0

1

2

Dedicated to all those who were affected by a form of conflict.

Hoping that this work will provide you with some guidelines for

dealing with a crisis situation.

Best regards!

Cosmina Craciunescu

July 2014

Cosmina Craciunescu 2014 – All Rights Reserved/Tous Droits Réservés

3

4

Special Thanks to Mrs Gabriela Melania Ciot Ph.D

Chapter 1.................................................................................... ........................ 5

Mediation in the International System................................................................6

The Sample................................................................................ ........................13

Chapter2 – Theoretical Approach to Mediation................................................17

Chapter 3 – Mediation in Hostage Crises..........................................................29

Chapter 4 – Mediation in Iran Hostage Crisis – Case Study.............................35

Historical Background of Iran...........................................................................35

International System and the Cold War.............................................................39

Instability in the Middle East.............................................................................41

Takeover at the US Embassy in Tehran.............................................................45

On the verge of Crisis........................................................................ ................51

Using the Art of Communication.......................................................................53

Iran Versus the West..........................................................................................55

Hopes Were Dashed by the Desert Winds.........................................................60

Fighting for Freedom.........................................................................................62

The Canadian Caper..........................................................................................66

Lessons Learned................................................................................................67

Press Analysis....................................................................................................70

Chapter 5 – Analysis of Mediation Techniques in Hostage Crises...................74

Conclusions.......................................................................................................89

Bibliography......................................................................................................91

5

Mediation in Hostage Crises

Iran Hostage Crisis Case Study

Chapter 1

The acts of hostage-taking1 have been practiced ever since the

rise of the Roman Empire 2 and have been considered a major problem

that affected large populations, from the Ancient World3, all the way to

modern times.

“Hostage” is derived from the French word “ótage” or from

“hoste” which means “guest”.

In this work I want to figure out how a set of mediation4

techniques can eventually apply in cases of hostage crises5, on order to

provide a peaceful alternative to open conflict.

1 A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by

the opposing party 2 Succeeded the Roman Republic , the territories ruled by the Ancient Rome, stretched from Britain and Germany to North African and the Persian Gulf; later it was split into

Eastern and Western Roman Empires 3 Refers to the earliest civilizations that arose across the continents 4 An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants

through the neutral’s party intervention 5 Develop when one or more individuals in an organized group held people against their will, for a long time, allowing for the state of crisis to occur

6

The reason why this subject was chosen is because the Iran

Hostage Crisis is known to be the longest and most mediatised crisis in

the world history, lasting from the 4th

of November 1979 to the 20th

of

January 1981 and because this event brutally impacted the American

foreign policy, along with its ties with the Muslim world.

Hostage-taking is defined as being the act of threatening

immediate harm to a person who is held against his or her will for a

specific purpose, gain, or several benefits that the hostage-taker might

have, along with the acts of kidnapping and probably assault that the

attacker resorted to.

Usually hostage-takers commit acts of kidnapping in order to

gain something from the victims’ relatives and/or friends, be it an

important sum of money, be it a car, a helicopter, etc., in exchange for

the release of the victim(s). It is known that psychological pressure,

abuse and degrading treatment are inflicted on the victims during their

captivity.

I chose mediation to be the innovative element in my research,

as I intend to make several connections between the traditional

mediation techniques and the Iran Hostage Crisis case. It is also

important, in my opinion, to state the fact that mediation is a fairly new

domain as it began to be more and more used in modern

conflictmanagement6, also arising as the key to solving small to large

6 The process of limiting the negative aspects of the conflict while increasing its positive aspects

7

scale disputes7. Mediation offers an alternative to direct or indirect

conflict8 and allows for the involvement of a third neutral party, also

known as the mediator9.

With regard to the history of mediation, there are some aspects

that I consider as being worth of taking into account.

Mediation in the International System

In China and Asia

Mediation was adopted mainly due to the Confucians10

belief

that had at its basis the moral persuasion and agreement, rather than

coercion. It is well known that peace-building11

, understanding, along

with peaceful conflict management, are considered to be among the core

values of the Confucian philosophy, today being regarded as the main

characteristic of the Buddhist religion and way of life.

In Japan

Japan is known to have a rich history of mediation. At the

beginnings of the Japanese civilization, the leader of the village had the

duty to solve the disputes that emerged along with time between his

people. These actions can be regarded today as being an emphasis on the

informal way of conducting mediation.

