Iran Hostge Crisis
historical
Iran hostage crisis
Iran Hostage Crisis
Iran 1979 Hostage Crisis
October 20th , 1980
Andrew Older and Sarah Salimi
events for years to come.
Background on US-Iranian Relations
Before we delve into the crisis at hand, we must
explore the history of US-Iranian relations.
Introduction
he date is October 20, 1980. We are 351 days into the
Iranian Hostage Crisis. The crisis began when fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage on November 4, 1979. A group of Iranian students
captured the citizens and held them hostage. The students
belonged to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s
Line, an organization that supported the Iranian Revolution. They captured the innocent civilians by taking over
the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
T
The first Iranian-US relations date back to 1856
when the US and Iran (then Persia) signed the treaty of
commerce and navigation.1 Relations between Iran and
the US up to World War II remained fairly amicable. Iran
viewed the US as a third party that would liberate them
from British and Russian dominance. This relationship
between countries continued to mature when in 1911 the
Iranian Parliament appointed American officials to reform and modernize Iran’s Department of Treasury and
Finance.
All efforts by the international community to liberate
these hostages have failed. There are currently over fifty hostages in custody. Delegates, you must take into account the steadily deteriorating relationship between the
United States and Iran, the economic, political and social
factors at play, and the attitude of the international community if we are to address this crisis.
This will not operate like a normal committee. The main
goal of the committee is to come together and propose a
solution that everyone feels somewhat comfortable with.
Barring failure (which is a completely realistic possibility given the array of interests present), individual people
may form their own blocs and carry out any action they
wish so long as they tried to gain international support.
Furthermore, individual blocs will be allowed to carry
out missions in secret, although you still must keep the
potential consequences of your actions in mind.
Morgan Shuster and US officials at Atabak Palace, Tehran,
1911. Their group was appointed by Iran’s parliament to reform and modernize Iran’s Department of Treasury and Fi-
Ultimately, the fate of international relations is in your
hands. Whether you carry out a rescue mission by joint
agreement, military force, or by stealth and secrecy, keep
in mind how your endeavors will shape international
1941 saw a major shift in Iran-US relations. During World
War 2, Iran controlled many of the oil fields that the Allied powers needed in their fight against the Axis powers.
Iran had stayed neutral throughout the war, but the Allies
2
historical
Iran hostage crisis
suspected that the monarch at the time, Reza Shah, was
sympathetic towards the Axis powers.2
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled (mostly as a
figurehead) from 1941 until his overthrow in 1979, pursued a Westernizing, modernizing economic policy, and
an extremely pro-Western foreign policy. Much of the
Iranian public, however, felt that the Shah had long neglected their basic needs (food and religious freedom, for
example).
As the Cold War progressed into 1953, the United States
helped to overthrow Mossadegh on the theory that “rising internal tensions and continued deterioration might
lead to a breakdown of government authority and open
the way for at least a gradual assumption of control” by
Iran’s well organized Tudeh communist party.”
Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq
Iran’s oil revenue during the 1960s and 1970s formed a
crucial precursor to the Iranian Hostage crisis. According
to scholar Homa Katouzian, this put the United States “in
the contradictory position of being regarded by the Iranian public because of the 1953 coup as the chief architect
and instructor of the regime,” while “its real influence” in
domestic Iranian politics and policies “declined considerably.”3 Certainly, as the 1979 revolution came closer and
closer, tensions increased rapidly.
“In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was
overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup in what has been called ‘a crucial turning point
both in Iran’s modern history and in U.S. Iran relations.’
Many Iranians argue that the 1953 coup and the extensive
U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely
responsible for the shah’s arbitrary rule,’ which led to the
‘deeply anti-American character’ of the 1979 revolution.”3
Much of the Iran hostage crisis was predicted by the Carter administration. Although observers disagree over the
nature of United States policy towards Iran under Carter as the Shah’s regime crumbled. According to historian Nikki Keddie, the Carter administration followed “no
clear policy” on Iran.4 Nevertheless, it is clear that Carter
pursued a policy of humanitarian interventionism, especially towards the Shah’s regime, which had garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its poor human rights
record. Even during this relatively amicable relationship
3
historical
Iran hostage crisis
between the Shah and the Carter administration, many
high-up officials in the State Department believed that a
revolution was inevitable.5 Why? These reasons will be
explained in more detail in the next section.
