My question is actually about the botched rescue plan. Were there any survivors from the crash and if so did they make it out or did they themselves become hostages? (sorry if this was already answered in class. I was out sick.)
There were no survivors of the two helicopters that crash
There were no survivors sadly, 8 people died during that crash. Their plane was burnt down into shreds. No hostages were saved :(
But no we didn't talk about this in class but it was specified that there were no survivors.
When Tehran took U.S. staff hostages, where did they keep them held?
I think the hostages were held in prisons. That is what I researched online.
Tehran was the city where the United States embassy was located, and, until America tried out the botched "Operation Eagle Claw" all of the hostages were held captive in buildings inside the embassy. After that, they got shipped off to a bunch of prisons all across Tehran so the Americans wouldn't succeed in a rescue operation. It was pretty gruesome.
Was the United States taking in the former Shah the only thing that sparked this mass kidnapping at the Embacies? Why didn't the U.S. comply to their demands if getting the hostages back was their main priority?
The Shah fleeing to the U.S. because of his illness sort of did 2 things in Iran, it left a power vaccum in the country and further demonized the U.S. in the eyes of the Iranian people. It wasn't the only thing that caused the revolution, the Shah had been hugely unpopular in Iran mainly because he was, in effect, the U.S's puppet to keep oil prices down, they had been supporting his dictatorship for years for economic benefit, but his fleeing the country and the U.S taking him in was the spark for open hostility to occur.
And the U.S usually does its level best not to negotiate with terrorists. The United States would've looked ridiculous in the eyes of the international community if it gave in to the demands of a bunch of third-world college students. Remeber, the Cold War hadn't ended by this time, so American was still trying to show off its superiority to the Russkies. In addition to that, it would've sent a rather chilling message to the American supported dictators in the rest of the world if they threw their former allies to the dogs as soon as they stopped being useful.
What governmental laws/regulations have been implemented to help keep economic issues that occurred in the 1970's at bay? Were there any further repercussions of these laws/regulations? If so what did the government do to resolve those?
Why were Iranian university students the ones who started the riots?
In July a student dormitory was raided by riot police that night during which a student was killed. The raid sparked six days of demonstrations and rioting throughout the country, during which at least three other people were killed and more than 200 injured.
What led the United States to cultivate a strong relationship with Shah? Were there any benefits to the relationship for the United States? For Iran?
I'm pretty sure the US was in cahoots with Iran/Shah because they wanted their resources, and Iran/Shah was with the US because the US was so big and powerful and it could benefit both Iran and the Shah.
Shah was able to maintain a close relationship to america and regarded as a friend. I guess this is important because of poor relations between the U.S. and Iran
Who are the leaders of the Islamic Revolution?
The main leader was Ayatollah Khomeni. He was the people's spiritual leader as well.
The main leader were cleric Ayatollah Khomeni, which who was preaching against the shah.
Why did the rioters believe that the US was a "Great Satan?"
The rioters believed the US was the "Great Satan" because they brought in the former Shah of Iran for cancer treatment after his overthrow.
They beleived it was the "Great Satan," because it was a term used by an Iranian leader throughout 1979. This leader accused the United States of imperialism, as well as corruption. The word devil in Islam is used to refer to not only the United States but other countries as well.
One reason was that the U.S backed the Shah who was a terrible leader and was horrible to the people of Iran.
My question is that when the U.S. rescued only 13 people what happened to the remaining people?
It says that "the remaining 52 were to be deprived of their freedom for 444 painful days." So they were eventually released
The remaining 52 people were kept for 444 more days after the release of the 13. They were kept as hostages in prison and it says they were "painful days".
Why was the Shah hated so much? What occurred to make all the rioting happen?
One of the reasons the Shah was hated by the Iranian people was because he did not allow any political opposition and ordered torture on individuals who did not agree with his policies.
I was wondering what exactly the Shah did to cause so many people to dislike him? Why did the U.S. seem to like him when his own country did not?
From 1953 - 1963 there was a lot of poverty between the Iranian people and the gap between the rich and poor grew. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, held much of this wealth. He strengthened ties with the US while making agreements to share oil with them, which annoyed many people, and was considered an ultra-secularism. His secret police was brutal and he had tried to modernize Iran. Overall, he did a lot of things that the people didn't want or like.
The US liked him because they thought saw him as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. He also provided oil to the US, which is a valuable resource.
Do you guys think that it was a coincidence that the hostages were rescued when Ronald Reagan was president? It sounds like he held off because he wanted a more successful campaign...
As the article said, this is a subject that has been up for a lot of debate, and is still unresolved. While it does seem to be quite convenient timing, I would say that I would like to see more information surrounding the release, and the justification for why it happened when it did before siding one way or the other.
