Talk:Iran hostage crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Identifying Ahmadinejad in the picture[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) .

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 (talkcontribs) .

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 (talkcontribs) .

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 !

Hey look another neo-republican moron thinking anyone that doesn't agree with his worldview is "biased". Stop watching faux-news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See also links[edit]

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. 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. 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?[edit]

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

Anecdotal 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)
Bruce Laingen (as his stub of a Wiki page notes) had previously been US Ambassador to Malta. He was appointed Head of Mission to Tehran, without the rank of Ambassador. This avoided the necessity of seeking agrément from the Iranian Foreign Ministry, something which might have had political and diplomatic implications (in Tehran at least). I note that agrément is not defined on a Wikipedia page, and not very well defined elsewhere on the Internet. It's the exchange of notes required before an ambassador can proceed to a new post. The story of the refusal or annulment of agrément by the Venezuela government to Larry Palmer in 2010 shows the process. Punktlich2 (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not actually 444 days?[edit]

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 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia Dwyer - 53rd hostage?[edit]

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?

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


While the following cannot (because as far as I know it has never appeared in unclassified/uncontrolled publications) be included in the main page, there is a side history of near-hostages:

  • Barbara Lynn Schell, Economic/Commercial Officer who left Tehran on transfer shortly before the hostage-taking (Washington Post obituary)
  • Andrew Sens, Economic Commercial Officer (left on leave a few days before)
  • (name illegible), Economic Commercial Officer (left on leave a few days before)
  • Andrew Grossman, Regional Resources Officer (left on leave with Lilian Johnson Nov. 4, 1979; Ms Johson was turned back at the Mehrabad Airport because she was working in Tehran on TDY and the Embassy had never reported her to the Foreign Ministry as diplomatic staff and her visa had expired. (State Department policy, since an incident in Benin around that time, dictates that all such staff should be declared to foreign ministries and obtain diplomatic credentials).

In addition to known escapees on and after Nov. 4, it can be assumed there are others whose stories, like the foregoing, never came to light. There was at the time, and for all I know still is, a substantial trade in false documents and entry/exit stamps between and among espionage agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punktlich2 (talkcontribs) 11:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious how you know this ! (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

October surprise conspiracy[edit]

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)

Whatever one thinks of the facts, the controversy should be mentioned, analogous to mentions in the Kennedy article and the Kennedy assassination article. (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


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

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 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Long term U.S. sanctions against Iran not mentioned[edit]

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".

There's nothing false about it. The Soviet weapons used by Libya during one of their wars against Chad were matched with those by Palestinian terrorists, and Stasi files captured after the reunification of Germany prove Libya's involvement as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

How could this be true?[edit]

  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 (talkcontribs) .

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) 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 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Carter as emmissary[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) .

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 (talkcontribs) .

  • 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)

No doubt the Iranians had their own motivations for timing the release as they did. How could it have flowed from the virtues of Reagan, presuming that he had not yet taken any actions? (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Two of them wanted to target the Soviet embassy[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs).

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.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 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 also lies about history a lot) 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 (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 (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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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!!


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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Incoherent" Rescue attempts section[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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.-- (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.-- (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.-- (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.-- (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

more editing dispute - Mosaddegh[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? (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.[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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.[1]

... 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[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent Information[edit]

This article variously says that the hostages were released 20 minutes and 6 minutes after Reagan's inauguration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada belligerent[edit]

If you include Canada as a belligerent, then you would have to include every other country that got involved - on both sides of the issue. This was between United States and Iran. Plain and simple. Slightsmile (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Were there other countries that had as big of impacts on this conflict? --PlasmaTwa2 21:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It's true Canada played a major role but was not a belligerent as such. As to your question. The Soviet government indicated that the USSR would intervene militarily if the United States tried to attack Iran per Americans' sentiment at the time ‑ WWIII. Does Iraq's military invasion of Iran that same year with American support count? While not as much as the Canadian caper, other countries such as France shuttled American diplomates between their Embassies. So let's see so far it's Canada, USSR, Iraq, France and others. Countries weighed in, some more than others but it was between United States and Iran. Slightsmile (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 28 April 2011[edit]

