Foreign Affairs and the Iranian Imbroglio

The Leaders Towards the end of his term in office, Jimmy Carter met with the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna to sign the SALT II agreement. The agreement limited the levels of lethal strategic weapons in Soviet and American arsenals. The agreement was eventually shot down by conservative American critics of Carter’s foreign policy. At the time of the meeting, tensions were escalating in the Middle East. Middle Eastern leaders were becoming increasingly resistant to American interference in their affairs. American leaders maintained a strong Middle Eastern presence in order to guarantee a stable supply of oil.

The Crisis The tension reached a head on November 4th, 1979, when anti-American muslim militants stormed the American embassy in Tehran, Iran. The militants were protesting the decision to allow the exiled leader of Iran (Shah) to enter the United States for treatment. More broadly, they were protesting American intervention in Iranian affairs. The militants took 66 people hostage, demanding that the exiled Shah be returned to Iran. Tension further escalated following Brezhnev’s decision to move Soviet troops into Afghanistan in an apparent move to control the supply of Middle Eastern oil. The United States agonized over maintaining Middle Eastern stability and guaranteeing the return of the hostages.

The Blowback Carter reacted to both crises by putting an embargo on grain and technology exports to the USSR. He proposed the creation of a Rapid Deployment Force to improve America’s ability to respond to crises in faraway places. Eventually, he proclaimed that the US would use “any force necessary” to protect the Persian gulf from Soviet incursion. In Afghanistan, the Soviets met unexpected resistance and became embroiled in a decade-long guerilla war (Russian Vietnam). In Iran, the hostage crisis continued to develop. Carter first applied economic sanctions against Iran with the hopes that a stable government would return to power with which to negotiate. After months, with hopes of negotiations dwindling, Carter ordered a daring rescue mission. A highly trained commando team penetrated Iranian airspace. Almost immediately, equipment failures forced the team to turn back. Soon after, two of the aircraft collided and 8 of the rescuers perished. The failure of the mission underscored America’s helplessness and incompetence during the Carter administration. The stalemate with Iran continued through the rest of Carter’s term.

Origin: the source is a primary source letter from Carter to the Iranian Ayatollah. Content: the letter details Carter’s appeal to the Ayatollah to release the Iranian hostages. The letter contains notes of desperation and frustration that underscore the whole of the crisis. Purpose: the letter is an attempt to simultaneously diplomatically and forcefully pressure the Iranian government into forcing the Iranian militants to back down and return the American hostages. Value: the letter offers dramatic insight into the Carter administration’s frustration with the Iranian hostage crisis and the ways in which the crisis was damaging Carter’s legacy. The letter is both forceful and desperate in nature. Limitations: the letter is one man’s depiction of the crisis and offers little context to the crisis.

Origin: the source is a primary source image of the day that Iranian students overtook the embassy. Content: the image details the manner by which Iranian students assumed control of the American embassy. Purpose: the image is an attempt to depict the gravity of the crisis to American readers at home. The image is effective in portraying the Iranian militants and violent and hell bent on revenge. Value: the image offers a fascinating perspective into the desperation and frustration that the Iranian people felt regarding American intervention in the Middle East. Limitations: the image offers very little context to the situation and is therefore biased by the motivations of the photographer.

Origin: the source is a primary source image from Iranian protests. Content: the image details the burning of a Carter effigy in protest of American policy with respect to Iran. Purpose: the image is an attempt to depict the the widespread Iranian dissent against America to American viewers. The image offers context to the Iranian hostage crisis. Value: the image offers insight into the widespread dissent that Iranian exhibited for decades before the conflict came to a head. The image depicts virulent anger and frustration. Limitations: the image offers very little context to the situation and is therefore biased by the motivations of the photographer.

Compare and Contrast Source 1 suggests that American intervention in Iranian affairs has reached a head and is no longer viable foreign policy. Similarly, source 3 suggests that anti-American sentiment in Iran makes protecting American interests in Iran virtually impossible. Source 1 supports Source 3 in offering context for the widespread anti-American sentiment that consumed Iran. Source 1, however, suggests that Iran should assume responsibility for the return of the hostages, while Source 3 makes clear that Iranians see the Americans as being at fault for the violence consuming their country. Source 1 disagrees with Source 3 regarding the viability of ending the hostage crisis in a peaceful manner. Source 1 is hopeful while Source 3 depicts a country resolute in its want to rid Iran of American influence.

IB Questions Analyze the Carter response to the Iranian hostage crisis. What was the ultimate flaw behind the measures Carter used to respond to the crisis? Compare the Iranian hostage crisis with the situation in Iran. What were commonalities between the two situations with regard to America?