The Impact of the Iran Hostage Crisis free essay sample

Before one examines the impact of the Iran hostage, it is prudent that one understands the genesis of the conflict. Iran had always viewed America has an ally; as Britain and German had colonized countries. America thus seemed neutral in the eyes of Iranians. The conflict between Iran and America arose from oil. During that epoch, America and Britain control a large reserve of Irans oil. In 1951, the newly elected prime minister in Iran; Mohammed Mossadegh, had only one message; nationalize oil. This proposition was not favorable to America and Britain as nationalization was a communist agenda; at the of the cold war this was not acceptable. The American Cia conspired with the British Intelligence to oust Mohammed through a coup. After the successful coup, they replaced him with Shah; a descendant of the royal family. Shah managed to return the status quo. The successful coup marked an important precedent in America; they tried the same tactic in Cuba that failed in 1961 (Watson, 2006). Iranians were not pleased with Shahs style of leadership. They did not appreciate Americas involvement in their affairs. Shah was corrupt and ruthless. During his reign he established a police force, SAVAK that tortured and killed any dissenting voice. The Iranian government further spent billions of dollars in the purchase of American made weapons. The leadership was presumed to be in cohorts with America to the detriment of Iranians. In the eve of 1977, with full knowledge of the atrocities committed by Shah, President Carter referred to Shah as the island of stability in the Middle East (Watson, 2006). Iranians had enough and a revolution ensued. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini’s arrival in Iran, after two years in exile signified the downfall of Shah. In a meeting, in America President Carter choices were difficult. His advisors informed him that he could either; support Shahs regime and oppress the revolution or contact a revolutionist and ensure a smooth transition of government. He chose none of the options. Shah was ousted and escaped to Egypt in exile. He became ill and requested permission from President Carter to seek treatment in America. The President was relentless but after consultation with vice president Walter Mondale, he allowed Shah to get into America (Watson, 2006). This aspect was the genesis of the Iran hostage situation and the beginning of hostilities between America and Iran. The Impact of the Iran Hostage Saga The hostages were held in captivity in Iran for over 440 days and were released on the date Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as the president. The situation took a political angle when the revolutionary government of Iran supported the students. Ayatollah Khomeini seized the opportunity to build his support base by supporting the students. To America the message portrayed was that the whole Iranian nation plus its government hated the American people. Before the crisis, the relation between the two countries was cordial. America had invested in Iran, and had thousands of Americans residing in Iran. The crisis ended this cordial relationship. Irans attempt to lessen the hostility is seen in its act to releasing the hostages on the date the President Reagan was being sworn in (Watson, 2006). The significance of this act was to inform America plus the government that they only had an issue with Carter leadership. The release of the hostages was a conciliatory message aimed at cementing peaceful relations between the two countries. The new American regime plus the American public saw it differently; they believed that the matter was already long overdue, and Iran was facing economic hardship because of the sanctions. Release of the hostages was the plausible option for Iran (Kenneth, 2004). The relationship between the two drifted even greater. Both countries viewed each other as an enemy. America knew that, with its superior military and economic power, they would retaliate with force and that Iran was afraid of that. On the other hand, Iran knew that, without hostages, they had no power over America (Kenneth, 2004). What followed after the release of the hostages, were bloody confrontations between the two. Iran’s Attack on America During the hostage crisis, the Iranians had studied America. They observed the obsession the American had with their media, and the power the media had in changing the countrys policy. During the Vietnam War, the power of the media was revealed yet again. Iran, through their Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp, trained Hezbollah militia to attack Americans. The militia launched their attack on an American base in Beirut killing more than 200 American personnel. President Reagan ordered a withdrawal of troops from Lebanon immediately. Later on Iran, through Hezbollah again managed to kidnap more Americans. Among the kidnapped was a CIA officer, William Francis Buckley (Watson, 2006). He was tortured in captivity and later died. Iran used the hostages to broker a deal between it and America. For the exchange of hostages; America was to sell weapons to Iran. The transaction was done through Israel. America strengthened Iran by attacking Iraq twice. Iraq under Sadam Hussein was Irans worst enemy. During that period, Sadam boasted one of the largest armies in the world. The ousting, trial and execution of Sadam left a power vacuum in the Middle East; Iran gladly filled the slot. It managed to use the position to strengthen its influence in the Middle East as the super power. In 2003, they were accused of enriching Uranium m for purposes of building a nuclear weapon. This showcases the growth of Iran to a super power in Middle East. During the second Iraq war, America faced a rise in insurgence. After investigation, they established that Iran was training and arming the insurgents. America’s Attack on Iran America began attacking Iran during the hostage crisis period. They imposed sanctions on Iran and froze the countries assets. During Clinton’s administration, they imposed a trade Embargo on Iran. All American companies were banned from trading with Iran. In the case of United States vs. Banki an American Citizen was convicted for violating this law. In 1980 during the war between Iran and Iraq, America first chose to remain neutral. Henry Kissinger opined that it was a shame that both parties could not lose (Watson, 2006). America became involve in war through the support they gave to Iraq. The strengthen sanctions against Iran while gave support to Iraq. In 1988, America launched an attack on Iran. The attack was one of the largest naval attacks ever deployed by America since the Second World War. During the same year, a U. S naval ship gunned down an Iranian airbus that was carrying Iranian passengers; killing all of them. In 1998 during Clintons administration, they put a trade embargo on Iran (Watson, 2006). Since 2003, when America revealed that Iran was enriching Uranium for purposes of creating a nuclear bomb; the United States of America has been spying on Iran through drones. America has imposed more sanctions on Iranians financial institutions. They have carried out covert operations against Iranians a number of times (Nick, 2009). It is clear that, the once cordial relationship between America and Iran has evolved into a hostile relationship between the two. Many have been killed as a result of their actions. It does not seem that there is ever going to be a solution on this matter. Towards Reconciliation Ever since Shah was ousted from power, the American and Iranian regimes have never seen eye to eye. Once Ronald Reagan ascended into power, he did not seek reconciliation. The trend has been carried on by George Bush senior to George Bush Junior. When Clinton was in power, he assented into law the Iran sanctions act. George Bush referred to the nation of Iran as the axis of evil. Khatamis government was the closest thing to arriving at a consensus between the two, but the Bush administration passes the opportunity. There seems to be hope since Obama assumed office. It is clear that President Obama is opening talks. His strategy for Iran is referred to as engagement policy. He opines that instead of viewing Iran as a problem; it is best you engage him in finding a solution. Obama is under considerable pressure from the public. Americans still prefer sanctions over dialogue as it has proven it works with Iran (Meir, 2012). On the other hand Ahmadinejad, although under criticism from part of his nationals, a majority of Iranians still do not trust America. Ahmadinejad is cautious with the Obama proposal. He sees the move as a public relations move by America to absolve them of any fault. This is to the extent that if Iran does not agree to Obamas terms, then, America is justified in issuing stricter sanctions (Nick, 2009) The hostility between America and Iran can best be tackled through dialogue. Sanctions will only hurt the common man in Iran. Dealing with Iran can be a problem especially and vice versa. As much as this is the case, Brazil and Turkey are two countries that understand Iran. In fact, it was Turkey that sought to broker a deal between Khatamis regime and Bushs regime (Hoomad, 2012). The countries should be utilized in ending the hostilities. It is time America and Iran refuse to be prisoners of the past.