For thirty years I have been frustrated by the persistence of the misdescriptions of the position I held in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the position held by Ann Swift, my deputy. For the record, I was the Counselor for Political Affairs from February 1979 until the November 4 seizure of embassy. (Additionally, following the departure of Ambassador William H. Sullivan in mid-April 1979 I was also designated the Acting Deputy Chief of Mission.) Ann Swift was my deputy -- i.e., the Deputy Head of the Political Section, not the head of the section. She was, however, the most senior ranking political officer in the embassy at the time of the takeover. I was at the Iranian Foreign Ministry with our Charge d'Affaires, Bruce Laingen, the morning the attack on the embassy compound began, ironically enough accompanying him when in fact Ann was supposed to have done so (she had been out of town with friends over the weekend, they had car trouble while returning and thus she was late in arriving at the embassy for work that morning). I am not sure what the origin of the "senior political officer" description usually associated with my name was but it began to appear in US and other media fairly soon after the embassy takeover. It is not a title or position description used by the the State Department. If you wish verification for the accuracy of what I have written above, I suggest you check with Bruce Laingen [information redacted]. (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We are not big on using primary sources, sorry. — Bility (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Was the military intervention purely because of the violation of diplomat immunity or were there other (cold war) reasons? Like, were there even sounds of fear about communism or Soviet (anti-American) involvement? I know the revolution was islamic, but the pure question/debate at the time about communist threats seems important to me if the question/debate was there.

The 1953 coup seems to have a lot of disagreement as to what the US motivations were. They didn't have much oil shares in Iran until after the coup. So why protect oil interests, when they're hardly there? Fears of communists might be the answer. However, it was known that the communist party wasn't that strong.

Is there a historical discussion like this about the 1979 revolution as well? (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reagan campaign's secret negotiations[edit]

Why is there no mention in this article of the alleged secret negotiations between the Reagan campaign and the Iranian government to ensure that the hostages would not be released prior to the election? (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How rare is it for a foreign embassy to be attacked?[edit]

How often has this happened, in modern history? Was this a very rare event? No so rare? With the attacking of the British Embassy in Teheran this week (seemingly led by the Basij), it begs the question if there's something odd about how Iran treats foreign embassies. This might be worth mentioning in the article, or linking to a WP article on "seizures of foreign embassies" (or whatever, if it exists). Benefac (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 the American Embassy in Athens was attacked by a missile causing no injuries [2]. Ggia (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bowden book[edit]

This page is only based on the Guests of the Ayatollah book of Mark Bowden .The book itself is full of historical inaccuracies and mistakes . Other sources should also be quoted particularly if they come from the Iranian side presenting an alternate view of the event. Massoumeh Ebtekar's Takeover in Tehran is a unique source which is deliberately omitted in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:55, December 13, 2012

The book by Massoumeh Ebtekar and Fred A. Reed, Takeover in Tehran: the inside story of the 1979 U.S. Embassy capture ISBN 0-88922-443-9, is one-sided and propagandistic. It fell flat upon being introduced in 2000, and for good reason. Ebtekar monotonously affirms the correctness of the 1979 hostage taking in which she played a crucial role, even from the supposed objectivity of 20 years later. She says nothing about how Iran law made a serious felony of taking hostages, or of how international diplomatic law was ignored by the militants and students. She says nothing of the disastrous results regarding world opinion against Iran. She is a politician in Iran and cannot be held as unbiased. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Caper details[edit]

There has been some IP edit warring over the flight details of the six Americans who escaped via the Canadian embassy in what became known as the Canadian Caper. The warring is over the date, the air carrier and the destination cities. Of course, the main article about the caper should be where the most details are found, but here we can give a brief summary. This is what the sources say:

  • Tony Mendez wrote in "CIA Goes Hollywood – A Classic Case of Deception" that Swissair was chosen for its reputation for regularity. The tickets were for the destination of Zurich, Switzerland, boarding at 7:30 am on Monday, January 28, 1980.
    • Mendez, Antonio J. (2004). "CIA Goes Hollywood – A Classic Case of Deception". In Sharad Chauhan. Inside CIA: Lessons in Intelligence. APH Publishing. pp. 364–380. ISBN 8176486604. 
  • Tim Weiner writes in Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, page 431, that the flight was Swissair to Zurich on Monday.
  • Jean Pelletier in 1981's The Canadian Caper wrote that it was Sunday, January 27, and that the "destination [was] Frankfurt, West Germany, with a stopover in Zurich." (Page 210). The Swissair tickets were the primary ones, with various backup tickets purchased on KLM, British Airways, and Air France.
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia gives this version: "On January 27, 1980, Canada's American guests navigated their way nervously through the airport and onto an early morning flight to Frankfurt."
  • Mark Kearney and Randy Ray write in Whatever Happened To.?: Catching Up With Canadian Icons, page 45, that the flight was to Frankfurt on Monday, January 28.
  • Dr Robert Wright, Trent University historian, writes in Our Man in Tehran, page 371, that the flight was Swissair #363 from Tehran to Zurich on Monday, January 28. Pat Taylor, the wife of Canadian diplomat Kenneth D. Taylor, flew out alone on Sunday, "one day ahead of her husband and the American diplomats". Multiple tickets were purchased as a contingency plan, on British Airways and Air France, for flights leaving later on Monday.
  • In May 1980, the New Yorker magazine printed a story saying that the Swissair flight was on January 28, flying from Tehran to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and then to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, USA. Of course, this version misses the Zurich connection; Swissair does not fly directly to American air bases. In Argo, page 309, Mendez says the six transferred in a van from a secret mountain hideaway near Zurich to Ramstein AFB to make the Atlantic crossing in an American plane. He does not name the landing site in North America.

In trying to balance the above sources, it is clear that Swissair was really the carrier, and Monday is the day according to the most closely involved people. Frankfurt appears to be either wrong or a subterfuge; Zurich was where the six got off the plane. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Yea so what about the six rescued hostages and the fake movie scoop, why is it not in the article. Tony Mendez' article mentions something but very sketchy. It seems to have really happened in some way though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Canada as a belligerent[edit]

Should Canada be listed under the belligerents section of the infobox? Listing it there would seem to imply that Canada had a major part in the events leading up to the hostage taking, but the article doesn't say anything along those lines. One could argue that because of the Canadian Caper, Canada should be listed, but this article isn't about that. By the same logic, we should include Britain and Sweden, because the American diplomats also went to their embassies. (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good point and that Canada should not be listed there. All that seems to be known is that Canadian embassy staff discreetly gave shelter to some (non-military) Americans, and helped them to communicate with their home land. Hardly belligerent. Had the sheltered Americans stayed for the purpose of conducting clandestine operations against Iran (e.g. help prepare the subsequent embassy rescue), then it might have been different. But Canadian Caper took place a half year prior to the rescue attempt. Lklundin (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure after I realized that Canada also issued passports to the Americans. I guess a search could be made for other, similar cases. How would another country, like the USA, react if some wanted Iranians escaped the US with passports issued/forged by a third country? 'Harbouring terrorists' could be a good enough casus belli for a belligerent country. Lklundin (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are there "belligerents" listed at all? This wasn't a war. john k (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Is there any reason we would not want the Iran Hostage Crisis to have its own category? KConWiki (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing any rationale not to, I am going to create Category:Iran hostage crisis and start adding articles to it. KConWiki (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

President Carter demanded use of Helo's not intended for sandy conditions[edit]

It was my understanding that the failed rescue missions were due to Pres Carter demanding the use of standard carrier based Sea Stallions. He was advised that sand would ground these helo's, and that a viable alternative was available that were designed to withstand sand, yet he insisted on using the aircraft specifically not designed for the conditions they were to be used in. Yes, there was an unexpected sandstorm, but there would also be a sandstorm upon landing, too.Raisinpie (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see your sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Binksternet, a bitter brew you. Do tell the purpose of the "Talk" page? Perhaps some other folks out there have the source at hand, or can readily find it. Trouble with screw-ups by Commander in Chief's is that military people are want to have their name published criticizing him. Pres. Carter has writen a few forthright books about his life, maybe there is a reference there?Raisinpie (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is a fishing expedition then I'm out. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Guess will have to settle for Joint Chiefs report on the incident. I managed to find a de-classified version using a search engine. Yep, Carter went with primitive NVG equipped mine-layers. Try NVG's flying in a sandstorm some time and see where you end upRaisinpie (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You misrepresented the report with your version of it. I reverted your text. If you want to add something to the article, summarize the sources you find rather than say whatever it is that you want to say. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
' go fishing elsewhere, please. That was the main point of the report. Wrong avionics on helo's = wrong helo'sRaisinpie (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There were a lot of problems listed in the report, including a terrible lack of weather data, especially none getting to the crews who could have lifted up above it if warned ahead of time. It's a very long report, and you cannot draw just one conclusion from it. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

<OPSECRaisinpie (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


>> Q&A: Iran's hostage taker-turned-reformist(Lihaas (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).

