The Beginning of the Iranian Hostage Crisis

---

---

Today is Election Day in the United States.

It is also the 35th anniversary of an event that had a tremendous influence on the election that was held the next year, in 1980, and many elections to come. It still influences thoughts and acts in the 21st century.

I'm speaking of the takeover of the American embassy in Iran on Nov. 4, 1979.

By comparison, I guess the world of 1979 seems quaint when stacked up against the world of today. In today's world, an American diplomat can be killed in an attack on a U.S. embassy, and many Americans won't even bat an eye. But, in 1979, the takeover of an American embassy was a shock to complacent Americans.

The only real interaction Americans had had with the Middle East was over the price of oil. Now, they were faced with political Islam, and they had no idea what to do.

Not unlike Barack Obama's experience with Benghazi, the Jimmy Carter administration was warned by the embassy in Tehran that radical Islamists would attack it. This warning came only weeks before the actual takeover. In the wake of the Islamic takeover, the American–supported shah of Iran fled to Mexico, where it was discovered that he was suffering from cancer. It was recommended that he be allowed into the United States for treatment.

The embassy warned Washington that it would be overrun by radical Islamists if the shah was allowed into the United States. Carter permitted the shah to be allowed into the country, and the embassy was taken over.

We may not know how Obama reacted to Benghazi until after he leaves office and writes his memoirs — if then. According to Carter, he agonized over the hostage crisis. "I would walk in the White House gardens early in the morning," Carter wrote in his memoirs, "and lie awake at night, trying to think of additional steps to gain their freedom without sacrificing the honor and security of our nation."

Carter did mention the warning in his memoirs, observing that Secretary of State Cyrus Vance told him in early October that diplomat Bruce Laingen was reporting that "local hostility toward the shah continues and that the augmented influence of the clerics might mean an even worse reaction than would have been the case a few months ago if we were to admit the shah — even for humanitarian reasons."

---

---

One by one, Carter wrote, his foreign policy advisers sided with allowing the shah into the United States for medical treatment. "I was the lone holdout," Carter wrote. Eventually, though, he relented, permitting the shah into the country. Less than two weeks later, a group of Iranian students, believing that the move was part of a plot to restore the shah to power, stormed the U.S. embassy.

Nov. 4, 1979, was "a date I will never forget," Carter wrote. "The first week of November 1979 marked the beginning of the most difficult period of my life. The safety and well–being of the American hostages became a constant concern for me, no matter what other duties I was performing as president."

Nevertheless, he believed initially that "the Iranians would soon remove the attackers from the embassy compound and release our people. We and other nations had faced this kind of attack many times in the past but never, so far as we knew, had a host government failed to attempt to protect threatened diplomats."

Things were different this time, though. The hostages were held through the next year's presidential election and were not released until after Ronald Reagan, Carter's successor, had been sworn in. Iran insisted the captors had treated them well, and many Americans took solace in the belief that their countrymen did not suffer needlessly — but stories of beatings and torture eventually emerged.

Carter probably will be forever linked in the public's memory to the Iranian hostage crisis, just as Richard Nixon is linked to Watergate and Lyndon Johnson is linked to Vietnam. For many Americans, it summed up the feeling of powerlessness with which they were all too familiar.

President Carter — by that time former President Carter — flew to Germany to greet the hostages, who had been released within minutes of Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Carter's successor. Apparently, the hostages were divided over whether they held Carter responsible for their ordeal. When he greeted them, Carter hugged each one, and some let their arms hang at their sides, refusing to return Carter's hug.

It reminded me of the scene at the Democrats' convention the previous summer, when Carter brought everyone of note in the Democrat Party to the podium and shook each one's hand, even the ones with whom he had clashed, in a show of party unity. But Carter had to chase Ted Kennedy, the man who had challenged him in the primaries, around in a fruitless pursuit of the handshake he desired the most, the one that might reconcile him with disaffected Democrats.

All that was still in the future on this day in 1979. As I recall, the takeover of the embassy didn't really cause that much of a stir initially in the United States. Maybe that was because Americans just hadn't dealt with this kind of thing very much. Maybe they figured it was simply a matter of negotiating with the students who had taken over the embassy and that the hostages would be released in a day or two. That was how it usually worked out.

Not this time.

The 'Strategic Importance' of Grenada

---

---

"The world has changed. Today, our national security can be threatened in faraway places. It's up to all of us to be aware of the strategic importance of such places and to be able to identify them."

