Talk:Iran hostage crisis

Identifying Ahmadinejad in the picture

The caption under the same picture in the article on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggests people think he may be either of the two people to the right (ie, to the left of the hostage), whereas in this article it suggest he is the person to our left (ie, to the right of the hostage). Can anyone synchronise the two texts with whichever is right. thanks. SeaFlat 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Yeah, in Mark Bowden's book, it is purported that ahmadinejad is the guy to the hostage's left. (i.e. directly to the right of the hostage from the perspective of the picture.)

Ahmadinejad is not in the picture. He is a very short man and at the time was only 23. None of the people in the picture match this description. I suggest removing the remark in the caption. Mohseng 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

I removed the part of the caption where it says some people believe that Ahmadinejad is one of the hostage takers. It's completely absurd, he is 5'4. Are you telling me that everybody in that picture is also around the same height ? No of course not. This is just a smear on the man. What if under every picture someone said that this man is believed by some to be so and so. I mean it would in fact be true, that some people do believe that some guy looks like some other guy.

I've just reverted a similar change (note that there's an article about this dispute) --Robort (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

ill-conceived operation?

Under History, the sentence:

"Rejecting the Iranian demands, Carter approved an ill-conceived secret rescue mission: Operation Eagle Claw."

I disagree with the use of the word ill-conceived (poorly planned). The main failure of Operation Eagle Claw appears to have been the sandstorm that caused the helicopter to crash into the C-130. Granted, there was probably little coordination or preparation between the special units involved (especially prior to the formation of USSOCOM), I don't see how any of the planning for the operation ever got a chance to even start. I would simply remove the word from the sentence, as it is later mentioned that it was a failure. I don't feel any planner is at fault since the catastropthis is he was an unfortunate circumstance. Had the weather not been a problem, we will never know if the mission would have been a success. If it had succeeded, it certainly would not be called "ill-conceived" even if it really was. :) My personal feeling is that if the aircraft had been able to depart, the mission would have resulted in several casualties for both the hostages and servicemen, as well as the captors since this was the most high-risk and delicate operation the US military had undertaken at the time. And had any of the hostages been freed, it would have at least been a partial success.

On another note, it is interesting that Operation Gothic Serpent which resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 is not popularly described as ill-conceived although it resulted in numerous casualties for US personnel and large scale casualties and destruction of Somali militia and citizens. The initial operation succeeding in capturing many of Aidid's men (the mission objective), although they were later traded back. However, the lack of armor and a larger infantry to secure the city was a gross miscalculation of the situation IMHO. US planners did not consider the threat that Somali citizens and militia could impose to a convoy of soldiers exiting the city solely through light armored vehicles. There was no contingency plan in case more than 1 helicopter was brought down, and no early preparations for more reinforcements in case all special ops forces became trapped in the city. This resulted in unnecessary delays in preparing the 10th Mountain, Malaysian, and Pakistani forces from mobilizing a rescue. --Acefox 18:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acefox, I think you make several good points, but I still believe that ill-conceived is the best shorthand for the operation. The US military, in its after-action report and other studies done by War College types, that the errors in planning and conception ran throughout the operation. There was no individual planner at fault, no individual soldier at fault (with the possible exception of one deceased helicopter pilot); instead, the planning failures made the operation so brittle that the bad luck of one sandstorm -- an obvious major risk -- knocked out the entire mission, and probably contributed to the deaths of servicemen. The failure of Eagle Claw led directly to the eventual adoption of Combined Arms doctrine, modernization of the special forces, redesign of military aircraft, and so on. This is best discussed on Talk:Operation Eagle Claw, regardless (and your Mogadishu speculation, while interesting, is 100% off topic). --Dhartung | Talk 1 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Slanted and biased

Who is editing this page, A hate America first propagander writer? Everything is slanted and biased. What about the "WEAK" President Carter, What about a military that was starved for supplies and had poor equipment under our great leader, who served one term and was thrown out of office, President James Carter (Remember over 20% interest rates, gas lines, high unemployment and high taxes). Wikipedia is controlled by left leaning propaganda artists - see how fast any posts get wiped off, if they call it as it is. Wikipedia is now an arm of the far left. No "Truth" other than "Official" Propaganda. Stalin would be happy with these thought control specialists. Pravda is alive and well in the editor of this page !!! This is the Free Encyclopedia, but it's not free of biased, slanted and anti-American history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk • contribs) .

How can anyone send money to this slanted and biased excuse for an encyclopedia ? The Editor of this page is white washing history. How you can explain this historic disaster and not call Carter what he is: the worst President in the last 100 Years; 20% interest rates, Gas lines, Inflation run amuck, Natural Gas shortages, high unemployment and high taxes and the creator of an atomic Iran. Real History will mark Carter for what he was, a weak President and a weak leader who allowed the Shah to fall and brought instability to the entire region.

The poor excuse of the editor of this page, should also be addressed. Who is it? I thought Jimmy Carter's brother was no longer around! Is he still working for Libya and Editor of this page now? There must be some reason that this editor is covering up the truth! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk • contribs) .