US declassified documents link is dead: anyone want to follow up on it?[edit]

Under External links > Declassified documents > United States, the OSD & Joint Staff FOIA Center, Iran Hostage Crisis link is dead. On the Wayback Machine I found it was up and reasonably useful in April 2015, but since ~May 2015 it's been down. The current Reading Room ( seems to have documents but without a useful interface. The previous one had a link to which was not as pretty but more user-friendly (see archive).

I'll put in the archived page, but if someone wants to nag the US government to disclose the link to the replacement page or to make one if it doesn't exist, there are ways of contacting them at and come to think of it, I had to stop searching, so someone else might be able to find the new Iran Hostage Crisis page.

I know this is a small part of this page, but I don't like my government making information harder to get at! Also, it makes it more difficult to improve the page.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of working on it myself. Thanks in advance if you can work on this! — Geekdiva (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wayback link works for me: . - Location (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-wording to eliminate confusion-- make statement more accurate[edit]

Beginning of article reads: "...National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed with his staff about a possible American invasion of Iran by using Turkish bases and territory if the Soviets would decide to repeat Afghanistan scenario in Iran, this plan did not materialize." Change "would" to "were to". As it's now written, it makes it sound like an American invasion was conceived as a collaboration with an invasion by the USSR. (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Gee Dubya

Link to or mention of ensuing case at International Court of Justice[edit]

Never edited any wikipedia entry before so I don't want to mess things up, but it appears to me that there should be mention - if not a direct link - to the ensuing Tehran hostages case at the International Court of Justice. There is already a wikipedia entry on it:


All that is needed is a link, a mention (e.g. in the Aftermath section).

Best, A concerned lawyer with absolutely no skills in entry editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is linked in the "See also" section, but more context could be given in the body of the article. - Location (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


Why on earth is the entire section on negotiations a link to another article? There ought to be, you know, a few paragraphs about it? john k (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iran hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reality check[edit]

Is this omission due to sheer, startling ignorance? Or does Wikipedia prefer to evade this crucial fact because it would destroy the Iranian propaganda narrative by revealing the hostage-takers's true goal: Namely, to sabotage U.S.-Iran relations and purge "moderates" in the provisional government (meaning both genuine moderates and anyone that had engaged in even routine interaction with U.S. officials, Bazargan included)?

Iran had long been America's closest ally in the Middle East, and there was nearly universal consensus prior to the embassy seizure that no possible successor to the Shah could be more radical than Arab regimes such as Iraq and Libya, with which the U.S. still did business. The U.S. did not drop Iran like a stone after February 1979, but every other word on this page seems to be dripping with vague conspiracism, hinting that perhaps the students were right to raid the "den of spies" after all! In reality, far from plotting another Mossadegh, many in the Carter administration (particularly in the State Department, where there was "doctrinal dislike" of the Shah) were overtly sympathetic to the Iranian revolutionaries: See, for example, U.S. ambassador to the UN Andrew Young, who thought Khomeini would be remembered as a saint, and U.S. ambassador to Iran William Sullivan, who hailed the Ayatollah as "a Gandhi-like figure." (Richard Falk's belief that the revolutionaries were "uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals" who "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country" was not unique, but rather the International Left's standard line, hence why Iranian dissidents and the alt-right generally consider it axiomatic that the Shah's ouster was an American plot.)