I researched it, and the hostages were released after the election decision had been made, the night before Reagan was brought into office Carter was working very hard to make sure the hostages were released, and the Iranian government chose to release them in the morning of Reagan's presidency.
Who created and formed the Resistance? How did they survive against the Shah?
Like many uprisings ,it was a group effort that began underground. It wasnt announced or publicly displayed at first in order to keep the movement in tact and then when they felt they had enough following, they announced themselves.
Why were the remaining 52 hostages released when they were? What kept them from being released sooner?
Khomeini's government decided it was time to end the matter. The hostages had were servicing the purpose of being negotiating tools but the U.S. were not agreeing to the release terms. The hostage situation did spread anti-American and anti-Shah propaganda which was beneficial to the Iranian government. However, ongoing sanctions were making it harder to straighten out an already chaotic economy in Iran. Negotiations had been dragging on for months and there wasn't much more incentive to keep the hostages.
How long was Ayatollah Khomeini in power and who is in power now in Iran?
He was in power from February 11, 1979 - June 3, 1989.
I think the most power now has the supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei.
He came into power in 1979 until 1989 when he died. And I believe the current President of Iran is Hassan Rouhani, who assumed office in August of 2013. Before him was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who served in office from 2005 to 2013.
How on earth did those responsible for the hostage crisis think they could pass it off as a peaceful protest? There was nothing peaceful about it!
Because technically they did not intentionally hurt the American Hostages. They pretty much just scared them.
At least not fatally
Because there was no intentional harm done to the prisoners it was still considered a non violent protest which translated to peaceful depending on who was interpreting the situation.
Are the people in Iran happy with the type of power they now have? Has it changed at all from Ayatollah Khomeini ways?
Not knowing the next shah was going to be a republic, what government do they hold today? and how is it ran?
Currently, Iran is run under what's called Syncretic politics. That means that they don't operate under the "left-right" view of things. They set their differences aside and create a neutrality in between the two different sides of the political spectrum.
If the demonstrations and the like were peaceful, why did the police and military forces take physical and violent action against the protesters? Did they just not think of the consequences? As a matter of fact, in any situation like this, why do people act in a violent manner if it's been proven time and time again that it would end badly?
In my opinion, The biggest reason that this happens is because the government gets scared. Time and time again it happens, A peaceful group grows to a certain size, with ideas that are not in the favor of the people in power, And the people in power get scared. They then typically try to get the peaceful group to do something that they can say was an attack and use that to their advantage. They do this to get support from people who don't have side yet, though it typically ends up backfiring.
What role played the women? Were they involved in any of this or did no one really cared about them?
On the 17th, Khomeini announced that female, African American, and non-U.S. citizen hostages would be released, because women and minorities already suffered "the oppression of American society." Fifty-three Americans (including two women, Elizabeth Ann Swift and Kathryn Koob, and one African American, Charles Jones) remained as hostages.
Why were so many people against Shah? What did he do? Why were people willing to go so far as to burn pictures of him?
The burning of pictures of the Shah was just one piece of demonstrations in opposition to the Shah that began in October 1977. The opposition to the Shah was based in the widespread public disapproval of the Shah. This disapproval was rooted in backlash to the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Shah (among other things).
I had a question about a few of the photos we viewed in class. In several of them they showed things like the "SAVAK agents being arrested" and such, and I was wondering what the SAVAK was.
The SAVAK was the secret service of Iran during the Shahs rule. It was established in 1957 and fell along with the Shah in 1979. They tortured those who were against the Shah. The SAVAK was formed with the help of the United States CIA. The United States lent their support to ensure that Iran would provide oil to america, as the Pahlavi Dynasty was in good terms with them.
Okay so I did a spot of research on the SAVAK, and found out that it was a secret police force underneath the Shah. They were known for their extreme brutality, and were trained by the Israeli Secret Service, (Mossad), and something that suprised me was that the formation of the SAVAK was 'guided' by the CIA.
Have there been any more hostile incidents at the US Embassy in Tehran since the hostage crisis?
No, immediately after the hostage situation the embassy served as housing for Iranian fighters and since then their have been no more formal embassies in Iran.
What type of conditions did the hostages have to suffer in? Also, how were the hostages awarded?
Hostages described being beaten, blindfolded, bound hands for days and weeks on end. Hostage were constantly threatened with execution. Hostage takers often time played Russian Roulette with the victims.
The hostages also were flown to New York City were they were given a ticker tape parade through the Canyon of Heroes in New York City. For those in the US military, they were awarded with medals. The US gifted the hostages with lifetime passes to any major league baseball game. Although some families tried to sue Iran under the Anti-terrorism Act, but failed.