You appear to have the mistaken impression that this article is a history of the Carter presidency. Obviously you have an opinion about his performance, but Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy requires that our articles recite fact, not opinion. Please try to keep your comments on topic, which means specific suggestions for improving an article. Thank you. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First suggestion is that Dhartung resign from this page. It is clear that he is biased. Being "objective" to him is to give James Carter a free ride without pointing out the "facts" of his presidency. Dhartung editing is "ill conceived" (Poorly Planned), one sided and biased. Any defense of Democratic values is "Ill-Conceived" to his far-left editing. Radical and a James Carter original fan club member; Dhartung has only one course of honorable action: RESIGN AS EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk • contribs) .

Please observe civility policy and refrain from attacking other editors. A broader discussion of the Carter presidency is off-topic for this article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a civil request - Please RESIGN, you are biased, your viewpoint is slanted and your praise of President Carter has no basis in history. Your political views have no place in these articles. Please, PLEASE Resign !

See also links

Note: moved from User_talk:Dhartung

Dear Dhartung, Would you please let me know why the two links were not relevant and the rest are relevant ? Here is the list: Missing Iranian Diplomats / Pueblo incident / Mayagüez incident / P-3 incident / Granting US Visa to UN Member-States Officials /

Thanks in advance. 141.5.11.5 Jermi

The Pueblo, Mayaguez, and P-3 incidents were all examples of the US government facing a foreign government which was holding its diplomats and/or soldiers hostage. The two links which I removed are only related to modern Iran history. It is not that they are unimportant, they simply have no connection to the hostage crisis other than being in Iran. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The hostage crisis article simply says how iranians treated US diplomats at some point and the two links offers two examples of the way US and Israel treated Iranian officials and diplomats. I do think these links are helpful. The readers of the article are not merely those interested in what you mentioned above(US foreign policy crisis). Capturing diplomats of a government who are in a country legally, is quite different from capturing soldiers of a country who entered another country's territory illegally. I don't see any problem to have all these links there. 141.5.11.5 Jermi

I appreciate that you have a different point of view. Nevertheless, the See Also is not a laundry list for what should be in U.S.-Iran relations, an article which exists to cover that sort of thing. If we open it up for that there's really no end to the articles that could justifiably be there. Absolutely, however, an article which only references Iran, Lebanon, and Israel has no conceivable purpose being there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the US Ambasador?

The article makes no mention of the ambassador, nor is he mentioned in the list of hostages. So was he there when the takeover happened, or out of the country, or what? --Commking 4 November, 2005

Anedcotal evidence seems to indicate there was no appointed ambassador at the time of the seizure. Mr. L. Bruce Laingen, who was the Chargé d'Affaires, was effectively the head diplomat at the time. Can anybody confirm any of this? --Commking 06:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not actually 444 days?

I can remember thinking when it transpired that the length of time involved wasn't exactly 444 days but rather 445-6 instead. The round-down does sound nicer though but I doubt the Iranians had that in mind. Anyone else seem to recall this? --Hooperbloob 05:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you count Nov 11, 1979 as day 1, then Jan 20, 1981 is day 444. But that makes the length of captivity more like 443 days. Bubba73 (talk), 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If only to agree with popular culture, it seems fine to use 444 days. Various books have been written on the ordeal with the title "444 Days," it doesn't seem illogical to follow the wordings from experts on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.203.234 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia Dwyer - 53rd hostage?

In (Sheaffer 1998:13-14) he mentions Cynthia Dwyer (a journalist) as being the "53rd hostage". He says that she was arrested in May 1980 by he Revolutionary Guards and charged with spying for the CIA. She was being held with the captives from the embassy. She was sometimes referred to as the "53rd hostage" and was released not long after the other hostages (about Feb '81). Should that be in here?

• Robert Sheaffer (1998). UFO Sightings: The Evidence. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-213-7

• NY Times article

Bubba73 (talk), 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

October surprise conspiracy

As October surprise conspiracy makes clear, the conspiracy claims were widely discredited. Please stop making changes to this page and related pages claiming otherwise. Any additional conspiracy theories belong on that single page and not anywhere else. Simishag 00:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know why the US wasn't able to capture the hostages from a bunch of Iranian Students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.161.54 (talk • contribs)

The United States could not place a military mission inside the sovereign nation of Iran without permission or great risk. They did try with Operation Eagle Claw but a series of equipment failures blocked the mission from proceeding as planned. The Marines who protect the embassy were overwhelmed; normally under international law the host country is required to generally protect diplomatic missions, and in this case they deliberately did not. Beyond that, most people assume that the group who captured the embassy did not represent randomly incensed students, but a trained cadre who had prepared for the takeover. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No Dhartung, It was because we had a weak President that had no clue how to handle these students nor the clerics that now plot to kill Americans. The next atom bomb will be brought to you by these students. Ask Dhartung then why we could not stop these "Students". 444 days of shame brought to you by Dhartung's best praised friend, President James Carter. The Iran hostage crisis was brought to you by a weak President. Now Dhartung, Please Resign !!

