40 years ago today (Iran Hostage Crisis)

[Stevicus]

November 4, 1979 was the day Iranian students stormed the US embassy and took its personnel hostage, holding them for 444 days.

AP COVERED IT: Iran students seize US Embassy in Tehran

I saw an interesting article this past weekend where one of the former students involved in the takeover said that he regrets his actions. 40 years after Iran hostage crisis, one of the student regrets U.S. Embassy takeover

His revolutionary fervor diminished by the years that have also turned his dark brown hair white, one of the Iranian student leaders of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover says he now regrets the seizure of the diplomatic compound and the 444-day hostage crisis that followed.

Speaking to The Associated Press ahead of Monday’s 40th anniversary of the attack, Ebrahim Asgharzadeh acknowledged that the repercussions of the crisis still reverberate as tensions remain high between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s collapsing nuclear deal with world powers.

Like other former students, Asgharzadeh said the plan had been simply to stage a sit-in. But the situation soon spun out of their control. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the long-exiled Shiite cleric whose return to Iran sparked the revolution, gave his support to the takeover. He would use that popular angle to expand the Islamists’ power.

Demonstrators burn an American flag, Nov. 9, 1979, atop the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. (Thierry Campion/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
“We, the students, take responsibility for the first 48 hours of the takeover,” Asgharzadeh said. “Later, it was out of our hands since the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the establishment supported it.”

He added: “Our plan was one of students, unprofessional and temporary.”

As time went on, it slowly dawned on the naive students that Americans wouldn’t join their revolution. While a rescue attempt by the U.S. military would fail and Carter would lose to Ronald Reagan amid the crisis, the U.S. as a whole expressed worry about the hostages by displaying yellow ribbons and counting the days of their captivity.

As the months passed, things only got worse. Asgharzadeh said he thought it would end once the shah left America or later with his death in Egypt in July 1980. It didn’t.

So, their original plan was apparently not very well thought out, but once it was set in motion, the Ayatollah took control and it was out of the students' hands.

What I find interesting about all of this is that, during much of the 1970s, particularly as a result of a profound shift in policy which was accelerated by the anti-war and civil rights movements, America was trying to move away from militarism and the national security state which was tainted by Watergate and other perceived government malfeasance. But when the Iranians took over the US embassy, it was somewhat of a shock to Americans similar to, although not as intense as, the response to 9/11.

In my opinion, this was the single issue that pretty much killed the Carter presidency and led to Ronald Reagan's election in 1980. The Iranians effectively made Carter look weak and impotent, while Reagan was the cowboy star, who was also a militarist, and generally thought of as a war-monger. As a result, US policy shifted back towards greater militarism which continued through multiple presidents and led us to where we are today, with Iran and the US knocking heads over various disputes.

All because of "a plan of students, unprofessional and temporary." Yet it appears to have had more permanent results.

 

[Polymath257]

I remember the Iranian students marching on campus with their masks prior to the revolution there. But revolutions have a tendency to go in directions nobody plans or wants (except, perhaps, some extremists).

 

[pearl]

In my opinion, this was the single issue that pretty much killed the Carter presidency and led to Ronald Reagan's election in 1980.

I always found it to be quite a coincidence that the Iran Contra affair followed Reagan's election. Was there a deal to free the hostages?

 

[Polymath257]

I always found it to be quite a coincidence that the Iran Contra affair followed Reagan's election. Was there a deal to free the hostages?

Um, yes. That is well established, but not directly relevant to the Iran-Contra affair. Reagan specifically requested the hostages not be released until after he was in office. Iran-Contra was later and more a matter of getting funding for our debacles in Central America (which we are dealing with now on our southern border with people fleeing the places we 'helped').

 

[Terry Sampson]

November 4, 1979 was the day Iranian students stormed the US embassy

Thanks for the memories.

After discharge from the U.S. Navy in February '71, I traveled with two other former-U.S. Navy buddies, two Canadian girls, and two English-speaking Germans, starting out in Athens Greece, traveling through Turkey, into and across Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, into and through India, eventually arriving in Bangkok Thailand. Then I turned around and traveled back to Greece, along the same route that I had taken on my journey East. While in Tehran Iran, the two Canadian girls managed to get themselves invited to a dinner with Iranian University students at somebody's home, and we American ex-G.I. finagled our way along with them--much to the Iranian's dismay. I still remember a bit of my conversation with one of the Iranian students in which he expressed disappointment in and hostility toward the Shah, and I remember thinking: Oooo, ... if that hostility is or becomes more widespread, the Shah is a goner. Roughly eight years later, he was.

 

[Stanyon]

The Barbary Corsairs (pirates) taking American hostages and selling them into slavery didn't sit very well with the U.S. either.