The Iranian people were perhaps most upset by the Shah’s
constant suppression of Islam in an Islamic country. Mohammad Reza’s actions against Islam antagonized formerly apolitical Iranians into protesting. For example, he
changed the national calendar from an Islamic one to an
Imperial one and in so doing sparked further protests.
The Shah’s controversial oil policies, which intended to
increase the country’s income, ended up shooting up the
price of oil. As a result, the West became less inclined to
support Iran. That lack of support was reflected in Western politics, and especially in Jimmy Carter’s humanitarian concerns in Iran.8
Perhaps the final straw came in 1977 when President
Jimmy Carter gave a televised toast declaring American
support for the Shah, greatly angering a majority of anti-Shah Iranians. The buildup of Iranian-US tensions,
the antagonistic attitudes that each country had towards
factions of one another, and the economic, political and
social factors explained above all helped contribute to the
hostage crisis once the 1979 Revolution finally took place.
Mohammed Mossadeq
Background of the 1979 Revolution
At the Federation of American Scientists, John Pike
writes:
In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah erupted
in widespread demonstrations and rioting. Recognizing
that even this level of violence had failed to crush the rebellion, the Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne and fled
Iran on 16 January 1979. Despite decades of pervasive
surveillance by SAVAK, working closely with the CIA, the
extent of public opposition to the Shah, and his sudden
departure, came as a considerable surprise to the US intelligence community and national leadership. As late as
28 September 1978 the US Defense Intelligence Agency
reported that the Shah “is expected to remain actively in
power over the next ten years.”6
1979 Revolution and Events leading up to the Hostage
Crisis
Demonstrations against the Shah began in October of
1977, and developed into a campaign of civil resistance
that was largely religiously based (with a number of secular elements involved as well). Between August and
December of 1978, the strikes intensified, paralyzing the
economic and political sections of the country. After the
Shah left to America to receive medical attention (which
further angered the Iranian public), Ayatollah Khomeini, an extremely controversial religious figure, was invited
back to Iran by the de facto government, and returned
to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.9 Iran
voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Re-
A number of issues led to the Shah’s downfall and the subsequent revolution: first, the Iranian people detested his
Western, non-Muslim backers. The Iranian people also
thought that Western culture was negatively influencing
Iran. Mohammad Reza was also known to be oppressive,
brutal, corrupt, and lavish in his own spending. Beyond
those issues, Iran faced economic hardships including
food shortages and skyrocketing inflation.7
4
historical
public on April 1, 1979, and to approve a new theocratic-republican constitution whereby Khomeini became
Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.10
The Ayatollah first came to political prominence in 1963
when he initiated the Iranian “White Revolution,” which
encompassed a wide variety of reforms to break up land
holdings and allow religious minorities to hold public of
A sign of of the Ayatollah amidst a throng of rioters
fice. Khomeini was arrested later that year for calling the
Shah a “wretched miserable man.”11 Three days of major
riots throughout Iran followed, with Khomeini supporters claiming 15,000 dead from police fire. Khomeini was
released after eight months of house arrest and continued
his agitation, condemning Iran’s close cooperation with
Israel and its capitulations, or extension of diplomatic
immunity to American government personnel in Iran. In
November 1964 Khomeini was re-arrested and sent into
exile where he remained for 15 years, until the revolution.
Iran hostage crisis
eral capitalism and communism with the slogan “Neither
East, nor West – Islamic Republic!”12
It is also important to consider the economic situation
of Iran after the revolution and how this has an effect on
the Iranian public and the direction that the country will
take collectively. Before the revolution, Iran produced 7
to 10% of the world’s total crude oil. It enjoyed high oil
revenues. Furthermore, while oil had made up 30 to 40%
of Iran’s industrial productivity during the 1970s, it fell
to 9-17% in the 1980s.20 After the revolution, Iran’s productivity steadily declined. The GDP plummeted to what
it was 15 years ago.Foreign investment in Iran, which
accounted for 33% of all industries, fell to 12%. As a result of its declining industrial productivity-- mainly due
to lack of capital-- Iran relied on imports way more than
it had before.20 Furthermore, 11 million Iranians out of
a total working population of 49.4 million people were
unemployed, and the incentives and alluring nature of
the Revolution and the hostage crisis might have played
a role in distracting the economy and working class from
the various problems that the country faced.20
Do not underscore the various economic factors that
played a role in shaping the conflict. Certain factors, such
as an exodus of skilled workers from Iran and the conflicting interests of oil and OPEC had shaped US-Iran relations for a very long time, and manifested dramatically
in the conflict.