--The happy exchanges about the weak President Carter avoid comment on the true agent provocateur of the hostage crisis: Henry Kissinger. Reports at the time cited him as the man who persuaded Carter to allow the Shah into the country (Mayo Clinic) for medical treatment. Shah was living in Panama (with permission from one of our other tyrannical allies) at the time. American public learned later that anti-American dissidents were eager to invade the embassy; all they needed was provocation, & we provided.

Far from being a weak President, likely that Mr. Kissinger (one of two genuine war criminals America's produced since WWII) convinced Pres. Carter that he showed great fortitude in refusing to accede to the threats of the Iranians & permitting the Shah entry. President Carter gets battered for being weak, but media can't wait to give air time to our own Great Satan, Henry Kissinger.--BubbleDine 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

BubbleDine, you failed wonderfully with that answer. This is not a debated about how Carter reacted, you can address that somewhere else. While is it not false to say that Carter took a soft appreoach in the beginning, he ultimatly approved Operation Eagle Claw. The failure of this Operation was due to a combination of a sandstorm, which cause helicopter mechanical problems, and due to a collision between a helicopter and a C-130 in Iran. At this point, the commander in charge of the operation called the operation off. Now, it should be noted that the operation had a realativly low chance of success. This is 29 years ago, technology was quite different. Think, we were only just out of Vietnam, that is the era we are dealing with, not with todays capabilities. The Heli's coudn't fly far enough into Iran to even get to the hostages and back in one trip. I'm working on a more detailed description, I still need to do a bit more research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.59.171 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Long term U.S. sanctions against Iran not mentioned

It doesn't seem that this article emphasizes the diplomatic break down between Iran the U.S. which has lasted for so long was initially sparked by this event. The article mentions the measures Carter took in 1979, including the oil embargo, freezing $8 billion in assets, and expelling Iranians from the U.S.. But, then the article goes into the "happy ending" of the Algiers Accords where the $8 billion is unfrozen, the U.S. promises not to interfere in Iran, etc.. Nothing is said about what happened to the oil embargo. These event caused the U.S. to impose sanctions on Iran that have lasted for three decades.

Washington Post article that makes passing mention of these sanctions. Search for keyword unilateral to find it.

Levander 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. You're welcome to rewrite your above for inclusion if you like. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more than the Iran hostage crisis which caused the sanctions to remain. There were the hostages in Lebanon, the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Nuclear program of Iran, and support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other civilian-targeting organizations. The continued poor relations are not due to the U.S. failing to get over the past, but due to the Iranians failing to stop targeting American soldiers and civilians of many nationalities. Libya's most well-known attacks against the U.S. occurred in 1986 and 1988, and, unlike Iran, its leader is the same then as now. Yet the U.S. has "gotten past" Libya. If the U.S. could "get past" the problems with Iran, it would make the American roles in Iraq and Afghanistan much, much easier. It's not lingering bitterness over an event 25 years ago preventing the U.S. from doing so, but continued problems now. Calbaer 21:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

--- I am not sure that those can be attributed to the Iranians. I mean, the U.S. seems to be making the Iranians responsible for all of those things. I did not recall seeing such attributions when I was in France for study.

THe other thing is I happen to recall that seeing something along the lines of "the Israelis creating false Telex traffic to pin the blame of the disco bombing of 1986 in Germany on Libya..." I think this was in Victor Otfsky's (sp? author?) book, "By way of deception".

How could this be true?

1. Paul Chiapparone, an employee of Ross Perot's company EDS. Rescued by Ross Perot funded Operation Hotfoot on 3/26/1979.
2. Bill Gaylord, an employee of Ross Perot's company EDS. Rescued by Ross Perot funded Operation Hotfoot on 3/26/1979

---

The above is from the page and the question is how can this be true when the hostages were not taken until November 4, 1979? In other words, what does this mean to be "rescued" on 3/26/1979 when they were not "hostages"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.158.84.45 (talk • contribs) .

This is more properly part of the background. The EDS rescue was actually done with cooperation from the Khomeini revolution supporters, and the US considered legal action in cooperation with the Bakhtiar government before it fell. [1] --Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

4.158.45.164 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 11/04/2006

Sorry I did not follow protocol the last ime around.

I am still confused by your explaination, but give me a little time before you attempt to further explain it to me. I will make the effort to learn more about this and perhaps your explaination will make more sense to me then.

In the meantime, would be better to not use the word "rescued" in this context/description. Perhaps the word "recalled" (from their posts) or something along those lines would fit better.

Thanks for your attention on this... Cheers

If you read "On Wings of Eagles" by Ken Follett, it is the true story of Paul and Bill's Rescue. There was no Recall, they had to be rescued from prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.156.119 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Carter as emmissary

As this page notes, Carter was "acting as an emissary for the Reagan administration" when he "recieved" the hostages from their release at the West Germany airport. It's interesting considering that Carter wasn't in any way, shape, or form at all a Reagan supporter by an enormous margin of contrast due to their adversary states of being in the 1980 presidential campaign. Thus, this makes Carter working under Reagan's authority an even more pecuilar occurence in the annals of American politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.173.81 (talk • contribs) .