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks for the memories.

After discharge from the U.S. Navy in February '71, I traveled with two other former-U.S. Navy buddies, two Canadian girls, and two English-speaking Germans, starting out in Athens Greece, traveling through Turkey, into and across Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, into and through India, eventually arriving in Bangkok Thailand. Then I turned around and traveled back to Greece, along the same route that I had taken on my journey East. While in Tehran Iran, the two Canadian girls managed to get themselves invited to a dinner with Iranian University students at somebody's home, and we American ex-G.I. finagled our way along with them--much to the Iranian's dismay. I still remember a bit of my conversation with one of the Iranian students in which he expressed disappointment in and hostility toward the Shah, and I remember thinking: Oooo, ... if that hostility is or become more widespread, the Shah is a goner. Roughly eight years later, he was.

To be sure, the Shah was a tyrant and a murderer, in charge of a despicable authoritarian regime - but he was installed by the US and had the support of multiple administrations. He was one of many tinpot dictators backed by the US in the name of fighting communism and perceived "Soviet expansionism." But the US public had been largely focused elsewhere, mostly on Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s. There was some attention to Middle Eastern crises, particularly terrorism, but when Carter mediated an agreement between Egypt and Israel, it was seen as quite a feather in his cap. Many people thought it meant we'd have "peace in the Middle East."

With the Cold War still going on and numerous other crises around the world, Iran probably wasn't on many people's radar prior to the downfall of the Shah. I remember that summer (1979), gas prices shot up and there were temporary shortages in some spots (but nowhere near as bad as in 1973-74). It was the summer we moved to Arizona.

When the students took over the embassy and burned the American flag and held our people hostage, people were really incensed about it. The radio played a parody song of "Barbara Ann" and made it into "Bomb Iran." Another parody of "My Sharona" was made into "Ayatollah." People were saying things like "Turn Iran into a parking lot."

Eventually, they started growing impatient with Carter who appeared powerless to do anything about it. The failed rescue attempt only exacerbated his troubles and magnified his image as "weak and ineffective" in the eyes of the public. He was also opposed by Ted Kennedy which caused a rift in the party, and John Anderson's run as an independent likely took more votes away from Carter than Reagan.

 

[Stevicus]

Um, yes. That is well established, but not directly relevant to the Iran-Contra affair. Reagan specifically requested the hostages not be released until after he was in office. Iran-Contra was later and more a matter of getting funding for our debacles in Central America (which we are dealing with now on our southern border with people fleeing the places we 'helped').

So, in a sense, the Iranians interfered in the 1980 presidential election, but considering the direction America took at that point, it worked more against Iranian interests than anything else.

 

[BSM1]

Thanks for the memories.

After discharge from the U.S. Navy in February '71, I traveled with two other former-U.S. Navy buddies, two Canadian girls, and two English-speaking Germans, starting out in Athens Greece, traveling through Turkey, into and across Iran, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, into and through India, eventually arriving in Bangkok Thailand. Then I turned around and traveled back to Greece, along the same route that I had taken on my journey East. While in Tehran Iran, the two Canadian girls managed to get themselves invited to a dinner with Iranian University students at somebody's home, and we American ex-G.I. finagled our way along with them--much to the Iranian's dismay. I still remember a bit of my conversation with one of the Iranian students in which he expressed disappointment in and hostility toward the Shah, and I remember thinking: Oooo, ... if that hostility is or become more widespread, the Shah is a goner. Roughly eight years later, he was.

Man, you stirred up some memories... Before being discharged in '72 I took a couple of Med cruises and a ship to Istanbul to give to Turkey. Those were very different times. I bet you've got some tales.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I bet you've got some tales.

LOL! Yes, indeedy. Starting with the fact that, because there had been an attack on a U.S. Air Force base in Turkey not long before we left Athens, we Americans claimed to be Canadians all the way through Turkey, ... except when we had to show our passports, of course.

We traveled from Athens to Kabul Afghanistan in a car we Americans bought for $600.00. It looked something like this:

Two seats in the front, and six drop-down in the back, three on each side of the casket rack. We stored our stuff in the middle, on and under the rack. Ahh! Those were the days.

Wonder if one of the Canadians still has the picture of all us standing alongside the Princess Anne Hearse?

Then there was the time I came close to being arrested in Mashhad Iran and the time I nearly got arrested in the Bangkok Airport. LOL! It's a wonder that I'm still alive here in Los Angeles to tell the tales.

 

[Polymath257]

So, in a sense, the Iranians interfered in the 1980 presidential election, but considering the direction America took at that point, it worked more against Iranian interests than anything else.