How could we sympathize with a political leader as corrupt as Pahlavi? I mean, he imprisoned thousands of people just because they spoke out against him. He was right for ruling with secularism, but in the end he was just another greedy, corrupt king--at least he was the last one.
The primary reason for the US supporting and sympathizing with Pahlavi was the low-cost oil imports to the United States. While yes, we can sympathize with him in his fear of the people given his laundry list of crimes, the outrage of the Iranian people seemed incredibly justified.
Why do you think the US had agreed to give hostage takers immunity?
In any kind of hostage crisis, getting said hostages back is on the top of the government's priority list. Because of this, they had very little leeway as to how they were able to negotiate with these terrorists. This, in my opinion, may have been one of the reasons the governments chose to give the men immunity- they had to do the best they could with the cards they were dealt.
Why did the Iranians take hostages for that long? In addition, they stated that they took the hostages as a peaceful protest, but were they tortured or deprived of food during this period?
It was a hypocritical statement. The hostage takers had no intention of "peacefully" bringing along the hostages. This was all just a game to them and in the end, the hostage takers were still given immunity despite their grotesque actions.
Economic Question: Why did the inflation and unemployment numbers rise every time there was an action made to prevent the numbers from rising?
In the reading the examples provided were all unsuccessful attempts at lowering unemployement or inflation. So none of them really worked in the real world for various reasons, but that doesn't mean that it is immpossible to lower inflation and unemployment. Often times what looks good in theory really doesn't play out anywhere near how it should have. That is why economics is coined the "dismal science".
I was not entirely clarified on this. I would like to know the reason the US turned against the Shah if they had such a large amount of support for him. He was providing us with various resources after all.
Was a violent revolution necessary to bring the Shah out of power?
There possibly could have been another way to get at the shaw but it had to be the first reaction out of the public to react in a negative/violent way. Their plan was an overthrow attempt and those events are usually led with aggressive actions.
Question: Why did they give up the hostage after 452 days?
The hostages were held for negotiation when the Shah was still in power, and the US was supporting him. After the death of the Shah, however, there wasn't much more to be gained in keeping them. In addition to their lack of need of the hostages, two of their demands had already been met; the Shah was dead, and his wealth that was being held in American banks was released. On November 2 1980, conditions for the hostages release were offered by the Iranian Parliament.
Do you think there is any connection to Reagan being put into office the same day as the hostages were rescued?
Some beileve that the Reagan Party didn't let the hostages go until Reagan won. If they were let out any sooner the oppennet would have won over Reagan. Reagan also wanted something to start off well with. All this leds to the theory of Reagan waiting until the right time to let the prisoners go.
Why was it an advantage to have US hostages?
I believe it was an advantage to the US hostages because it protected them from possibly harsher rebels that would have killed them. By being on public display and used as trading material they had to be healthy, well fed and most of all alive. Since they were stuck in Iran at least they were relatively safe. This is why it was an advantage to the US hostages to be hostages.
Why is the title " Demonstrators " used for the protesters? What does that mean exactly?
The protesters were called "demonstrators" because of the literal definition of the word "demonstrator" : "A person or persons who takes part in a public protest meeting or march."
The article/photo captions stated that the men and women who stormed the embassy where "students". What do they mean by "students"? High school? College? Why "students"?
Yes they were Tehran university students, I don't know why they just addressed them only as students... maybe it was under the assumption that the reader already knew that.
Why did the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 prevent foreign countries from exchanging their paper money to gold? What exactly did this accomplish?
I was wondering what and how much information must have been excluded from media for some people to believe that this was a peaceful revolution.
What caused Nixon to freeze wages and prices in the first place?
One way to combat inflation is by keeping wages from increasing. In theory, when people have lower wages the value of the dollar with remain relatively the same. President Nixon froze wages to try to slow down the rate of inflation, however it proved to be not very effective (as noted by the inflation rates by year seen in class).
What were the political stances between the US and Iran before the hostage situation/events leading to the situation?
The U.S. was in full support of the Shah for many decades prior. Until the Iran hostage crisis, we were on fairly even terms. The friendly relations between the United States and Iran lasted until the 1950s, thats when things got spicy.
Why were university students at the center of the revolution, was there something specifically they opposed about the government or were they just the most active revolutionaries?
Im still confused on what incentive we had to take in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the first place. Can someone helppppppppppppp?
Before Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, took power, the Prime Minister of Iran was Mohammed Mossadeq. Once in power, Mossadeq nationalized the Iranian oil fields. Once operated by the British, a US ally, the limitless wealth of Iran's oil was closed off to foreign interests. After some time of nationalized markets, the CIA and British forces ousted Mossadeq. The US subsequently helped build up the Shah Regime by giving them millions of dollars in aid. The Shah, in return, opened up Iran's oil fields and allowed the US and its allies to continue their operations in the country. This is the primary reason why the United States supported the Shah and his family even during the hostage crisis.