There's actually a long history of ex-Presidents acting as unofficial or semi-official emissaries for their successors, regardless of party. In this case, it was a gesture of conciliation by the Reagan administration in that meeting the hostages meant a great deal to Carter personally, yet his role was technically unnecessary thus insignificant -- Reagan welcomed them himself at Andrews, and they probably would not have wanted Carter there at all. This way they could be nice at no political cost. It's hard to understand now, but during the Cold War there was a strong bipartisan consensus on a lot of basic foreign policy. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There he goes again...........Dhartung now believes he knows why Reagan let that weak President Carter meet the Hostages. It was done to show the AMERICAN people that it took a good Strong Republican President to get the Hostages freed. Carter could not free them in 444 days, Reagan in his first day in office.... Now Dhartung, Please Resign, your propaganda is off bounds, you are biased and have a slanted view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk • contribs) .

• Well, perhaps if you explained what motivations Carter had for "supporting" Reagan, despite the fact Carter's possibility of being reelected as president again was non existent. He was the president when Iranians had their revolution, and he was no supporter or Reagan, as you mention, so that goes a long way towards indicating he met the returning hostages out of personal need than political gain. Just a thought. Shadowrun 04:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Directed at me? I have no idea what the motivations of either man were. Here's what TIME wrote back then:

But freedom for the hostages, not partisan fingerpointing, was on Carter's mind as he sweated out his final two days in the Oval Office. After napping on a sofa for only 45 minutes Sunday night, he appeared in the White House press room at 4:56 a.m. Monday, his face drawn and devoid of emotion, to announce: "We have now reached an agreement with Iran that will result, I believe, in the freedom of our American hostages."

At 9:20 a.m. Reagan phoned Carter with a gracious offer: if Carter was no longer President when the hostages reached West Germany, Reagan wanted him to greet them there on behalf of the U.S. Carter was grateful, but thought he could make the trip before he and Rosalynn were to entertain the Reagans at the traditional preInauguration coffee pour on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. at the White House. By 2 p.m. on Monday, Carter knew that his time had run out. He called Reagan to accept the invitation.

So we know that Reagan extended the invitation, and Carter almost didn't do it, because he was trying to finalize the release agreement. Speculation as to motivation should be cited. (That said, I see an error -- we say he met them in Algeria.) -- Dhartung | Talk 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of them wanted to target the Soviet embassy

I have a persian article which describes that who are those guys. They are Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Seyednejad. This article had published before Ahmadinejad became president of Iran and U.S. accusses him to participate in hostage. But I can't find any English online document which supported this fact. I guess there's some information in Ebtekar's book "Takeover in Tehran: The Inside Story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy Capture" which is published in 2001. This book is published when nobody known him in west and it's a reliable memoir. I think non of western sources has any idea or information about this issue except some of Iranian has told them. Is there enybody who could clarify this issue?--Sa.vakilian 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shargh newpaper 4,nov,2004; no332, pa 16: گفت وگو باسيدنژاد عضو اولين شوراى مركزى دفتر تحكيم وحدت من و احمدى نژاد مخالف تسخير سفارت بوديم