Or at least the alt-righters I'm most familiar with. The alt-right being a fractious movement, others take a very different, pro-Iran stance—one I suspect few on the far Left would disagree with.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The American government has been appeasing Iran to a truly absurd degree for decades, having decided the country is uniquely immune to retaliation for its incessant provocations. (This is the unstated premise behind every claim that Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil" scuttled an earlier form of the "Grand Bargain" hoax—as if a regime that holds weekly "Death to America!" chants is so thin-skinned it can't handle one line of criticism in a single speech!) Yet this article does not lay out any of the negotiations over the release of the hostages, so there is no sense of just how humiliating Carter's concessions were in the eyes of the American people and the world. There is no mention of the fact that Carter leaked word that military action was off the table on November 6, dispatched avowed Khomeini admirers Ramsey Clark and William Miller as emissaries, and even "refused to sever diplomatic relations" until April 7 (during which time the Iranian embassy in Washington "helped plan the assassination of a former Iranian official"—Ali Akbar Tabatabaei—"in Bethesda, Maryland"). Instead, Wikipedia drones on about "American complicity" in the Shah's largely imaginary "atrocities," as if we did not undermine and humiliate our steadfast ally assiduously enough!

We are even reminded of America's later support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, although Wikipedia falls short of explicitly regurgitating the Iranian conspiracy theory that the U.S. somehow encouraged the Iraqi invasion. While Kinzer is doubtless correct to say "the dramatic change in American–Iranian relations, from allies to enemies, helped embolden" Saddam to invade Iran, Wikipedia neglects to mention the Carter administration's repeated attempts to forge an alliance with the mullahs against our common Cold War enemies—Iraq and the Soviet Union. While the full story may not yet be public (or at least accessible through Google Books snippets), recently declassified American documents (not to mention the Iraqi archives) have utterly decimated the "green-light" hoax (which is best understood as a cover for the real sins of the International Left in promoting the rise of Iran's brutal theocratic dictatorship). In fact, while the Carter administration does not seem to have had actionable intelligence on Iraq's September 1980 invasion, U.S. officials were aware of the potential threat posed by Iraq's military buildup and quickly picked up on their Iranian interlocutors's acute interest in American intelligence regarding Iraqi capabilities. According to Iran expert Mark J. Gasiorowski, the U.S. "'warned Iran's leaders of Iraqi invasion preparations and told them how they could monitor these preparations and thus take steps to counter them' ... it was the deliberate sabotage of U.S.-Iranian relations by those in Iran seeking to radicalize the revolution that 'prevented its leaders from heeding the U.S. warning and taking steps to deter the September 1980 invasion.'" (There is also evidence that Carter's decision to approve Operation Eagle Claw was motivated at least partly due to panic that as clashes along the Iran-Iraq border become more frequent throughout 1980, there was a chance the Iranians might believe their own propaganda about American collusion with Iraq and therefore execute the 52 Americans if a full-fledged war did break out.)

When I read this article, I feel as though I am stepping into an alternate universe. It may be one of the worst articles Wikipedia has produced on an event of such historical significance.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A user with nothing better to do has tried to delete the above comment per WP:NOTAFORUM. I will accept that as soon as the following conditions are met: 1.) The meeting between Brzezinski and Bazargan is mentioned along with the Shah's entrance to the U.S. as a proximate cause for the embassy seizure; 2.) There is some discussion of the actual negotiations, which are currently relegated to a separate (woefully incomplete) page, as well as a breakdown of important events like the U.S. severing relations on April 7 (several months into the crisis); and 3.) Kinzer's comments regarding the outbreak of the war with Iraq (as well as the commentary on the Reagan administration's later "tilt" toward Iraq) are balanced by Gasiorowski's analysis in The Iran-Iraq War: New International Perspectives. (We could also mention that Gasiorowski "attacks any suggestion that U.S. officials were instinctively hostile to the Islamic Republic" to balance bits such as "Supporters of the takeover stated that their motivation was fear of another American-backed coup against their popular revolution. They claimed that in 1953, the American Embassy had acted as a "den of spies" from which the coup was organized. Documents were later found in the embassy suggesting that some staff members had been working with American intelligence agencies.") Otherwise, this article is a POV mess, and my colorful explanation of why is relevant insofar as I identify concrete problems in need of resolve and sources that may be useful to others (or myself, if I dare attempt to rewrite this hopeless article at a later date.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iran hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Did Reagan do anything?[edit]

I was wondering if Reagan had any involvement in the hostages being released. It happened after he took office, but I don't know if there was anything that he actually did that caused the end of the crisis. (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iran hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)