Discussions on international relationships remain aligned to the need for establishing global peace and trade across different cultures making it a critical aspect of globalization conversations. Associated diplomatic relations are important to the realization of sustained peace across nations. Despite the apparent mutual gain associated with stable diplomatic relations, continued differences between countries fuel continuous global misunderstandings (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). It is such conflicts in interests and that warrant the existence of a strong diplomatic community with a negated role in ensuring that countries remain faithful to the principles of global peace. The US remains such a country that thrives on stable diplomatic associations. However, after establishing herself as a global power after the world wars, representing the country abroad became associated with increased risks especially in regions that were considered to host nations considered to have communist ideologies. Among such regions where the US continues to face increasing resistance include the Middle Eastern region of Asia. The majority of these countries were Islamic states such as Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan that were never welcoming of the US and the western liberal ideologies that favored democratized institutions as opposed to monarchs and dictatorial regimes in the Middle and Far Eastern Asia (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). The outcome of such factions in global diplomacy was an increasingly radicalized opinion against American ideologies. One of the greatest conflicts to have ever impacted the already fragile US - Middle East relations was the Iran Hostage Crisis. The paper deliberates on the 1979 Iran Hostage issue that involved the invasion of the US embassy in Iran and subsequently leading 60 Americans being abducted with 54 of them held hostage for over a year.
Context of the Iran Hostage Crisis
The Iran Hostage Crisis marked a dark episode in diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Despite any progress that the US had made in the region trying to institute democratic societies in India and Pakistan, the Iran crisis became a low moment in the global diplomatic core. The incident involved University Students who in the wake of Mohammed Shah’s government ouster organized and abducted US citizens working at the Tehran Embassy. The incident had far-reaching consequences in determining the political and social relationship between the then government and the citizens. Media and economic analysts attributed the events to the downfall of the Carter administration as it increasingly became difficult for the incumbent to survive the opposition onslaught that would follow after the Iran Crisis (Corcia, 2016). The sensitivity of the Iran Hostage Crisis meant that it significantly impacted critical aspects of the US as a country. At the center of the political turmoil was the media.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
American media has always been described as critical and objective. The crisis in Iran enjoyed continuous air-time for over a year making it the leading topic of discussion both at national and household discourses (Corcia, 2016). Different aspects of the Iran Hostage as a historic event had far-reaching consequences on the US as a global leader and as a people. The US President Jimmy Carter in his attempts to pacify the situation from escalating into a national disaster employed government machinery in the form of deployed Special Forces (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). Unfortunately, all the missions were a disaster ending in the death of military personnel and continuous social backlash on the administration in an electioneering year. Ostensibly the US media provided a significant prominence to the Iran Hostage Crisis since the issue had coincided with an electoral year that would see the US President failed in his attempts of being reelected. The political and social undertones accompanying the Iran Hostage Crisis made the event a benchmark not only in the US but its elaborate discussion and intervention provided a platform for several narratives that shaped social and economic perceptions that continue to define the American and Iran diplomatic ties to the present government.
Historical Significance of the Iran Hostage Crisis
In a global space, relationships are built on trust and continued engagement. Such associations under the diplomatic arrangements have seen countries build a relationship around events and how they were solved or how they impacted both the country's socioeconomic and political fabric. Depending on the context of an event, it can be categorized as historic if it marks a turning point or if it was in a deliberate attempt to determine subsequent actions. The US-Iran relationship remains one marked with a series of hostilities ranging from the arms race, terrorism, and related social distrust (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). It is important to acknowledge that, before the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979; the US had no legal economic sanctions on Iran. Before the event, the US had focused much on democratizing the Islamic state in the belief that having favorable governments in the region would guarantee US interests in the region. The attack on the embassy chartered a path of animosity and hostility that is present currently and continues to linger in the minds of policymakers across both territories (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). The event has been described as significant based on its impact on both societies. The significance is attributed to how the US responded to the actions of Iran, the media, the subsequent relation through foreign policy, and the social narrative after the event in both societies.
Executive orders on Economic Sanctions
The US immediate response to the act of holding diplomatic staff hostage had been to impose an embargo on Iranian assets. According to Hewitt & Nephew (2019), the Iran Hostage Crisis opened a new chapter in US-Iran relations that would see continuous enforcement of sanctions against Iran assets through the executive orders. As such, the Iran Hostage event opened a new aspect in US diplomatic relations with countries it perceived hostile and championing for a contrary agenda to its global Foreign Policy. Iran, for example, has continued to endure significant economic sanctions from the US stifling progress in the country with at least eight executive orders deliberately sanctioned with the Congress and active in Iran (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). The US use of economic sanctions has been taken a level higher with subsequent governments resorting to using the method against countries as an economic persuasion tool for the institutionalization of US proposals (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). The economic sanctions enforced against Iran have remained in their part significantly dragged the country into economic uncertainty over the years.