سيدنژاد عضو اولين دوره شوراى مركزى دفتر تحكيم وحدت است. دفتر تحكيم در سال ۵۸ توسط دانشجويان انجمن هاى اسلامى راه اندازى شده بود و در ابتداى كار گويى بنابر آن گذاشته شده بود كه موضوعى به نام «تسخير سفارت آمريكا» در دستور كارش قرار بگيرد. او توضيح مى دهد كه چگونه اين پيشنهاد در شوراى مركزى تحكيم مطرح شد و پس از برخى مخالفت ها بدون عنوان دفتر تحكيم انجام گرفت. • • • •جناب آقاى سيدنژاد، شما عضو اولين دوره شوراى مركزى تحكيم بوديد. ديگر اعضاى شوراى مركزى تحكيم در آن دوره چه كسانى بودند؟ بله، بنده عضو اولين شوراى مركزى دفتر تحكيم وحدت بودم. تا جايى كه يادم مى آيد محسن ميردامادى از دانشگاه پلى تكنيك، ابراهيم اصغرزاده از دانشگاه شريف، محمود احمدى نژاد از دانشگاه علم و صنعت، بنده از دانشگاه تربيت معلم و يك نفر ديگر كه الان در ذهنم نيست از دانشگاه شهيد بهشتى، شوراى مركزى اولين دوره تشكيل دفتر تحكيم وحدت را شامل مى شدند. •آيا اين درست است كه مى گويند آقايان اصغرزاده و ميردامادى بحث لزوم تسخير سفارت آمريكا را در جلسه شوراى مركزى تحكيم مطرح كردند و شما به اتفاق آقاى احمدى نژاد با آن پيشنهاد مخالفت كرديد؟ بله، همين طور است. دو، سه هفته قبل از ۱۳ آبان ۵۸ بود كه آقاى اصغرزاده و ميردامادى اين طرح را در جلسه شوراى مركزى تحكيم مطرح كردند. آنها در اول جلسه كه مطابق معمول تبادل اطلاعات و اخبار صورت مى گرفت تصريح كردند كه برخى اطلاعات و اخبار حاكى از آن است كه اخيراً محموله هايى توسط آمريكايى ها از پاويون فرودگاه مهرآباد به مقصد آمريكا خارج مى شود و دولت موقت هم هيچ نظارتى بر آن نقل و انتقال ها ندارد. آنها مدعى بودند كه برخى اسناد در حال خروج از كشور است و اين نشان دهنده برخى از مسائل ديگر است كه بايد از آن جلوگيرى كرد. پيشنهاد آنها در برابر اين اخبار، تسخير سفارت آمريكا بود. آنها همچنين در دفاع از طرح خود استدلال مى كردند كه الان گروه هايى كه در مقابل امام مى ايستند، موضع خود را با شعارهاى ضدامپرياليستى به نمايش مى گذارند و ما با اين كارمان به اين درگيرى مى توانيم پايان دهيم و ابتكار عمل را در ضدامپرياليستى بودن به دست بگيريم. •اما علت مخالفت شما با اين طرح چه بود؟ چند وقت قبل تر بود كه امام گفته بودند حمله به دفاتر و دارايى ها و اموال سرمايه دارها مثل هتل ها بايد متوقف شود و توقيف اموال اگر هم ضرورت داشته باشد بايد از طريق قانون صورت بگيرد. وقتى هم كه مجاهدين محل گارد شهربانى را در دانشگاه ها تسخير كردند، ما با اين حركت مخالفت كرديم. بنابراين اصولاً ما معتقد بوديم كه تسخير سفارتخانه بدون طى مراحل قانونى كار درستى نيست. در آن جلسه ما گفتيم كه الان حمله به نقاط مختلف تنها از سوى گروه هاى معارض با حكومت صورت مى گيرد و ما ديگر در چنين قالبى قرار شده است كه حركت نكنيم و با انجام اين كار خارج از مراحل قانونى و بدون اجازه امام ديگر چگونه مى توان ميان نيروهاى معارض و همسو با حاكميت خط كشى كرد. ما به هر حال مخالف بوديم و آن جلسه پايان يافت با اين توافق كه اين بحث فراموش شود و هيچ كس در خارج از اين جلسه درباره آن در جايى صحبت نكند. •آيا اين واقعيت دارد كه در آن زمان برخى همچون آقاى احمدى نژاد معتقد بودند كه تسخير سفارت شوروى نسبت به آمريكا ترجيح دارد؟ من يادم نيست ولى بالاخره در نظر داشته باشيد كه آقاى احمدى نژاد دانشجوى دانشگاه علم و صنعت بود و آن دانشگاه جو بسيار راست و ضدچپى داشت. در آن زمان جو دانشگاه هاى شريف و پلى تكنيك چپ بود و بچه هاى دانشگاه ملى هم تقريباً موضعى با گرايش جنبش مسلمانان مبارز داشتند. اما در اين ميان دانشگاه علم و صنعت نگاهى كاملاً متفاوت و ضد چپ و ضد شوروى داشت. آقاى اسرافيليان استاد دانشگاه علم و صنعت بود و منتقد نگره هاى سوسياليستى بود و در ميان دانشجويان آن دانشگاه نيز جايگاهى ويژه داشت. ...--Sa.vakilian 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't read Persian, but this is a rather remarkable discovery, given that the claim was widely discussed in Western media. Our own article on Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is inconclusive. The NPOV approach of handling a remarkable claim is to attribute it, e.g. "According to Ebtekar ..." I'm concerned that this will lead to an edit war given that there are no reliable Western, English-speaking sources to use to verify the issue. This isn't a condemnation of other-language sources, just an illustration that it presents certain difficulties even when information is not disputed. I'm considering a request for comment and a crossposting to the appropriate WikiProject, since more eyes on a problem are generally better, but that will of course also alert those with agendas. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hatred of Israel and Jews

Funny, no where is there a mention that the Islamists hate Israel & Jews. In a country that has called for the death of the Jews at every public rally during the "Hostage Crisis", there is no mention in this slanted and biased article. This page is edited by a HATE AMERICA group. Where is the editor? Hiding behind this Wikipedia enabled, slanted propaganda. Will anyone get this Editor out of controlling this page? Far left, hating Jews like James Carter and Loving the power to "Control" History, this Editor needs to RESIGN.

HELP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid I have to consider the comments you inserted in the article vandalism.

This is an article about the 1979 hostage taking of American diplomats; not of Israeli diplomats. It's not about Iranian policies towards Israel, or about Iranian policies towards Jews.

Why don't you do some research and put something useful in wiki articles on Iran or Khomeini or anti-semitism? --Leroy65X 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Leroy 65X, You are showing your foolishness by saying it is the Hostages. The reason the Radical Islamists took the hostages also includes their motives. So Mr. Leroy 65X, stop your slanted and biased rewrite of History. Your too cute by half. I am afraid that your threats are uncalled for, I request a hearing on your infantile rantings. It is YOU that is Vandalizing History. Stop your Slanted and Biased editing, Now! The motives of your "saints" are important and deserve mention. Stop your glorification of radical Islam. If you love James Carter, send money to his center, but stop using this article to write a fake history of his regime.