7 Agreements or arguments over some situations that arise between conflicting parties 8 Direct conflict involves disputes and even physical violence inflicted on the other party,

while indirect conflict refers to rivalries between societies, countries or religious 9 A person that mediates; involved in conflict management 10 Relating to Confucius, his teachings or his followers 11 Post conflict actions, usually of diplomatic and economic nature that strengthen relations between people and political parties

8

In Africa

Any disputant has the legal right to call for an informal

assembly that will come from a neighbouring area and which is known

to be called a “moot”. The “moot” is known to be a respected member of

the community that basically serves as a mediator, for the purpose of

helping parties in their way of solving the existing conflicts through

cooperation12

.

In the Islamic World

Islam has a long tradition of mediation and conflict resolution

through approaching peaceful means of action. The use of Qadis13

is

very popular in the Islamic world. The Qadis are known to be

specialized go-betweens that attempt to preserve social harmony in an

effort of reaching an agreed solution upon a dispute situation.

In the Judeo-Christian Culture

The Churches played a major role when it comes to the acts of

mediation, actually acting as arbiters between the people who committed

crimes or were accused of doing so, and the authorities. During the

Middle Ages14

, the Christian Clergy15

were called upon to mediate

12 Association of people or institutions for the common benefit 13 Judges in the Muslim communities, whose decisions are based on the religious law of

Islam 14 Medieval period (5th to the 15th century); began with the collapse of the Western Roman

Empire, divided into Early, High, and Late Middle Ages 15 Formal leaders within the Christian religion, in Christianity their roles vary by denomination.

9

disputes between families and acquaintances, as well as to mediate

several conflicts that occurred at diplomatic levels.

In the United States and the United Kingdom

A mediation body was established, known as “The Quakers”

that had a long history of mediation and arbitration. In New York City,

the Jewish community established its own mediation forum.

It is also known that the ADR System16

(Alternative Dispute

Resolution) was implemented in the United States, and in the United

Kingdom the “Conciliation and Arbitration Act17

” was established, as a

basis for modern mediation, as it began to be institutionalized during the

course of the 20th

Century and known as an effective way of solving

disputes and conflicts.

The First Known Case of Hostage Situation

Looking back at the history of hostage situations, we can

mention the fact that the first case of hostage taking occurred as early as

168BC, after the Battle of Pydna18

(148BC) before the Punic Wars19

.

The Punic Wars were a series of conflicts carried out between

Rome20

and Carthage from 264 to 144 BC.

16 Includes processes of dispute resolution and techniques that lead to the construction of

an agreement between conflicting parties 17 Passed by the Parliament of Australia in 1904, introduced the rule of law in industrial

relations for Australia, by establishing the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and

Arbitration 18 Battle that took place in 168 BC between Rome and the Macedonian Antigonid Dynasty,

saw further ascendancy of Rome in the Hellenistic world 19 A series of battles fought between Rome and Carthage, at that time being considered the largest wars that took place

10

Polybius is one of the characters mentioned in the early cases

of hostage situations. Although Polybius was of Greek descent, he spent

his lifetime among the Romans. In 168 BC, during the course of an

escalating conflict, Polybius along with many others were captured and

sent to Italy as hostages.

The acts of hostage-taking, kidnapping and violence occurred

in history along with the flourishing of new types of weaponry. In many

cases, hostage-taking was used as a war tactic for the purpose of

weakening the opponent.

Some notable hostage crises occurred in the world along time,

that eventually influenced the international and diplomatic areas are

worth mentioning:

1984 – The Libya Hostage Crisis (lasted almost 260 days)

2003 – The Sahara Hostage Crisis (lasted 208 days)

2007 – The South Korea Hostage Crisis in Afghanistan (lasted 42 days)

In 2013 were registered the following hostage crises:

16th

of January – In Amenas Hostage Crisis – Algeria (lasted 6 days)

29th

of January – The Alabama Bunker Hostage Crisis – Alabama,

Midland City (lasted 6 days)

26th

of July - Hialeah Shooting – Hialeah, Florida (lasted 3 hours)

20 City states that eventually became empires, had treaties signed among them that changed the course of the Mediterranean History

11

15th

of August – Islamabad Hostage Drama (lasted 6 hours)

9th

of September – Zanboanga (Hostage) City Crisis, Philippines (lasted

19 days)

21st of September – Westgate Shopping Mall Attack, Nairobi, Kenya

(lasted 3 days)

It is important to point out the fact that the rights of the

hostages are not to be ignored, as they are under the protection of the

Geneva Convention21

.

The Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention22

states the

following in its provisions:

“Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including

members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and those

placed <<hors de combat>> by sickness, wounds, detention or any

other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any

adverse distinction based on race, colour, religion of faith, sex, birth or

wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited

at any time and in any place whatsoever, with respect to the above

mentioned positions:

21 Comprise of four treaties and three additional protocols that established the standards of international law for the humanitarian aid provided in cases of crisis and war 22 Article that states that certain minimum rules of war apply to armed conflicts, as these

are not of international character, but they are contained within the boundaries of a single country.

12

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all

kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

(b) Taking of hostages

(c) Outrages on personal dignity, in particular humiliating

and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of

executions without previous judgement pronounced by a

regularly constituted Court affording all the judicial

guarantees which are recognised as indispensible for

civilized peoples”

Drawing a conclusion from the excerpt of international law that

I presented above, I can clearly state that there is no legal basis for any

act of hostage-taking, and those cruel acts are at all times subject of

being punishable by law.

With regard to the Iran Hostage Crisis, I may state from the

very beginning, that this barbarous act had neither legality nor

legitimacy, and it cannot be regarded as a justifiable action.

I find important to place emphasis on the fact that the 1970-

1980 period of time was marked by important events that occurred in the

international arena and which somehow impacted the international

stability.

13

1970 – Palestinian group hijacks five planes

1972 – Terrorist attack at the Olympic games in Munich, Germany

1976 – Israeli commandos attack Uganda’s Entebbe Airport and free

103 people held hostage by the pro-Palestinian hijackers of Air France

Plane

1979 – Ayatollah Khomeini23

returns as the leader of Iran

1979, November, 4 – Iranian militants seize the US Embassy in Tehran

and take almost 70 people hostage holding them captive in the basement

of the Embassy

1983 – US Embassy in Beirut is bombed.

The qualitative method is used in this research, due to the fact

that the data collected is presented in the form of words, forming phrases

and paraphrasing. Another aspect that was worth taking into

consideration when conducting this study is showing openness to new

situations that might emerge along the way.

The main concern is the process, in the sense that the goal is set

as to see how different sets of actions could develop during the course of

the study, along with using inductive reasoning, which is another

characteristic of the qualitative methodology.

23 Iranian religious and political leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, also wrote several books, but he remains known for his political activity

14

The work is focused on context sensitivity, meaning that it is

based on findings within a historical, temporal and social context, being

a whole process of generalization across times.

Subjectivity is another element of the qualitative methodology

that can be observed in this study, as an effort was made in presenting

the events in a personal manner, providing a subjective view on the

topic.

Discourse analysis is the analysis of certain patterns that appear

in the political sphere mostly in rough times, such as wars, crises or

other like events. This method of research can also be observed in the

thesis, as the discourses of the most important actors in the Iran Hostage

Crisis are briefly mentioned and analysed.

The Sample

Political and Media Speeches During the Iran Hostage Crisis

During the Iran Hostage Crisis, many speeches were conducted

on the issue. In the work conducted, some significant speeches for the

case will be mentioned. The speeches that had a great impact in the Iran

Hostage Crisis case were those of President Carter, and those of

Ayatollah Khomeini, that ultimately will be presented in a sort of anti-

thesis to show the way in which these public manifestations influenced

both the American and the Iranian societies. Also, it is known that the

media played a major role in the case, being the most common and

affordable connection of the societies to the Iran Hostage Crisis case

itself, this ultimately contributing to a better understanding of the case

by the bystanders in this high risk conflict.

15

The two main actors in the conflict, being James Carter and

Ayatollah Khomeini had a series of discourses conducted during the Iran

Hostage Crisis that had a great influence over the populations of both

the United States and Iran, in an effort of promoting their own beliefs

and societies for the ultimate purpose of acquiring power. Their

discourses were marked by social representation, with the two leaders

being the leading figures of the societies, along with hegemonic

struggles, that could be observed all throughout the crisis, on their way

to leadership and dominance of the societies. The social antagonism is

another key element of discourse theory and analysis that can be applied

in this case, the two leading figures being placed from the very

beginning in an antagonistic relationship, due to the striking differrences

that can be observed, and through the creation of a so called “threatening

otherness”, in an attempt of defining political borders. Disruptive

discourse is occurring when the stable and hegemonic discourses

become dislocated. The Iran Hostage Crisis had a great contribution to

this “dislocation”, particulalry because of the shifts in the foreign policy

that were created, along with the state of dispair and confusion among

people. The last element of discourse analysis is the split subject, with

the individual having a failed structural identity from the very

beginning, as he/she will try to compensate for that lack with the his/her

attachment to particular discourses that are promising the creation of a

total and final kind. This in my opinion, amounts to the growing gap

between the Iranian and Western values, found at the core of the

ongoing conflict that can be observed in the case that is presented.