The ideology of the Revolution was mostly concerned undermining the progress of Westernization that the Shah’s
regime had worked so hard to create. Most importantly,
Khomeini preached that revolt, and especially martyrdom, against injustice and tyranny was part of Shia Islam,
and that Muslims should reject the influence of both lib-
Current Status of the Hostages
5
historical
Iran hostage crisis
Around 6:30 AM on November 4th, 1979, ringleaders of
a plan to take over the American embassy gathered anywhere between 300 and 500 selected students, thereafter
known as the Muslim Student Followers of the Iman’s
Line, and briefed them on a battle plan.13 Originally, the
students only intended on creating a symbolic act against
Westernization and relations with America, but, when it
became clear that the armed guards were not going to return fire, and as the crowd outside the embassy gates grew
greater, the ideal goals of the occupation changed. 14
As the protesters and rioters had hoped, Khomeini supported the takeover. According to Foreign Minister Ebrahim Yazdi, when he, Yazdi, came to Qom to tell the Imam
about the incident, Khomeini told the minister to “go and
kick them out.” But later that evening, back in Tehran,
the minister heard on the radio that Imam Khomeini had
issued a statement supporting the seizure and calling it
“the second revolution”, and the embassy an “American
spy den in Tehran.”14
Hostage BarOn the contrary, the American public responded to the
Hostage Crisis in an extremely patriotic way of their own.
The hostage taking crisis is said to have created a surge
of patriotism and left the American people more united
than they had been in two decades.16 A severe backlash
against Iran became prevalent in the United States that
was similar to the hatred towards the Japanese in World
War II. Perhaps even more importantly, the American
people began to disapprove more and more and more of
President Jimmy Carter’s conciliatory and overall humiliating diplomacy efforts that were always squashed by the
Ayatollah.14
The Muslim Student Followers of the Iman’s Line demanded many things in return for the hostages, namely
that the Shah return to Iran from America for a trial and
subsequent execution. Other demands included America
apologizing for its interference in Iranian internal affairs
and for overthrowing Prime Minister Mossadeq.
Although these were the initial intentions for keeping the
hostages, many long term benefits began to materialize.
The Ayatollah himself told the Iranian president that:
This action has many benefits. “... This has united our
people. Our opponents do not dare act against us. We can
put the constitution to the people’s vote without difficulty,
and carry out presidential and parliamentary elections.”15
As of the present date, there has only been one serious
attempt to rescue the hostages, known as Operation Eagle Claw. Eight helicopters flew from an American vessel
to a remote air strip in the Great Salt Desert of Iran. Severe dust storms disabled two of the helicopters, and a
third was found to be unusable for mechanical reasons.
The commander of the operation, Col. Beckwith recommended the mission be aborted and his recommendation
6
historical
Iran hostage crisis
was approved by President Carter. As the helicopters repositioned themselves for refueling, one helicopter ran
into a C‑130 tanker aircraft and crashed, killing eight U.S.
servicemen and injuring several more.17
When we talk about blocs in the context of the crisis, it
is important to understand what possible courses of action there are. One possible course is military action. The
US has already shown a tendency to depend on military
tactics and secret, covert missions, and additional plans
aside from Operation Eagle Claw have been discussed
among American officials.
Other courses of action include economic sanctions and
embargoes. The Iran Hostage Crisis marked the beginning of US legal action resulting in economic sanctions
against Iran, which further weakened the ties between the
two nations.19
Some individuals might be opposed to Iran but not want
to take action. The USSR, for example, would not be on
good terms with the country, as the Ayatollah himself
stated that Islam was incompatible with communist (and
atheist) ideals. Even so, the USSR wasn’t considering taking action on the crisis.
Wreckage of one of the helicopters
This failed military operation had significantly negative
implications of the US and positive ones for Iran. After
the mission and its failure was made known to the public, the Ayatollah’s popularity skyrocketed, as he credited
divine intervention for the failure of the American military endeavor. Iranian opponents of holding the hostages,
such as President Bani Sadr, lost much of their credibility
as public opinion began to change.18 Carter, however, witnessed a sharp decrease in opinion polls and lost much
ground in any political race for 1980.
There are many other courses of action that must be considered. But, in a situation where delicacy and creativity
is important, you must be flexible where your character
is willing to negotiate and staunch where he/she is not.
Balance is the key, and for an answer to this problem to be
addressed and passed in a resolution, it must be acceptable to a majority of the parties involved.