Leroy65x says: "My interests include (but are not limited to) the history of the Mideast and the Islamic Revival (Qutb, Qutbism, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq, and Iranian Revolution). I am a citzen (sic) of planet earth and hope to make a small contribution to spreading knowledge and understanding on it."

It seems Mr. X LOVES radical Islam. Hey Leroy, Who are you REALLY? Fancy yourself a new Qutb? Using this site to further your radical Goals? Come Clean !!! Who is the real Mr. X ?? Citizen of Planet Earth, oh really - any Hidden agenda???? Qutb hated Jews, is Mr. X really not biased, I think NOT ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.2.110 (talk • contribs).

Personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia, and I insist that you remain civil. If you continue to berate other editors, you will be subject to a block. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how the vast majority of his contributions seem to be on this page, I think it's safe to assume (it's too late to assume good faith) that he's just a Internet troll. Just ignore him and if he gets too abusive seek admin action.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, FBI - This guy needs to be watched ! He hates America and protects the Iranian Killers of American GI's. It was Iran that killed our Soldiers in SA. --- (note: Digifant added the i in Soldiers.--------^)

Jeez, everyone, calm down. Chill. The ten shades of paranoid you have to be to think someone named "Mr. Leroy" is using wikipedia (wikipedia, for christmuhammallayaweh's sake! [just in case]) to further his "radical agenda" aside, isn't this the wrong page to do it on, hypothetically speaking? Maybe he got his facts wrong or is a troll (most likely the latter).

Lots of people internationally hate America, not just radical Muslims. It's rich, it's snooty, it's arrogant, it's America's image abroad. So what? If the FBI tracked and watched everyone that hated America, they'd be awfully busy not protecting its citizens, eh?

Unfortunately, humans aren't as simple as a user profile. Being interested in something doesn't mean you support or accept it, i.e. scholars on the history of the guillotine or Stalin. The Middle East has a history, everything does. It's an amazing culture, but in the 20th century some bad apples have spoiled the barrel (like, big-time acidic smallpox poisoned the barrel).

Basically, what I mean is that if you know a different viewpoint on a topic, feel free to express it, but don't change the content of another section. Regards, Digifant 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia isn't respected as an academic resource. This guy that keeps yelling and screaming about Israel and Jews and hating America is polluting the page. I think we all need to just go to relevant facts, and if they don't come from respectable sources, don't use them. For example, I deleted the line that said that the former embassy has been used to "honor and recruit suicide bombers." The one and only source was a Guardian article, which in itself contained several ambiguities and qualifications. The original statement implied that this was state-supported or even a common occurrence. Even the article said that it has been argued that this one small group was using the embassy as a site to gather signatures, petition-style, as a symbolic act against Israel, rather than to actually recruit suicide bombers. There's enough BS out there for us to write whatever the heck we want to make our own perspectives appear legitimate. Wikipedia will just degenerate into an O'Reilly Factor blog if we aren't diligent.

The article comes from a reliable source (The Guardian) and is very clear about this issue: Mohammad Samadi, a spokesman for the group, told the Guardian that striking at Israel was the priority of his recruitment drive. "The first target is Israel. For us, that is the battlefield," he said. "All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian. It's our land and they are in the wrong place. It's their duty to pay attention to safety of their own families and move them away from the battlefield," he said. Mr Samadi's group was participating in a recruitment fair for "martyrdom seekers" being held in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran. Several hundred volunteers have signed up for missions in the past few days.

Your interpretation as "as a site to gather signatures" is rather sympathetic.

-- Gabi S. (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, sympathetic? It's not my interpretation. It's in the article. Did you read it? I did. All of it, not just what I wanted to read. Secondly, The Guardian isn't a reliable source. It's not an academic source. Newspaper articles aren't academic because they're not peer-reviewed. You're just making Wikipedia into a contested site of ideological diatribe when you use these kinds of tactics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.177.212 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the article, and added the relevant information back to the article, accurately as described in the Guardian article, with attribution to The Guardian (which is regarded as a reliable source for news, not for scientific information). I think that specification of the activities performed in the US embassy today are highly relevant to the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the way it's now written because it's attributed to an article, rather than written as a blanket statement. This way people can read the article themselves and decided where they stand on it. The way it was written before it implied that the statement was fact, that there was no question about it, which would be erroneous given that it was one article, which, as I stated before, itself contained ambiguities and qualifications regarding the veracity of the issues being "reported." I commend you on re-reading the article. I don't know what your level of experience is with publications or with academia, but it appears that you are unaware that newspaper articles and other sources that aren't peer-reviewed are not considered reliable sources. In the future, you may want to look for academic journal articles and books from university presses when you're looking for sources. I'm a political scientist, and I'm very well-acquainted with the conventions of source assessment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.198.169 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can contribute a great deal of information; did you consider setting up a user ID here? -- Gabi S. (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research?

