Introduction
International relations are formed based on several countries’ mutual interests, exchange of knowledge, materials, services, culture, and other aspects. However, to make international relations functional and mutually beneficial, they should be accompanied by proper diplomatic interactions in which stakeholders can negotiate their perspectives, needs, and demands on fair terms. Like in any other sphere of human activity, in diplomacy, the general principles and actors’ competencies develop with experiences obtained from preceding events. For that matter, the mistakes made in the past or inefficiencies encountered effectively inform future decision-making and help perfect the legislature in a way that allows for preventing similar issues in the future. In such a manner, it is essential to research, evaluate, and analyze diplomacy crises to identify actors’ strengths and weaknesses, as well as the effectiveness of the solution, to adjust future practices accordingly.
The Overview of the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981
The Iran hostage crisis was an international dispute between the United States of America and Iran, in the course of which Iranian activists held 66 US citizens residing in Iran hostage as a manifestation of Iran’s protest against American intrusion into Iranian politics. The crisis lasted from 1979 to 1981; it started when “the embassy was stormed by student radicals and ended at the point where the United States attempted, and failed, to free the hostages by military force” (Banks, 2019, p. 1167). The USA claimed this situation was a disruption of international negotiating principles and a severe violation of diplomacy laws. In Iran, on the other hand, this act was perceived as a claim for liberating from the US influence.
Broad international issues served as a causing factor for the emergence of the crises under discussion. Indeed, the long-term attempts of US President Jimmy Carter to instill peace agreements in the East were not celebrated in Iran. In particular, as stated by Jensehaugen (2021), “by November 1979, President Jimmy Carter had worked intensely for an Arab-Israeli peace for almost three years,” having succeeded in “obtaining a separate Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty” (p. 596). Thus, the Iran hostage crisis resulted from the long-term disagreement of Iran’s political entities with the American foreign policy strategies in the region. Overall, the crisis triggered significant attention from the public of both countries, as well as the involvement of the international communities (Banks, 2019). The hostages were held for 444 consecutive days, during which the USA tried both diplomatic and military approaches to free them without sufficient success (Banks, 2019). Thus, it is essential to assess the approach to resolving the issue used by President Carter to identify
Evaluation of the US’ Approach to Resolving the Iran Hostage Crisis
Despite the availability of multiple pieces of evidence indicating that the resolution of the Iran conflict by the USA was unsuccessful and meant a failure of diplomatic principles on international relations, it is relevant to identify strong and weak aspects of the solution. The evaluation of the crisis will allow for detecting the drawbacks in the decision-making, thus informing efficient and corrected practices in the future. For that matter, the strengths and weaknesses of the decisions made by Jimmy Carter’s administration, as well as the extent to which diplomacy was used, will be further evaluated.
Strengths
The Iran hostage crisis was a significant international dispute that had a devastating effect on the public and, most importantly, on the establishment of the ability of US authorities to resolve conflicting issues peacefully and efficiently, Despite the negative implications of the event, it has several powerful features. The approach selected by the American authorities in response to the hostage crisis might be characterized by several significant strengths. In particular, Jimmy Carter maximized diplomatic efforts to involve the international community and international organizations in resolving the problem. According to Banks (2019),
Weaknesses
Given the overall adverse outcome of the crisis for the United States, the weaknesses of the selected resolution approach might be characterized by more weaknesses than strengths. One of the key features of the whole crisis, its continuous escalation, and its long duration is the drawback in the tactics of both actors in the dispute. Indeed, researchers identify that Iran and the USA were both reluctant to rely on international organizations, which might have helped de-escalate the conflict and help avoid losses on the international relations stage. Indeed, according to Banks (2019), despite “careful planning, the United States and Iran failed in one significant way: they did not fully bring the UN backstage and make them a full member of the team” (p. 9). Thus, the failure to involve international organizations effectively jeopardized American success in de-escalating the dispute at both its early stages and after the first attempts to resolve the issue failed. In such a manner, one might assume that the diplomatic methods were not implemented properly and promptly.
The assertion related to the ineffectiveness of using international organizations and diplomacy is supported by another weakness of the USA’s solution, which is the determination to escalate and harsh actions at the onset of the dispute. Indeed, Banks (2019) states that “after the hostages were taken in November 1979, the United States immediately escalated the crisis by placing economic sanctions on Iran” (p. 6). Such an approach might have been effective in theory as the sanctions posed significant risks and limitations for Iranian economics. However, such a decision was not contextualized and ultimately did not provide any sufficient results in the resolution of the crisis. Indeed, Banks (2019) explains that “following this, the crisis – while tense – did not escalate further until the Carter administration finally attempted a direct hostage rescue in the following April” (p. 6). Thus, the failure to recognize the limitations of conflict escalation is a significant weakness of the approach selected by Carter, which is logically connected with another drawback, which is the inability of the USA to sustain the same direction of crisis-resolution tactics.
