Since the early 1950s, the United States had supported the shah of Iran’s government, mainly as a supplier of oil and as a check on the Soviet Union’s influence in the Middle East. By the late 1970s, the shah had become increasingly unpopular in Iran because of his repressive control and his efforts to westernize the country. When public demonstrations broke out in early 1979, the shah fled Iran, and a powerful fundamentalist Islamic revolution, led by exiled religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, swept the country. Days after President Jimmy Carter permitted the shah to enter the United States for medical treatment, militant Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy and took Americans hostage. The students demanded the return of the shah to Iran in exchange for the hostages’ freedom. To complicate matters, the Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan just a few weeks after the hostages were seized. President Carter tried unsuccessfully to negotiate the release of the hostages and even ordered a secret military rescue mission that failed. Finally, the hostages were released after 444 days in captivity. The document that I would like you to read comes from a congressional hearing on the Iranian crisis, where former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher testified on behalf of the Carter administration (you can read it by clicking here).After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What are the central issues of this hearing? What was the impact of the hostage crisis on the United States? How does Secretary of State Muskie defend the American position? Why was the hostage crisis significant? Your thoughts…
5 comments:
some effects of the hostage crisis were on political situation,and it resulted in a rescue attempt in which people died in. some goals were to get the shah back and get a apology from the united states. but none of these goals were achieved from his point of view.
The U.S. seems to have a care only if it affects their interests such as the mention of the finicial effects on the U.S. The stance seems to also include the soviet's invasion of afgahnistan.
the central issues seemed to be about an effective way they could have freed the hostages instead of giving in. the impact was that there was confusion and chaos as to how to free them and the wrong negotiation tachniques. Muski defends the U.S decision by saying that it would have been too rsky if they had threatened the people who took hostages. this crisis was significant because it showed what can happen if the U.S gets too involved.
I think it was a good idea for the U.S. not in bomb Qum. I think that would have led to more problems. The discussion seems to revolve around why the hostages were taken and what the best way to free them was. Bombing would nat have been smart. I find it interesting that not everybody knew about Russia's plan to possibly retaliate if the U.S. attacked Qum.
Of course, there is the issue of the people being taken/held in the 1st place. Another part of the problem is having good creditability. As the men were talking of the game Chicken, if they hadn’t backed down, they would have looked weak on the world power scale. I think it is terrible that we would be more willing to bomb a religious center than look bad to the other kids. I think it is interesting, though entirely understandable, that all of the speakers are so paranoid of each other and every other country. They did just go through a very trying time for the USA, but if you cant trust your co-workers there is very little chance of getting anything done.
Post a Comment