My understanding is that the negotiations between Reagan and Iran were after Reagan won the election, but before he was actually in office. So, it wasn't interference in the election so much as a delay so Reagan got the credit early in his term.

 

[Stevicus]

My understanding is that the negotiations between Reagan and Iran were after Reagan won the election, but before he was actually in office. So, it wasn't interference in the election so much as a delay so Reagan got the credit early in his term.

Still, I think it hurt Carter's standing with the public and was likely the most significant factor in costing him the election. Not only that, but the event had a kind of psychological effect on the American public, coupled with the idea of America in decline and too weak to defend itself (with Vietnam still in recent memory). Reagan was able to utilize that and promise Americans that we were going to be tough nation again, and a strong force to be reckoned with.

This idea has been largely retained by large segments of the voting public.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Still, I think it hurt Carter's standing with the public and was likely the most significant factor in costing him the election. Not only that, but the event had a kind of psychological effect on the American public, coupled with the idea of America in decline and too weak to defend itself (with Vietnam still in recent memory). Reagan was able to utilize that and promise Americans that we were going to be tough nation again, and a strong force to be reckoned with.

This idea has been largely retained by large segments of the voting public.

I agree on all counts.

 

[Polymath257]

Still, I think it hurt Carter's standing with the public and was likely the most significant factor in costing him the election. Not only that, but the event had a kind of psychological effect on the American public, coupled with the idea of America in decline and too weak to defend itself (with Vietnam still in recent memory). Reagan was able to utilize that and promise Americans that we were going to be tough nation again, and a strong force to be reckoned with.

This idea has been largely retained by large segments of the voting public.

Oh, it certainly hurt Carter's standing. But it wasn't so much messing with our election as it was doing their own thing and it affecting our foreign policy and thereby our election. And yes, it certainly lead to Reagan being elected (that and the split in the Dems).

 

[Revoltingest]

The Wikipedia view....
October Surprise conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

The Wikipedia view....
October Surprise conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

It's hard to say where the truth is, but one thing is certain: The Iranian government at the time must have really hated Carter and loved Reagan.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's hard to say where the truth is, but one thing is certain: The Iranian government at the time must have really hated Carter and loved Reagan.

They hated the Ameristanian federal government.
I speculate that Reagan was less hated because he was
he hadn't been part of it, while Carter was its figurehead.
Reagan had potential for change, eh?
(Of course, he turned out to be even worse for Iran.)

 

[Stevicus]

Oh, it certainly hurt Carter's standing. But it wasn't so much messing with our election as it was doing their own thing and it affecting our foreign policy and thereby our election. And yes, it certainly lead to Reagan being elected (that and the split in the Dems).

Yes, they were doing their own thing, although I think they must have been either naive or misinformed about the US if they thought a takeover of our embassy would lead to anything positive.

Since that time, US policy became far more interventionist, intrusive, and militaristic than ever before. I'm sure they didn't want that, but that's what ended up happening.

This event was a "sleeping giant" moment, similar to 9/11 or 12/7/41. Kind of makes one wonder what goes through the heads of people who think attacking the United States will turn out well for them.

 

[Stevicus]

They hated the Ameristanian federal government.
I speculate that Reagan was less hated because he was
he hadn't been part of it, while Carter was its figurehead.
Reagan had potential for change, eh?
(Of course, he turned out to be even worse for Iran.)

Yeah, although they didn't quite understand the nuances of US politics. That much is clear. It was a Republican president who installed the Shah in 1953, but instead of focusing their blame on the Republicans, they chose to blame America as a whole. Most Americans had no idea that we installed the Shah, or even where Iran is.

So, a little finesse on the Iranians' part might have worked wonders to achieve their objectives, but instead, they chose to be a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics shouting "Death to America" over and over. And now they wonder why America is still mad at them.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, they were doing their own thing, although I think they must have been either naive or misinformed about the US if they thought a takeover of our embassy would lead to anything positive.

Well, revolutionaries tend to be young and young people often don't look at all the complexities. Perhaps that is necessary to be a revolutionary. But, yes, naive and misinformed would hold.

In general, there is a LOT of misinformation about the US in the world at large. Of course, there is also a lot of misinformation/ignorance about the US within the US.

How many people in the US are aware of our role in putting the Shah into power in the first place? We didn't like Mossadeq and promoted a coup against him.

Since that time, US policy became far more interventionist, intrusive, and militaristic than ever before. I'm sure they didn't want that, but that's what ended up happening.

This event was a "sleeping giant" moment, similar to 9/11 or 12/7/41. Kind of makes one wonder what goes through the heads of people who think attacking the United States will turn out well for them.