In this paper I will begin by providing background information on the Iranian Hostage Crisis and how the Carter Administration dealt with Iran. Next, I will focus on applying liberalism at the individual level to show that the Carter Administration was inconsistent in decision-making process during the crisis. I conclude that by using liberalism that the Carter Administration failed because President Carter should have applied the perspective of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance instead of listening to outside pressures from other members of his cabinet.
Background
On November 4, 1979, a mob of Iranian students flooded into the American Embassy in Tehran and forced the United States government to face a problem that they had never faced before; radical Islam. After being briefed on the taking of the embassy, the United States President at the time, Jimmy Carter, first went to the U.N. to try to bring an end to the hostage crisis. The U.N. Security Council took action by calling on the militants to free the hostages. The response by the Iranian government was that until they received their old leader back, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was admitted to the United States for cancer treatment, that they would hold the hostages indefinitely. Carter responded to the Iranians by ordering all of the Iranian people who did not comply with the student visa requirements out of the country. He then went on to halt oil imports from Iran and freeze all Iranian assets in United States banks. During the time that Carter took economic action against Iran, the Iranian government decided to put a new constitution in place that established Ayatollah Khomeini leader for life. In the Constitution, however, there was a President who had other powers within ...
... middle of paper ...
...ker of the House. April 26, 1980. Lawfare.
Christopher, Warren, and Paul H. Kreisberg. American hostages in Iran: the conduct of a crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.
Houghton, David Patrick. US foreign policy and the Iran hostage crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Mangle, Amber Adams, and Christine Langone. "Jimmy Carter: Discovering the Soul of a Leader through an Investigation of Personality Traits ." Association of Leadership Educators 1 (2006): 4.
Paolucci, Henry. Iran, Israel, and the United States: an American foreign policy background study. Whitestone, N.Y.: Griffon House Publications, 1991.
Salinger, Pierre. America held hostage: the secret negotiations. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981.
Scott, Col. Charles W. . Pieces of the Game. Atlanta: Peachtree, 1984.
Sullivan, William H.. Mission to Iran. New York: Norton, 1981.
In this fifth book in their series Killing, Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard begin with the death of “the former leader of the free world, the man who defeated Soviet communism and ended the Cold War.” A fine tribute, but as the story of Reagan’s life unfolds, told through
Taken Hostage by David Farber is book about the Iranian hostage crisis that occurred 1979-1981. Farber looks into the causes of the hostage crisis, both at home and abroad, relations between Iran and the United States, and what attempts were made in order to rescue the hostages. Farber wrote the book in order to give insight into an issue that is considered to be a huge blemish and embarrassment on America’s history. He looked at it from all perspectives and gave an objective overview of the conflict.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
Commentators whipped both Carter's arrangements to give up control of the Panama Canal and his reaction to Soviet animosity in Afghanistan by hauling out of the Olympics and completion the offer of wheat to the Russians. His acknowledgment of socialist China, which developed Nixon's China approach, and his arrangement of new arms control concurrences with the Soviets, were both condemned by moderates in the Republican Party. Yet, the most genuine emergency of Carter's administration included Iran. At the point when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power there, the U.S. offered haven to the sickly Shah, irritated the new Iranian government, which then urged understudy aggressors to storm the American consulate and assume control fifty Americans prisoner. Carter's inadequate treatment of the tremendously broadcast prisoner emergency, and the shocking fizzled endeavor to protect them in 1980, destined his administration, despite the fact that he arranged their discharge instantly before leaving office.
Strober, Deborah Hart, and Gerald S. Strober. Reagan the Man and His Presidency. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998. Print.
The Iran-Contra Affair involved the United States, Iran, and Lebanon. The affair coincided with the Iranian hostage crisis, which promoted the United States’ actions in sending weapons to Iran. The Reagan administration decided to trade arms for hostages in hopes of successfully retrieving American hostages from Iran. Iran was at the time under the power of Ayatollah Khomeini, who had put his full support behind the hostage crisis and believed there was nothing that the United States could do to Iran. America’s only chance of rescuing the hostages was to put their support behind Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which involved the shipment of weapons to Iran f...
America and Iran had tricked the Soviets which left them very angry, and this inevitably led to the Cold War. But less than a decade later, America had done something which caused Iran to change their opinion of them. In 1951, Iran had recently elected a prime minister by the name, Mohammed Mosaddeq, which he nationalized the countryś petroleum industry, long the domain of the British-dominated AIOC. This move, however, pitted the two governments against each other in a bitter political fight. The Truman administration had tried to work between both sides, but Dwight Eisenhower had quickly concluded that Mosaddeq represented the problem rather than the solution to the crisis. They decided that they wanted him out and later he was kicked out and Mohammad Reza Shah took his place for the next twenty-five years. Shah not only gained access to sophisticated American weaponry, but also obtained tacit White House permission to forgo any serious effort at reform. Over the years, the internal resentment against the Shahś political and economic policies was building to a peak, but the depth of the problem escaped the notice of American
His extreme effectiveness feeds from decision-making ability that turned the country away from the negative and instable foreign policy of Carter and back to support winning the Cold War and promoting the strength of the US. In the 1970s, because Carter allowed Communism to gain military and territorial advantages, and failed to impose American hegemon and his own power as President. Reagan took office in 1981, “he was determined to rebuild that power, regain for the United States the capability to wage war successfully against the Soviets, to act with impunity against Soviet Third World clients, and to regain its status as the world’s dominant military force.” Reagan handled the Iran hostage Crisis within the hour of assuming the Presidency. Simultaneously, doing what was necessary to free Americans, and to use his power as President to go outside the constitution and congress and secure funding for the Contras to overthrown the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and restore the nation to a pro-American government. Unlike Carter Reagan wanted to make it clear he only cared about protecting American security, and that human rights could be an after
Amanpour, Christiane. "1979 Hostage Crisis Still Casts Pall on U.S.-Iran Relations." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2014.