From my understanding, the shah was an ally of ours; we even put him in power. It would be natural if we wanted to try and keep him in power. Also, oil revenues played a major role in this decision too.
How did such an event get so voilent so quickly?
Because protesters did not like the Shah and they created a violent scene by not agreeing with what was being said and done.
How did the Iranian Hostage Crisis affect the way Americans treated Iranians living in the US, even though they could be U.S. citizens?
The majority of America treated practically everyone from the Middle East with such hate. As this hatred was dying down, 9/11 occurred which refueled that old flame of hate into an even bright flame.
Were the protestors protesting against what President Carter was saying during his speech?
Why did the US give cancer treatment to the Shah?
The U.S. provided cancer treatment for the Shah because they supported him.
How many people lost their life trying to free hostages?
Two helicopters were damaged in a sand storm, and another crashed. Eight people died.
Why was President Carter so intent on finding a diplomatic solution rather than responding with military force? (aside from the botched operation, as in, a real a threatening military presence against Iran).
How were the hostages treated? What kind of impact did it make on their lives after they returned?
When the uprising began, why was violence used as the answer from either side? Was there no way to go about in the non violent protest ways on this instead of all parties reponding with brutal war?
Why were there hostages, but then why were they released?
According to the BBC News article " After months of negotiations, helped by Algerian intermediaries and the Shah's death, US diplomacy bore fruit.". This quote is referring to how the hostages were finally freed. Also according to the BBC News article, the hostages were taken by Tehran University students who stormed the U.S embassy because they believed that the American Government was corrupt and evil. "Thousands of other protesters pressed around the compound, responding to a call by the country's new leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to attack US and Israeli interests." These were also crucial factors for the storming of the U.S embassy and the taking of American hostages.
What group of people (farmers,soldiers,college students,poor,rich, etc.) was the main driving force behind the revolution and why?
There can be a few arguments made behind who was the main driving force behind the revolution but the ones seen in the two separate battle grounds of this revolution were the college students and average Joe's of america and the poor and mistreated people of Iran.
Do a majority of Iranians today still view the Western world in a resentful way? Or have Iranians become more accepting to the more progressive ideals of the West?
What do you think would have happened if there was a bit more fore knowledge about both sides qualities of good and bad?
Does the Iranian hostage crisis affect American foreign policy today?
Why did Iraninan students specifically start the riot? Why not buisnessman or radical muslims?
It seems that most older generations agree with what they grew up with. All that the Shaw and what he believed in conveyed, the older generations were most likely for it as well. As we can see through many of the uprisings and protests in history, it is the young people that have new knowledge of the world (college kids would be understandable), and who are looking for new ways to change things for the better. Also, like we saw in the Civil Rights unit, the children and young adults had practically nothing to lose -- vs. the businessmen who could lose their jobs or families.
Some of the hostages were taken to cameras and television blind folded. The remaining 52 hostages were released to Wiesbaden Air Base in Germany.
This was for Shannon's question...
How were the remaining 52 hostages treated throughout the 444 days?
It seems like that the 52 hostages during the 444 days were treated different from each other. I say this because during Christmas 1980 Barry Rosen was allowed to send a message to his family. This shows that they were treated different from each other because not everyone got to do what he did.
Why was the US so involved with the Shah? Why would they risk the lives of their own people to save one man?
It was mainly due to economic reasons, he was supported both economically and politically by the U.S. The Shah was involved and believed in western policies.
During the Iran hostage crisis did any of the hostages get special treatment and get released early?
13 females, and others hostages were released early due to Ayatollah Khomeini request. Richard Queen, was released on July 1980 after falling ill with multiple sclerosis.
If the Persians were able to protest against the Shah and have him executed if returned, why couldn't they protest strongly enough against the Islamic Society to remove it?
On the page that shows inflation rate v. unemployment rate, how do we compare the two? (What patterns are visible?) -- I didn't see any clear ones.
I did a little research because I didn't see any relation either, and there is such thing as a Phillips Curve which states that lower unemployment leads to higher inflation. From the sheet we saw that this is not always the case, and the Phillips Curve since the 1960's has been used less and less because it is not often fitting. Simply I think that there is no set formula for inflation vs. unemployment, rather one has to take in multiple variables.
I was wondering about how the whole hostage situation happened and how they got realeased
I know there were many factors leading into the reason why the revolution happened, but was there one event which really served as the last straw? I hope that makes sense!
Sorry if that was gone over in class, I was out sick.
I was bit confused on what actually led up to the revolution. What caused the conflict to break out? What were the biggest motivators?
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.