Ronald Reagan
October 1983

---

When looking back at the invasion of Grenada — which occurred 30 years ago today — it is important to put it into historical context.

America was less than four years removed from the takeover of the American embassy in Iran that sparked a hostage crisis that lasted more than a year — and contributed to the election of one president and the defeat of another. It was understandable that both politicians and ordinary citizens were antsy about any situation in which Americans might be at risk on foreign soil.

And that is what was perceived to be the case in the Caribbean nation of Grenada in 1983 — at least by the general public. The public was told that American medical students at St. George's University were at risk, and Operation Urgent Fury was launched.

But the students were actually a cover for what those in the Reagan administration really wanted to do.

Let's back up a little here.

The history of just about any nation is too complex to summarize in a single sentence or two, and so it is with Grenada, which was ruled by the United Kingdom until a man named Eric Gairy led it to its independence in 1974. Gairy was Grenada's first prime minister, serving until 1979 when, while Gairy was out of the country, his government was overthrown by opposition leader Maurice Bishop and his New Jewel Movement, a Marxist–Leninist group.

Bishop was prime minister until he, too, was overthrown in a coup in October 1983. He was placed under house arrest but escaped — only to be captured and executed. The army took over and announced a four–day total curfew. Anyone who was seen on the streets would be executed.

It was at this point that the Americans intervened.

As I say, the public was told that medical students were in danger, but it seemed to me, even at the time, that there was a lot more going on than citizens were being told. A Marine barracks in Lebanon was attacked by suicide bombers just a couple of days earlier, and more than 200 Americans were killed.

Reagan had not yet announced his intention to run for a second term in 1984, but my memory is that it was generally assumed by most that he would. History tells us that, when Reagan did seek a second term, the voters resoundingly gave it to him. But, according to Gallup, just under half of respondents (49%) approved his performance in office in October 1983. That was better than most of his approval ratings had been for the previous two years, but it was lower than any incumbent president wants to have when he is on the brink of a campaign for re–election.

Reagan already had a reputation for being a devout anti–Communist, but, in light of what had happened in Lebanon, he needed something to shore up his credentials. In addition to contending that Operation Urgent Fury was intended to rescue the medical students, the administration told the American people it was concerned about Grenada falling under Communist control — especially Cuban control.

---

---

That always seemed strange to me, considering that the government that had been overthrown in the coup in Grenada was Marxist–Leninist, that the administration was so concerned about events there, characterizing the group that engineered the coup as radicals — while Bishop was merely labeled a progressive. But the administration insisted the new regime was a danger to regional security and American citizens.

Thus, Operation Urgent Fury.

Apparently, it worked for Reagan. In the next Gallup poll, his approval ratings were in the 50s — and they remained in the 50s (if not the 60s) for the next two years.

Revolution in Iran

---

---

If you're old enough to remember the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979 and 1980, I don't need to tell you how much things have changed.

But permit me to reflect a little.

In November 1979, there was no internet. There were no personal computers. There was cable television service, but it was very limited and 24–hour news channels did not exist yet.

Access to information was, to put it mildly, limited. And American citizens were being held hostage by foreign captors in a foreign land. The issues confronting Jimmy Carter were different from the issues facing Barack Obama.

Fast forward 30 years.

In recent days — and in spite of attempted crackdowns on internet access and cell phone use — the whole world has been witness to the revolution in Iran that was sparked by the fraudulent elections there earlier this month.

The ugliness of the situation has not been kept within Iran's borders. As the video clip attached to this post demonstrates, the world has had no trouble seeing the brutality of the governing regime. When people see a young woman bleeding and dying in the streets of Tehran, the choice seems simple to Americans who, last year, said they wanted "change we can believe in."

But the events in Iran pose a dilemma for Obama, writes E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post. "Liberals and progressives should be natural allies of those trying to overturn the existing order," he writes. But Obama and the Democrats came to power in this country in large part because they objected to the Bush administration's use of American power in the world, and "Iraq is Exhibit A for the dangers of presuming that American power can easily remake the world."

So Obama must walk a fine line. He supports the calls for democracy and accountability in Iran, but he acknowledges the history of U.S.–Iran relations and understands that America cannot be perceived as interfering.