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the CIA’s first successful overthrow of a foreign government. It was seen as an action to stop a possible Iranian communist takeover led by Mohamed Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister at the time. But in actuality, the U.S. and Britain were more afraid of the imposing Soviet threat in the region. Because Britain and other western countries issued sanctions on Iran as a consequence to oil nationalization, the Britain and the U.S. feared that Mossadeq would turn to the Soviet Union in an effort to stabilize Iran’s economy. Fearing that Iran would soon be influenced by communism, the U.S. looked at the option of regime change as an answer to the ongoing crisis. In 1953, under the Eisenhower administration, a CIA coup to overthrow Mossadeq was authorized. After three days of CIA organized riots in Iran, Mossadeq surrendered, Fazlollah Zahedi, as chosen by the CIA, succeeded Mossadeq as prime minster of Iran. Now that Mossadeq, once a leader of the democratic movement in Iran, was no longer a political force, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came back to power, now with little political opposition and supported by the United States and Britain. The CIA coup was originally intended as a solution for the Iranian oil crisis, but its occurrence later caused undesirable results in future. Although the real reason for the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government was to protect geopolitical interests from the Soviet threat in the region, the United States, did not foresee the negative, long term effects of coup, some of which are still evident today.
In November 1979, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a recently overthrown Shah of Iran, asked President Jimmy Carter for admission to the United States. President Carter initially refused, knowing that ramifications would come from the Shiite community. However, upon learning that Pahlavi had cancer, President Carter, in a conversational gesture, allowed Pahlavi and his wife to enter the country. As President Carter had guessed, Shiite students, in the city, of Tehran schemed a plan to “free” Pahlavi and bring him to justice for his crimes. On November 4, 1979, they took over the United states embassy in Tehran and took hostage of the sixty-six Americans in the embassy. After over one hundred days of negotiations, President Carter grew tired of waiting, and order a military helicopter strike. Because the strike did not receive the right amount of planning, the helicopters ran into swirling sand, and nine of the helicopters crashed. Immediately following this botched evacuation, Iran became stingier, and the negotiations dragged on for almost an entire year before the American’s gained their freedom. Many historians theorize that had the evacuation received the proper planning, the operation could have actually resulted in success, and the prisoners would not stayed in captivity for so long.
To begin with President Carter immediately ordered for all imports from Iran to be stopped, and 8 million US dollars were frozen in Iran assets (Iran Hostage Crisis). This was an attempt to weaken the economic standpoint of Iran, in hopes to pressure them to give back the hostages. However, Iran went unphased from the economic sanctions placed on them by the United States and its allies (Britannica). Contrary to the United States short term effects, Iran faced significant long term conflicts regarding their global stance. As a request to free the hostages, Iran demanded for the assets to be unfrozen, immunity in all civil cases, and for the US to assure they will not to intervene with Iran’s culture or lifestyle in future affairs. Much to their liking, they closed a deal in which all three requests were meet (Iran Hostage Crisis). In the big picture Iran lost allies and ties to other countries around the world. However from the crisis, they upset the American people and their president, they were never forced to pay for the damages they had done. Because of this incident it left a bitterness between the two countries which still lingers
The late 20th century was a very turbulent time in American history. In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected to the presidency, and he had many goals to help better America. However, on November 4th, 1979, a group of radical students seized the United States’ embassy in Tehran, Iran. This completely altered the course of American history and relations with the Middle East. This crisis had many impacts on the United States. It caused the Energy Crisis which in turn caused the Recession of 1979. The Iran Hostage Crisis also had political consequences for President Carter. It was a major factor that contributed to him losing the election of 1980 to Ronald Reagan. Additionally, this crisis led to many instances of racial discrimination toward Iranian-Americans and Iranian immigrants. Even after the Hostage Crisis was resolved, the bad blood between the two countries continued; the United States helped Iraq in the war against Iran, and the Iranians backed a second hostage situation in Lebanon. The Iran Hostage Crisis was a very important event that impacted America in many ways and destroyed our relationship with Iran. The consequences of this event are still felt today and continue to our foreign policies toward Iran.
Peters, Winston. Debate. "Motion-Iranian Hostage Crisis-Fictional Representation of Role of New Zealand Diplomats." (12 March 2013). Hansard (debates). 13 Dec. 2013.
Iran lost the support of the US in 1979 after the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran. In Tehran, “66 members of the US embassy staff were taken hostage by Khomeini’s supporters” (Steele 12). The hostages were held for 444 days (Steele 12). The aftermath of the crisis was the international isolation of Iran. The US being a superpower, drove similar responses in its allies. Iran had lost a majority of their allies, which would hurt them during the war. In addition to the loss of the support of the Western countries, the Arab countries were also against Iran and supporting Iraq. The Arab countries also shared Iraq’s trepidations about the Iranian rhetoric of “exporting Islamic Revolution” (Karsh). As reported by graduate Mr. Jacek, Iran was left to defend itself economically and militarily. The other superpower at the time, the Soviet Union, had a positive relationship with Iran in the beginning. The Soviet Union had been supporting Iran in the beginning of the war. The Soviet Union then carried out an invasion of Afghanistan, and Tehran opposed the Soviet role in the invasion of Afghanistan. Iran’s relations with the Soviet Union became problematic, which negatively affected Iran (Karsh). The war with Iraq slowed down Iran’s research. Near the end of the Iran – Iraq War, Iran started working with a rogue nation, North Korea. The countries partnered up to work