassy gets overrun doesn’t mean that any country has to declare war. In fact, I can’t think of any wars that began due to an embassy being attacked.
And you are not quite accurate in claiming that our embassies are part and parcel of US territory. The territory ultimately belongs to whatever country is hosting the embassy, but the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (to which virtually every country is a party) prohibits the host nation from entering without the permission of the head of mission. For example, if a Fredonian citizen enters the American embassy and steals something, do you really think that the Fredonian will be sent to the US for trial? Nonsense. Do you think he would have to be “extradited” from the US Embassy to face justice in a Fredonian court? Nonsense.
Ken Follet was the author, right? I think I remember reading that many many years ago. Good book. I should see if I can dig that up.
Likely the real reason is that Jimmy Carter was prez. I am not saying war with Iran would have been a Good Thing, mind you.
Well in that case, good thing Jimmy Carter was president.