The Rise of the Middle East against the US
Before the Iran Crisis, disquiet in the Middle East had not materialized to a point of resorting to manipulation and intimidation of the US by countries that were considered inferior. However, it was after the Iranian incidence that the US started facing opposition from countries that disapproved of their engagement and interest in their territory. Such countries included Iraq, Afghanistan, and to an extent Pakistan. According to Strieff (2017) Gulf nations began resisting the growing influence of the US in the region. More countries hence joined the disquiet calling the US to leave the region. Other conflicts that followed including the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, and the increase in terrorism had all drawn inspiration from the Iran hostage crisis. The countries that resisted US influence in their regions realized that it was easier to negotiate with the US when their citizens were facing danger and most countries decided to take the war to the US through committing acts of terror against US citizens.
The Increasing Attacks on US Embassies
The Iran hostage crisis opened a new battlefront in US society, the embassies. The US is one of the countries that have a significant population leaving outside their country either in military or diplomatic missions (Strieff, 2017). When the Iranian university students invaded an Embassy and took hostage several US citizens, it appeared to tilt the balance of power at the negotiation table. The US had no alternative than to refrain and prioritize its citizenry’s welfare. However, in such a show of consideration, several attacks on US embassies would later follow with notable attacks carried out in US Embassies in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Terrorist and jihadist sympathizers targeted American citizens who worked in overseas embassies. The Iranian incident was, therefore, a beginning to a cycle of violence that continually evolved across generations.
The Redefined Roles of Central Intelligence Agency
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) remains a crucial agency in US international relations. The CIA is a security and Intelligence agency that has managed to operate within the US diplomatic circles both as intelligence and front force in pushing the US global agenda (McCarthy, 2019). The involvement of the CIA in the Iran Hostage Crisis is one such incidence that led to the US governments remaining reliant on CIA led covert operations in hostile regions. Since the 1979 incidence in Tehran, the CIA has increased its operations in the Middle East and Central Asia with a focus on fighting terrorism, protecting American missions, and executing US Foreign policy security agenda (McCarthy, 2019). It is on such backdrop that the CIA as an agency has gained prominence within the US security hierarchy. Together with the seal teams, the CIA has remained involved in several hostage situations either as rescue or negotiating teams. McCarthy (2019) acknowledges that, Iran Hostage Crisis provided the agency with a new point of operation within the US military and law enforcement other than spies. It was the successes of the CIA in these early years of Cold War that saw it retain a highly celebrated reputation within the law enforcement yet loathed in equal measure following its involvement in several covert missions that went as unplanned.
How the Event Impacted Society and Culture
When the world wars ended and the Allied forces won, the US and the USSR were both on the same yet with differing ideological aspirations of how the world should exist. While the Soviet Union proposed communistic ideas, the US and her western allies in France, UK, and Canada championed for a democratic and capitalistic world. The differences shaped cultures and societies much after the end of World War II. The USSR had managed to influence much of the countries in Eastern Europe and Asia into communistic societies while the US managed to establish more democratic and capitalistic economies in the west (McCarthy, 2019). Cultures, therefore, developed along these lines of ideologies (Hewitt & Nephew, 2019). Religion played another significant role in setting societies apart. The western civilizations were mainly Christian in faith while Asia had a diverse religious setting with Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism being the dominant of the eastern countries' regions. Such differences were meant to set these societies apart regardless.
The events in Iran acted as a catalyst in the Middle East and the Gulf States that despite years of resentment of the US and Europe exploitation was yet to express dissatisfaction. Oil resources were at the center of the US-Iran diplomatic row. The discontentment and show of resistance by the Iranian students provided a platform from which Middle Eastern countries would base their retaliatory attack on the US as a show of disapproval of US activities in the region (Rosenfield, 2016). Social relationships were placed at the core of the conflict. The US, with the help of western media, managed to form a narrative aimed at discrediting the Iranian and Arabic societies’ rebellion of the American and British occupation of the region (McCain, 2015). According to tribal leaders and governments of the countries affected such as Iraq and Iran, the occupation, as well as the involvement of the US in the Middle East, was not welcome. It is such resentment arising from economic differences that instigated a suspicious cultural relation.