Others delegates will support Iran and its hold on the hostages. The Syrian government has long been allied with
Iran and has shared a common animosity towards Israel,
the U.S. and Western ideals. In terms of foreign interests
and how the international community might respond,
we must look to other countries and their alliances at the
time. Allies of the U.S. in this crisis at this time were the
members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation
and Development, a trade organization. Member nations
Blocs
Here, you’ll find general opinions and courses of action
for various interests. In order for debate to occur as reasonably and realistically as possible, each delegate must
maintain their individual characteristics and act as their
character would. This means that Jimmy Carter and the
Ayatollah probably will not be the best of friends.
7
historical
Iran hostage crisis
included West Germany, France, the United Kingdom.
These nations were heavily dependent on the Persian
Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz for oil. If their access to this oil were to be constrained by the new Iranian
government, their economies would be devastated.24 A
prime example is the 1979 Energy Crisis, which showed
the world just how dependent the United States was on
Iranian crude oil imports. It became increasingly evident
that the United States could not impose embargoes for
extended periods of time. So the Iranian government became bolder as they saw certain U.S. threats to empty.6
important highlights the mammoth importance that the
Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis had on international relations.
The United States received reduced shipments of crude
oil after the Ayatollah cut government spending on the oil
industry. As a result, gasoline prices soared in the United States, and a recession soon followed; inflation entered the double digits, interest rates skyrocketed, and the
American automobile industry was jeopardized.25
It is important that you are creative and resourceful in
your applications to this problem, but there are a few
guidelines that you should abide by. First, anyone allied
with America will certainly have an incentive to support
the freeing of the hostages, and might even support any
course of action that the US chooses to take. Furthermore, countries and leaders that depend on the United
States for resources, safety and security, or status in the
international community will ost definitely be supportive
of the US.
The United States had the support of the Security council nations (excluding the USSR) during this crisis. These
nations unanimously passed resolutions 451 and 467,
calling on Iran to release the hostages. These resolutions
also endorsed the United States’ embargo on Iranian oil,
as well as other trade sanctions. Independently of U.N.
organizations, Western Europe and Japan threatened to
impose similar sanctions on Iran if they did not release
the hostages. Those countries provided the backing for an
international (and more threatening) response.24
“Clearly the Soviet Union took advantage of the political
turmoil in Iran, and the relative power vacuum in the region, to move into Afghanistan. This classic maneuver of
realpolitik so angered and alarmed the Carter administration that it withdrew the SALT II treaty from the Senate, imposed a limited embargo against the U.S.S.R., and
started a campaign to boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow.”25 The severity of U.S.-Soviet tensions
was highlighted in the Carter doctrine, which stated that:
“An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the
Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States of America, and such
an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”25 The fact that America declared
so broad a doctrine to a place that was geographically un-
Adversely, countries that maintain hostile relations with
the US or have amicable relations with Iran will most
definitely support Iran in its holding of the hostages.
The delegates to this committee have been chosen so as to
foster the most lively and heated debate possible. Do not
think that, just because a delegate is from Iran, that they
support eveverything the Ayatollah does. The same must
be said for American delegates.
Ultimately, it is important to consider how many factors
are at play. Although the event may seem small in the
scope of history, the relations between countries and the
existing economic, social and political incentives at play
all have serious implications. You have a chance to rewrite
8
historical
Iran hostage crisis
history; who knows what you will choose to do?
1. To what lengths is the United States willing to go to
retrieve the hostages? Namely, is it willing to go to war?
Whoever you character is, is is important that you maintain his/her ideology and beliefs and work within the historical context of the character. Furthermore, when preparing for debate, keep in mind the wide range interests
at this committee. While there will certainly be obvious
alliances and obvious estrangement between certain delegates, be creative with who you work with, for creativity
is vital in proposing a solution that can pass.
2. Will potential courses of actions threaten western access to the Persian Gulf and its oil supply?
3. Can you plans work within the framework of everyone’s ideals and beliefs? Or is it a plan that will probably
have to be carried out in secret?
4. How will your plans for rescue be received by the international community?
Conclusion
Remember: the goal of this committee is to work together as an international community despite differences and
hostility and come up with a joint resolution for dealing
with the hostages. This is a fairly lofty goal, and so, if a
joint resolution cannot be realized, it is allowable for any
individual and any bloc to carry out their own missions
and plans, and at the end of the conference, we can discuss, as students, how we think the missions and plans
that we have put in place would actually have worked out
in reality and how they would have been received globally.