Indeed, the USA did not follow the same route of action when attempting to release the hostages, thus stopping the crisis. One might consider the change of tactics a strength since it demonstrates the actor’s efforts to find the best solution, making adjustments along the way. However, “this variation in escalatory dynamics… influenced the crisis in this period and what caused it to finally escalate” (Banks, 2019, p. 6). Therefore, the changes in the plans of action, as well as the lack of well-determined tactics, was the core weakness of the American solution.
In addition, the failed military operation of rescuing the hostages was followed by the discharge of all claims by both sides in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable agreement. Indeed, due to the lack of clarity, only in 1980 the two sides agreed on freeing “fifty-two American hostages in Tehran and providing for the return to Iran of billions of dollars in frozen assets” (Christopher & Mosk, 2007, p. 168). This agreement also held that “all claims by Americans against Iran, by the Iranian government against the United States, and by the two governments against each other would be submitted to a Tribunal to be established in The Hague” (Christopher & Mosk, 2007, p. 168). Thus, the escalation of the conflict was another drawback that signifies the inability of the US government to apply proper diplomatic solutions.
Review of Alternative Plans to Resolve the Issue
Given the failure of Jimmy Carter’s administration’s attempts to resolve the issue and the devastating international outcomes of the crisis for the relationship between Iran and the USA, it is essential to use the findings from the approach evaluation to identify more effective options. One of the possible solutions might be the involvement of the UN at the very beginning of the dispute (Banks, 2019). It could provide an objective third party in the crisis that might have helped identify mutually beneficial terms of de-escalation. Another alternative resolution might be derived from the experience of the US in the resolution of disputes with Libya and China (McMurray, 2019). Indeed, United States–Iran relations might have been improved during the crisis if the USA tried to “emphasize long-term focus, the use of red lines as tokens, and dialog on lesser issues” (McMurrey, 2019, p. 86). Such alternatives should be considered in the future diplomatic efforts made by the state in case of international crises.
Impact of the Event on American Politics
After the resolution of the crises, once Carter finished his presidency term, the impact of the Iran hostage crisis was observed in the context of US politics in general and some laws in particular. Indeed, Carter signed Executive Orders to impose economic sanctions on Iran (Christopher & Mosk, 2007). Since then, multiple Executive Orders have been initiated to limit Iranian involvement in international relations, which now have a national security relevance (Christopher & Mosk, 2007). Thus, the current policies in the USA’s foreign affairs are significantly impacted by the imposition of sanctions on Iran as the manifestation of the aftermath of the Iran hostage crisis.
Biblical Perspective
A biblical perspective on the dispute might help set the alternative ways of crisis management in the context of Christianity. Since the crisis developed under the attention of the media and the public, there was additional pressure on both actors (Banks, 2019). As stated in the Bible, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you” (Mathew 18:15). Therefore, using this verse, one might suggest that the resolution of the conflict in private should have been prioritized.
Conclusion
In summation, the evaluation of the Iran hostage crisis has demonstrated that the US authorities failed to preserve their diplomatic principles in the international arena, lacked consistency in their approach to problem-solving, and did not involve international organizations in a timely and efficient manner. Such a tactic led to the escalation of the conflict and its ultimate significant adverse impact on the US-Iran international relations that pertain to today. The dispute might have been resolved more efficiently if proper diplomatic means had been involved, as well as the USA did not use military force. The implications of the issue analysis provide a valuable basis for the understanding of US foreign policy.
References
Banks, D. E. (2019). The diplomatic presentation of the state in international crises: Diplomatic collaboration during the US-Iran hostage crisis. International Studies Quarterly, 63(4), 1163-1174.
Christopher, W., & Mosk, R. M. (2007). The Iranian hostage crisis and the Iran-US claims tribunal: Implications for international dispute resolution and diplomacy. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 7(2), 165-175.
Jensehaugen, J. (2021). A Palestinian window of opportunity? The PLO, the US, and the Iranian hostage crisis. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 48(4), 596-610.
McMurray, W. B. (2019). Ending an enemy: United States – Iran relations [Doctoral dissertation]. Naval Postgraduate School.