Even if Obama feels tempted to act — and, frankly, events may escalate to the point where he feels he has no options left — at the moment, he must accept the reality that American troops are engaged in two conflicts. The military is already stretched too thin. If America gets involved in Iran, it may well necessitate the involvement of troops — and there just aren't enough of those to go around.

I've heard some people express concerns about the flow of oil from Iran. I'm no expert on economics or global politics, but, at this point, I'm inclined to believe Iran will neither shut off its oil supply to the rest of the world nor will it arbitrarily jack up prices to customers in countries that have not been favorable to the regime.

What about those who raise concerns about the safety of ships in the Persian Gulf? Well, things can change, but the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most secure waterways in the world.

For now, Iran must accept the going price for oil — and oil prices currently seem to be following a downward trajectory.

The situation, however, will need to be monitored closely. And things could change considerably if the "Great Satan" becomes an active player in the drama — especially if no American lives hang in the balance.

It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword. I believe that is true, and I also believe we have seen evidence of it recently. But it can take time for the pen to prevail.

The guns in Iran have not kept reports of tragic events from being relayed to the rest of the world — through the internet and cell phones. But, inside Iran's borders, the guns rule, bringing to mind Gandhi's admonition that, throughout human history, "[t]here have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall."

It is not only Obama — or impatient Americans — who must walk a fine line in this situation. The longer that Iran resists the movement growing among its own people, the more likely it will be to show the world the truth of the words of President Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

International Tensions

A friend of mine sent me an intriguing e-mail today.

Her subject line said, "Israel and Iran," and her message said, simply, "Looking like they are on the verge of war."

What could I say? Iran test fired some missiles near the Strait of Hormuz, "a narrow strip of water through which much of the world's oil supply passes," writes Tom Baldwin in the London Times.

That news is disturbing, all right.

But what is really disturbing to me is how people in this country — or at least those in my corner of it — perceive Iran's activities to be routine.

Just another day at the office — to apply a Western concept to that part of the world.

There's tension in the Middle East, people seem to be saying. What else is new? Jesse Jackson made some disparaging remarks about Barack Obama. DNA tests cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family of her murder a dozen years ago. Did gas prices go up again today?

Actually, anything that happens in the Middle East has the potential to affect gas prices here.

And Iran seems bound and determined to increase the tension in the Middle East at any time. "Our finger is always on the trigger," said Iran's commander of the Revolutionary Guard.

But, back here, in the United States of America, the top news stories today are:

1. Jesse Jackson apologizes for making a "crude" remark about Barack Obama near an open microphone.
   
   (It seems to me that, if Obama doesn't lose this election, it won't be because his "friends" didn't try hard enough.)


2. Obama joined 68 other senators in supporting broader government spying powers and immunity for phone companies that assist in secret wiretapping.


3. DNA evidence exonerates JonBenet Ramsey's family nearly 12 years after her murder.


4. The number of salmonella victims passes 1,000.


5. The lawyers for model Christie Brinkley and architect Peter Cook are going at it in a very public divorce case.


6. Sen. Edward Kennedy returns to the Senate to cast his vote to break a Republican filibuster of a Medicare bill.


7. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 235 points today, falling to a two-year low.


8. A comic book character that has been popular in Mexico for 60 years is being called a racist caricature.


9. The discovery of a few ticks on an airplane delayed a flight from Des Moines, Iowa, to Denver for nearly six hours.


10. Two members of Colombia's rebel group FARC were offered money to switch sides and deliver false messages as part of last week's hostage rescue.

Now, most of these news stories are important — to a degree.

But Iran, with today's test firings, its hatred for Israel and its nuclear ambitions, trumps them all, in my opinion.

Yet it's getting the least attention.

This is the kind of thing that requires some presidential leadership. I haven't seen any leadership from the current occupant of the Oval Office. I guess he's leaving it to the next president to deal with the increasingly messy situation in the Middle East.

What are we getting from his would-be successors?

Well, John McCain is criticizing Obama for "failing to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group," writes Michael Shear in the Washington Post.

I haven't heard anything from Obama. Maybe he was too busy voting to give Big Brother the biggest overhaul in federal surveillance law in three decades.

In the past, Obama has been opposed to giving immunity to phone companies. Now that he's the Democrats' presumptive nominee, his philosophy appears to be changing as he tries to look like a centrist.

McCain, apparently, was too busy campaigning to show up to vote. In the past, he has supported the immunity plan.

For the record, Hillary Clinton voted against the bill.