5. A nice way to understand the beginnings of where your
character will end up ideologically is to examine their relationships with other countries. How is their relationship with the US? Iran? Israel? Iraq? etc.
Questions for Consideration
9
historical
Iran hostage crisis
Delegates
Menachem Begin - Prime Minister of Israel
Pol Pot - Leader of the Khmer Rouge
Soong Ching-ling - Vice President of China
Anwar Sedat - President of Egypt
Saddam Hussein - President of Iraq
Robert Byrd - American Senate Majority
Leader
Thomas “Tip” O’Neill - American Speaker of
the House
Raymond Barre - Prime Minister of France
Ebrahim Yazdi - Leader of the Iranian Freedom Movement
Mohammad Mousavi Khoeiniha - Member of
the Parliament of Iran
James B. Vaught - United States Army General and Leader of Operation Eagle Claw
Pierre Trudeau - Prime Minister of Canada
Iranian Student - Member of the Muslim
Student Followers of the Iman’s Line
Tony Mendez - American CIA Technical Operations Operator
Margaret Thatcher - Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom
Joe Clark - Former Canadian Prime Minister
Jimmy Carter - President of the United
States
Ayatollah Khomeini - Supreme Ruler of
Iran
Abolhassan Banisadr - President of Iran
Henry Kissinger - Former American Secretary of State
Cyrus Vance - Former American Secretary
of State
Edmund Muskie - Current American Secretary of State
Jafar Sharif-Emami - Iranian Politician
Gholam Reza Azhari - Iranian Politician
Shapour Bakhtiar - Iranian Politician
Mehdi Bazargan - Iranian Intellectual and
Politician
Leonid Brezhnev - General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the USSR
Zenko Suzuki - Current Prime Minister of
Japan
Ebrahim Asgharzadeh - A Leader of the
Muslim Student Followers of the Iman’s
Line
Karl Carstens - President of West Germany
10
historical
Iran hostage crisis
Works Cited
1. Alexander, Yonah, and Allan S. Nanes. The United States and Iran: A Documentary History. Frederick, MD: Aletheia,
1980. Print.
2. Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War, 1500-1988. Oxford: Osprey, 2011. Print.
3. Gasiorowski, Mark J., and Malcolm Byrne. Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran. Syracuse: Syracuse UP,
2004. Print.
4. Lesch, David W. The Middle East and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessment. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996. Print.
5. Shawcross, William. The Shah’s Last Ride: The Fate of an Ally. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988. Print.
6. “Federation Of American Scientists -.” Federation Of American Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2015.
7. Abrahamian, Ervand. Iran Between Two Revolutions. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
8. Cooper, Andrew Scott. The Oil Kings: How the U.S., Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print.
9. BBC News. BBC, 01 Feb. 1979. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
10. “Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution.” Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.
11. “Emad Baghi :: English.” Emad Baghi :: English. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
12. Shakibi, Zhand. Khatami and Gorbachev: Politics of Change in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the USSR. London:
Tauris Academic Studies, 2010. Print.
13. Macleod/Tehran, Scott. “Radicals Reborn.” Time. Time Inc., 15 Nov. 1999. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
14. Bowden, Mark. Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam. New York: Atlantic
Monthly, 2006. Print.
15. Wright, Robin B. The Last Great Revolution: Turmoil and Transformation in Iran. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2000. Print.
11
historical
Iran hostage crisis
16. “Man Of The Year: The Mystic Who Lit The Fires of Hatred.” Time. Time Inc., 07 Jan. 1980. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
17. “[Iran Hostage] Rescue Mission Report - Admiral Holloway.” [Iran Hostage] Rescue Mission Report - Admiral Holloway. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
18. Mackey, Sandra. The Iranians: Persia, Islam, and the Soul of a Nation. New York: Dutton, 1996. Print.
19. “History Of US Sanctions Against Iran.” A Review Of US Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb.
2015.
20. Amuzegar, Jahangir. “The Iranian Economy Before and After the Revolution.” JSTOR. Middle East Institute, 1992.
Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
21. “Iran-Iraq War.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
22. “The Structure of Power in Iran.” PBS. PBS, 2001. Web. 05 Feb. 2015.
23. “Iran Country Profile.” U.S. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
24. Larson, David L. “The American Response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis: 444 Days of Decision.” International Social
Science Review 57.4 (1982): 195-209. JSTOR. Web. 06 Feb. 2015.
25. Sawyer, Arlena. “1979 Oil Shock.” Automotive News, 13 Oct. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2015.
12