The US through its press and other agencies engaged the spread of propaganda about Arab civilizations. The Iran Hostage Crisis gave the US and her European allies’ course to demean and discredit Iran and the Arabic cultures depicting them as savages and barbaric societies that had no regard for human life. Such campaigns in the media managed to discredit Iran and her allies such as Iraq on a global scale. The American society, led by such political and economic inclination developed a perception about the Middle East (Corcia, 2016). Iranian culture and citizens, for example, were considered enemies of the US and her allies. The animosity has since led to complete distrust between the Arab Muslims and the rest of the world following various acts of “war on America and her allies” slogans that audiences meet in media (Rosenfield, 2016). The media narratives and propaganda wars championed by the US towards Iran and her Arabic allies have negatively impacted social relationships between the nations. Islam as a religion is considered barbaric in many western households (Strieff, 2017). The westernized civilizations, predominantly Christian remains reluctant of embracing Arab Muslims in their countries for fears of retaliatory attacks on their economies and citizens (Corcia, 2016). Arab Muslims as well have a disheartening contempt of the US, her Christian society and by large the interests and continued dominance of the US in their countries. The outcome of the Iran Hostage Crisis ensured that for a generation now, the perception and relations between the US and Arab Muslim societies remain that of distrust and suspicion. According to Corcia (2016), the US government and society continue to see Iran and other Arab nations as potential sources of threat to American peace and trade interests while the Arab Muslim societies continue to blame the US-led western cultures of interference in their internal affairs with the majority of them the US particularly of fueling political instability in their countries. Such differences in ideology have successfully driven a wedge of difference between the US and Eastern cultures.
Media Coverage of the Iran Hostage Crisis
The US is a liberal country with freedom of speech and press among the highly enshrined rights in the country. The country’s constitution, in its First Amendment, guarantees free speech to its citizens. In the First Amendment; the constitution prevents all government agencies and institutions from passing laws that might be perceived as against free distribution of opinions or information (Corcia, 2016). On the backdrop of such freedoms for both press and opinions, the US government had no control of sensitive information coming from Iraq. The media took the opportunity to form a narrative that would see their American audiences loyal to their cable networks. Media outlets such as CBS, ABC, and NBC, became dialogue platforms where political and economic pundits deliberated on opinions related to the Iran crisis. Every evening would see TV hosts arrange discussions around the topic captioned with curious headlines and imagery to feed on their audiences’ emotions (Rosenfield, 2016). Based on such critical reporting on the matter, the impact of the media in fueling the hostage situation to a crisis level had its far-reaching impacts. According to Corcia (2016), media as a powerful tool of information ensured that the events that were happening in Tehran were effectively covered in the daily reporting. Every network sought to connect their audiences with Tehran and as America increasingly focused on the hostage crisis facing its citizens, so did the world became interested in Iran.
The continued representation of American society in the face of terror as depicted in these news outlets plunged the government into an increased state of uncertainty. The media claims that the “US government under Carter had been held hostage” by terror and other international players fed into the political theatre with a country in its electioneering year (Corcia, 2016). The media associated everything with the failed administration under President Carter and with pundits increasingly expressing their concern over the failed systems of governance, security, and a dwindling economy (Rosenfield, 2016). The Tehran hostage crisis according to media outlets was a metaphoric inference of the crisis at home. US citizens were enlightened of their needing security situation not only on missions abroad but at home where law enforcement agencies were failing under the Carter Administration.
The political dimension of the Tehran hostage situation never passed the media. In its continuous airing of the story, the media managed to depoliticize the hostages branding them as innocent under the heinous attacks against the US from barbaric Iranians (Strieff, 2017). According to Rosenfield (2016), continuous focus on the hostage's families was a depiction of emotion coupled with domesticity rather than political scores settled by opposing diplomatic countries. The media managed to sensationalize and debunk the Carter administration (Corcia, 2016). Further, the portrayal of the families and hostages brought about stereotypic perceptions about the Iranians as terrorists and unruly civilizations.
When the hostage crisis came to an end and President Carter replaced in office by President Regan, the US finally realized the impact the hostage crisis had created both locally and internationally. Administrations after Carter had to redefine the American foreign policy and introduce contingency measures in dealing with hostage situations, diplomatic aggression, as well as security. The country changed its policy on the Middle East and introduced rather an aggressive approach that was militarized. It is such militarization of the Middle East that led to several US-led conflicts in the area over the last four decades.
References
Corcia, M. (2016). The Fateful 52: How the American Media Sensationalized the Iran Hostage Crisis. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2016/08/20/the-fateful-52-how-the-american-media-sensationalized-the-iran-hostage-crisis/
Hewitt, K. & Nephew, R. (2019). How the Iran hostage crisis shaped the US approach to sanctions. Bookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/03/12/how-the-iran-hostage-crisis-shaped-the-us-approach-to-sanctions/
McCain, C. (2015). The History of US-Iran Relations and its Effect on the JCPOA Negotiations.
McCarthy, S. P. (2019). The function of intelligence in crisis management: towards an understanding of the intelligence producer-consumer dichotomy . Routledge.
Rosenfield, D, (2016). The Portrayal of the Iranian Hostage Crisis by American Media and its Effects on the Presidential Election of 1980. Vanderbilt Historical Review. http://vanderbilthistoricalreview.com/iranian-hostage-crisis/
Strieff, D. (2017). FLAG and the Diplomacy of the Iran Hostage Families. Diplomacy & Statecraft , 28 (4), 702-725.