The article currently contains a section titled "News that was playing on AFN radio, and a speech I(JWH) recorded of Jimmy Carter on January 20, 1981 at Rhein-Main Air Base Germany" Based on the article history and on the use of the first person in the title of this section, it seems that at least the part containing a few snippets of Carter's speech is original research by User: Elbarto99. Furthermore, it would seem likely that some clearer rendition of Carter's speech might be available from another source. Any thoughts?--Sp. Furius Fusus 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the aforementioned material.--Sp. Furius 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's something missing

Reading the article today for the first time - there's obviously a discontinuity (a missing chunk):

"The Shah's regime fell in the Iranian revolution of 1978-79 and the Shah left the country in January 1979.[4][5][6]

The Carter administration attempted to mitigate the damage by finding a new relationship with the de facto Iranian government. **** The American embassy in Tehran vigorously opposed the United States granting his request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States. However, after pressure from Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and other political figures in the US, the Carter administration decided to grant the Shah's request. [7]"

Right where I've inserted four stars (****) above, there is obviously something missing.

CraigWyllie 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a deletion, actually (and those do happen from time to time), but an awkward insertion needing some rewording. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chase Manhattan Bank

I noticed the role of Chase Manhattan Bank has been widely ignored in this article. I added a section and please contrbute to this section. There are numerous sources on the internet and libraries pointing to this subject. Thank you. Mohseng 16:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Actually I did not know how to add a section so I wrote it in the section "planning". Please let me know how you add a section!!

Demeaning?

The article says:

In the days before Reagan took office, Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib opened fruitful, but demeaning, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.

What is the explanation of demeaning in this context? Demeaning to whom? What circumstance made it demeaning? Pgrote 08:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed CIA torture reference

The text at the link does not support the statement in the article. "A few months ago, I received some clippings of interviews with a former Federal Intelligence agency official. That operative, Jesse Leaf, had been involved with the agency’s activities in Iran, and well into the stories Mr. Leaf made some damning accusations. He said that the C.I.A. sent an operative to teach interrogation methods to SAVAK, the Shah’s secret police, that the training included instructions in torture, and the techniques were copied from the Nazis. Reading through the clippings, I could think of several reasons why the accusations had not been featured prominently. Mr. Leaf could not, or did not, supply the name of the instructor, his victims would be hard to locate; and the testimony from opponents of the Shah would be suspect."Awotter 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?

Under the Civilian Hostages section it refers to... Electronic Data Systems employees Paul Chiapparone and Bill Gaylord rescued by Ross Perot-funded operation (see Arthur D. Simons) in 1979.

This happened in February of 1979 (many months before the embassy was stormed) and has nothing to do with this particular article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.106 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Incoherent" Rescue attempts section

I rewrote the section and hope everyone finds it coherent now. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

why there aren't any mention to found documents in US legation

there isn't any reference or mention to documents that Iranian students found in US legation.between those documents were some doc showed US wasreason of many terrors and coups and also had hand in iran's problems--Hassanmirabi (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

the article has a link to the documents and text saying:
Revolutionary teams displayed secret documents taken from the embassy, sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding,[36] to buttress their claim that "the Great Satan" (the U.S.) was trying to destabilize the new regime, and that Iranian moderates were in league with the U.S.
I've added a sentence about how the documents were published. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

editing

I readded the sentence "The crisis has been described as an entanglement of "vengeance and mutual incomprehension" to give the lead more context. I also changed back to "radical" the adjective for pro-hostage taking persons or groups that had been changed to "revolutionary". All the supporters of the revolution were revolutionaries, But some were more radical than others, an should be distinguished by calling them radicals. I also replaced Iranian with Islamist. There were many student groups and the Islamists were at odds with the leftist groups. All were Iranian of course. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Radical is editorializing unless every one considers them that.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, we don't characterize the Shah as extravagant American puppet who crushed political dissent even though many might regard him this way. The view is attributed.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Radical is perfectly legitimate word, used by scholars. For example: ".... The hostage crisis set the stage for this development. Radical activists such as Behzad Nabavi, who led the Iranian delegation negotiating an end to the hostage affair .... " (Reinventing Khomeini : The Struggle for Reform in Iran, by Daniel Brumberg, University of Chicago Press, 2001 p.118)

Abrahamian also refers to "radical populists" of Khomeini's forces.

and in this case it is also very useful. The people we are talking about were not conservative fundamentalists, they were not leftists in the usual sense of the word. They were Islamist radicals. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Did they call themselves radicals? The word would have to have broad usage inside and outside Western academia.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you distinguish them from all the other Iranians who supported the revolution and called themselves "revolutionaries", but did not support keeping and trying the hostages? Bani Sadr, Mehdi Bazargan? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The same way one would distinguish any other group of people who differ on an issue, by simply noting their support or opposition. For example, many view Adolf Hitler as radical, but his actions are allowed to speak for themselves and the reader is allowed to make their own judgement. It's a simple neutral point of view.--99.137.127.111 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

more editing dispute - Mosaddegh

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran_hostage_crisis&diff=281322039&oldid=281203140

This article is about the hostage taking and it should avoid tangents on side issues dear though they may be to the hearts of some editors. I'd like to point out that though legendary Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh may have been democratically elected (or not-so-democratically elected), the student hostage takers were supporters of Khomeini and of the principle of velayat-e faqih. They were not democrats and so Mosadegh's democratic election - while sacred to many anti-imperialists - is not-so-relevent here, even misleading.

