By Assal Rad, Newsweek: November 4, 1979, defined how an entire generation of Americans viewed Iran. Forty years later, images of Iranian students breaching the U.S. Embassy walls and taking Americans hostage in Tehran continue to frame American sensibilities on Iran through U.S. foreign policy. In fact, the hostage crisis was such a consequential moment for the United States that it seeped into American popular culture, as a constant reminder of Iran's transgression.
I was born in the United States after the hostage crisis, to Iranian parents, and was not old enough to experience its tumult first-hand. However, as an American adolescent years after the crisis had come and gone, I saw how those scars materialized in a game of Taboo with friends. The rules of Taboo are simple: have your team guess the word at the top of a card by describing it without using the associated words listed on the card. On my turn, I flipped the card, which read "hostage" in pink, and was stunned when I saw "Iran" listed as one of the taboo words. It took me a moment to make the connection, but I realized the implications resulted from that fateful day in November 1979.
Without question, taking hostages, especially people who work at an embassy, is a deplorable act, as is overthrowing a sovereign nation's government and installing a dictator. Of course, I am referring to the role of the United States in Iran's 1953 coup, which ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and reinstated an authoritarian king. While the legacy of the hostage crisis still colors American views of Iran, the legacy of the coup does the same for Iranians. Moreover, the overthrow itself played a direct hand in the events of November 1979, especially since the coup was launched from the U.S. Embassy 26 years earlier. Understanding these connections and the context of the hostage crisis may not erase old wounds, but it may help us to move forward and institute more prudent policies.
A Second Coup?
The role of the CIA in Iran's 1953 coup has been well documented, but the significance of the coup goes beyond U.S.-Iran relations. In many ways, the lesson of 1953 for U.S. policy makers was that unfavorable foreign governments could simply be replaced with dictators more palatable to American interests. As such, 1953 was used as a model to carry out similar CIA led coups in other countries—for instance, in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973). The efficacy of these policies are questionable at best and have led to blowback in many cases.
The coup in Iran and the ensuing crackdown by the Shah were one factor among many complex reasons that facilitated the Iranian people's revolutionary movement. By 1979, when the revolution had successfully toppled the monarchy, the role of the U.S. in the coup was well-known among Iranians. Although the Shah continued to portray the coup as a people's revolution against Mossadegh, he wrote in his Answer to History after the revolution, "I had already made contingency plans with the help of my American friends, who in those days included Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA."
Given the history of U.S. interventions and Iran's experience of the coup, it comes as no surprise that in late 1979, when the Shah was admitted into the United States for medical treatment, Iranians feared a repeat of 1953. Again, the Shah himself was cognizant of the connection, and noted in Answer to History that the embassy in Iran was taken just two weeks after he entered the United States.
It is crucial to our understanding of today's climate to know the context of those events, although in no way does it excuse the actions of the Iranian students who seized the embassy and its staff. Seen through Iranians' eyes as an act of independence, the embassy takeover was meant to prevent what they believed was a likely occurrence: a second coup that would again install the Shah. Preeminent historian of modern Iran Ervand Abrahamian aptly posits in his study of the 1953 coup that "much of the public was convinced that the CIA was capable and willing to do so. Thus began the famous 444-day American hostage crisis. Americans who knew little of the events of 1953 were mystified; Iranians were not."
40 Years of Distrust
Since the revolution of 1979, the Islamic Republic has used the specter of the coup as but one reminder of the injustices imposed upon the country by the United States, in much the same way the U.S. uses the hostage crisis to inform American views of Iran. Prior to 1953, Iranians saw the U.S. as a symbol of freedom, and their animosity was reserved for Britain and Russia for their respective colonial encroachment over Iran. After 1953, however, Iranians have understandably had difficulty trusting U.S. officials, though their view of American people remains positive.
Despite this tragic history, Iranians and Americans took a chance again with the Iran nuclear deal, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, President Donald Trump's decision to abrogate the agreement showed Iranians once again why the United States could not be trusted. The deal represented many things: a standard for successful international cooperation, a model for nuclear non-proliferation and an example of how negotiations can work even between adversaries.
But for Iranians and Americans, it was an opportunity to shed the mutual baggage of the past and forge a new relationship that looked to the future. These may sound like lofty dreams, or the hopes of an Iranian-American bound inextricably to the entangled history of these two countries, but I wonder how a game of Taboo would play today if I flipped the card for "diplomacy." There is still hope for concord and peace as long as we acknowledge mutual grievances, return to a path of compromise and remember that the choice between diplomacy and enmity is ours.
First published in Newsweek.
Assal Rad is a research fellow at the National Iranian American Council. She received her Ph.D. in history at the University of California, Irvine. Follow her on Twitter @assalrad.
"However, President Donald Trump's decision to abrogate the agreement showed Iranians once again why the United States could not be trusted." Assal Rad
Assal jaan,
Keeping in mind that Iran is on the US' list of sponsors of terrorism, I don't think Americans give a hoot whether a bunch of hostage-taking terrorists ruling Iran trust them or not.
Also, the first hostage-taking occurred 40 years ago. Why do you think the regime hasn't stopped this dangerous practice even today?
Assal jaan,
With a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern History under your belt and a job at a prestigious organization filled with scholars of all sorts, do you think you could tell me what your position is on the Islamic Republic's meddling in the affairs of the countries in the Middle East. I'm asking you because you seem to know a lot about America's history of interference in the entire world. And America is not even your expertise.
"Prior to 1953, Iranians saw the U.S. as a symbol of freedom, and their animosity was reserved for Britain and Russia for their respective colonial encroachment over Iran. After 1953, however, Iranians have understandably had difficulty trusting U.S. officials, though their view of American people remains positive." Assal Rad
Dear Assal,
This one made me laugh. You seem to have difficulty understanding Americans. What percentage of the population in the US can find a third-world state like Iran on the map of the world? What percentage of those who can actually find Iran on the map of the world care what kind of views Iranians have of Americans?
The writer has no clue about sociio- politic context of Iran during peak of cold war in 1953. No knowledge of Iran's history and the fact that northern part of Iran was occupied by Russian army 7 years prior to 1953.The role of Pishewari and his democrat party, with close ties to Soviet Union, has been ignored in this blog.
Like many other westerners, the writer has been brainwashed by western media. Ervand Abrahamian's book has been written with great deal of bias against monarchy. Abrahamian also had been minimized the role of Tudeh communist party and it's increasingly daily influence in Iran. Tudeh party with 20,000 members, according to CIA estimate, was the strongest communist party in the Middle East. All the Tudeh publications points out it's day by day influence among workers.
If it was not for uprising of our patriatic people and U.S deligent efforts to back them, Iranians would have been speaking Russian right now and this writer would have been written her blog from Cuba, NOT America.
MULLAHS HAVE GOT TO GO
FYI.
In 1956, Uprising of the Hungerian people was not supported by U.S. Like Obama who didn't support Iran's democratic movement in 2009.
US inaction still leaves a big stigma in American history. Russian army invaded Hungeria and the head of revolution was arrested and executed consequently. America did NOT do anyting. Hungerians never forget it as off this writing.
These may sound like lofty dreams,..." Assal Rod
Nope! They certainly sound like the dumbest dreams by a confused mind of a despicable individual who sees nothing wrong with the past forty years of sufferings by tens of millions of Iranians.
Trita "khandaniha" Parsi!
Terrible writing by your new intern Asal Joon!
Only if Asal Joon's written skills were half as good as Sahar Joon's oral skills..... Sanctions on Ali kahmenei and javad zarif would be lifted and you'll be laughing and dancing baba karam all the way to the bank!!
:)))
Obama was sympathetic toward criminal because they let the black hostages free and kept the white ones. Racical hate from white people made Obama allow N.I.A.C members to walk freely in and out of white house. As you see in the above picture Obama is cheerleading N.I.A.C members in the white house. But N.i.A.C members are so stupid to understand the founders of America such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson.. Adams... they were all white. White people are founders of modern world, NOT blacks. Similarly Monarch (shah) such as Jamsheed, Cyrus the Great ...etc were the founders of Persia, NOT Mullahs.