For example: Mosaddeq is legendary for having launched the 1951 campaign to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, but he was a "secular humanist" and was, for example,

"reluctant to appoint Mahdi Bazargan as minister of education, suspecting that Bazargan would bring too much religion into the schools. What is more, a small group of religious fanatics known as the Fedayan-e Islam tried to assassinate Mosaddeq and wounded Hosayn Fatemi, his foreign minister." (Khomeinism : Essays on the Islamic Republic by Ervand Abrahamian, University of California Press, c1993., p.105)

The Islamic Republic has tried to ignore Mosaddeq as much as possible allocating only two pages to him in secondary school textbooks" (many fewer pages than lesser historical figures)

"the mass media elevate Ayatollah [Abdul-Qasem] Kashani as the real leader of the oil nationalization campaign, depicting Mosaddeq as merely the ayatollah's hanger-on."

(This is despite the fact that Kashani came out against Mosaddeq by mid-1953 and

"told a foreign correspondent that Mossaddeq had fallen because he had forgotten that the shah enjoyed extensive popular support. A month later, he went even further and declared that Mosaddeq deserved to be executed because he had committed the ultimate offense: rebelling against the shah, `betraying` the country, and repeatedly violating the sacred law." [Cited by Y. Richard, `Ayatollah Kashani: Precursor of the Islamic Republic?` in Religion and Politics in Iran, ed. N. Keddie, (Yale University Press, 1983)] (Khomeinism p.109)

BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

I know this is a sensative issue but I propose changing "democratically elected" to "anti-imperialist" or "nationalist" or perhaps "who nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company". Those three descriptors are more in line with what the Islamist regime was interested in. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More analysts needed

In America, it is thought by some political analysts to be the primary reason for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the November 1980 presidential election.

Despite the title of the accompanying CBS News citation, it doesn't really support this statement. The article says that the hostage crisis helped Reagan, that it "loomed large" in Carter's defeat, but that the economy was "no less daunting". It would be good to find a 2nd citation that is less equivocal. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

How about:

In America, it is thought by some political analysts to be a major reason for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the November 1980 presidential election.

?--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Small discrepancy

Under 444 days hostage -> Hostage conditions:

"One more hostage, Richard Queen, was released in July 1980 after he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis."

Under Richard I. Queen released:

"On July 11. 1980, 28-year-old Vice Consul Richard I. Queen, who had been captured and held hostage, was released after becoming seriously ill. He was later diagnosed with multiple sclerosis."

The article on Richard Queen states that he was diagnosed after his release. Any idea which is correct? 69.137.130.101 (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The later is correct and I've changed it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions etc.

• Changed Iran Hostage Crisis back to Iranian Hostage Crisis, which seems to be much more popular on Google.--BoogaLouie (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted this edit "(Iranian government was involved in the crisis, they did not condemn the takeover nor did they conduct a raid or negotiate for the release)"

Actually the government of Iran was not in charge of the embassy after takeover. Bani Sadr wanted the hostages released and one release plan was for the hostages to be turned over the Iranian government because they would then release them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have added many citations from the book Guests of the Ayatollah as it is probably the newest book on the crisis and has many accounts taken from interviews of the hostages and other principles in the crisis. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1953 Coup

The arguement over the 1953 Iranian coup d'état has spill over onto this article.

Kurdo777 has made these edits

... which introduce a lot of detail on periferal subjects:
The invasion was allegedly in fear that Reza Shah was about to align his petroleum-rich country with Nazi Germany during the war: However, Reza Shah's earlier Declaration of Neutrality and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany, was the strongest motive for the allied invasion of Iran. Because of its importance in the allied victory, Iran was subsequently called "The Bridge of Victory" by Winston Churchill.

... along with a lot of repetition of the word democratic:

• 1953 coup against a democratically-elected nationalist Iranian government
• In 1953, the British and U.S. spy agencies deposed the democratically-elected government of Mossadegh in a military coup d'état
• The anti-democratic coup d’état was a "a critical event ...

... even the issue of a democratically-elected government being overthrown is of questionable relevance. The Students taking the hostages were "followers of the Imam's line", i.e. they believed in theocratic rule of Islamic jurists, not democratic rule. Mossadegh, the overthrown prime minister of 1953, is a non-entity in the Islamic revolution's historical pantheon. See here.

I am involved in the dispute over the 1953 Iranian coup d'état article so I won't revert the edits, but let the record show there is not a consensus on this issue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

World Reaction to the Hostage Taking

It would be great to have a section on the reaction of world governments to the hostage crisis. It has always baffled me how any civilized government could carry on diplomatic relations with a government involved in the take over of a foreign embassy and its staff. Some exposition of the various reactions would be very helpful.