16

The Period of Investigation

The period of investigation that was chosen for this thesis in

November 1979 to nearly the beginning of the year 1981, in order to

keep a sort of track of the events that followed the Iran Hostage Crisis

and the interventions that were made in this particular case.

A set of questions was constructed, for the purpose of having a

path when conducting research in this case.

The research questions:

When referring to the relation between the President Carter and the

extremist Islamic group, can one state the fact that Carter tried to assume

the role of a mediator in the whole hostage ordeal?

Was Carter successful in his attempt of peaceful resolution of the

situation?

Description of the Work

In the research that was conducted, the Iran Hostage Crisis case

is presented in a way that is suited for this work, using the qualitative

methodology, and focusing on case studies. The work itself is

characterized by subjectivity, context sensitivity, followed by an attempt

to present the topic from a personal point of view, showing at the same

time a concern for the course of the actions within a temporal context.

The centre of the thesis is the issue of mediation, along with the

concepts of peaceful conflict resolution, as the general purpose is to see

17

how some of the mediation techniques presented will be efficient means

for managing cases of hostage crises.

I chose the Iran Hostage Crisis case because it is in my opinion,

a very important and mediatised event, and my purpose is to at least try

to provide optimal solutions that involve peaceful conflict management

to situations of crisis. Along with presenting the background of the

Iranian civilization, I want to be able to provide a broad view on the

topic, leading the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

18

Chapter 2

Theoretical Approach to Mediation

The following chapter is focused on providing a theoretical

perspective on the issue of mediation. In order to respect this particular

criterion, The Theory of Mediation24

and Claassen’s25

Four Way Model26

or Four Options Model, are used; these being regarded as the most

important theories for the research conducted.

The Theory of Mediation:

The nature of the conflict dictates the mediation process to be

used and the conflict‟s likely outcome.

Theorem 1

As long as the conflict remains centred on content goals and

has not escalated beyond Stage 3, evaluative mediation will tend to

work.

24 Principal element of the research group of the Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Language

Research, a theoretic model developed at Rennes (France)by Professor jean Gagnepain,

linguist and epistemologist 25 Director of the Restorative Justice Centre, Professor of Peacemaking and Conflict

Studies 26 Mediation models than can be used for the dissolution of a conflict, apud Ron Claassen “Two Useful Models for Implementing Restorative Justice”

19

Corollary 1

Evaluative mediation is not efficient or effective at high levels of conflict

or when identity or relationship goals are into play.

Theorem 2

As long as the conflict remains centred on identity or

relationship goals or has escalated above stage 3, transformative or

narrative processes are effective and efficient.

Corollary 2

Transformative and narrative processes are neither efficient

nor effective at low levels of escalation or when content goals are solely

in play.

Theorem 3

Parties will be satisfied with their outcomes, based on the

nature of the conflict.

Corollary 3. 1

Outcomes based on settlements or mutual agreements will be

satisfactory when the conflict is below stage 3 and is not driven by

relationship or identity.

20

Corollary 3. 2

Outcomes based on transformative principles will be

satisfactory when the conflict is escalated above stage 3 and driven by

relationship or identity goals.

As for the case of Ronald Claassen, who is a Professor of

Peacemaking and Conflict Studies and a Director of the Restorative

Research Project27

from the Fresno Pacific University28

, it is useful to

know that he developed four main approaches for this Mediation and

Conflict Model, that is found in one of his articles called “Two Useful

Models for Implementing Restorative Justice29

”.

His approaches to the Four Options Model are the following:

Figure 2.1

1. | |

_____________________

2. | |

27A program functioning within the Fresno Pacific University, within the Conflict Studies Centre 28 Christian accredited University located in Fresno, California, USA 29 apud Ron Claassen - describes mainly the mediation theory and his approaches on conflict resolution

X

21

No outside involvement

One of the parties has the ability to control the situation

Figure 2.2

3. | |

__________ __________

4. | |

No outside involvement

One of the parties has the ability to control

An outside authority makes a decision for the |’s

The |’s share power and the |’s must agree

If one does not agree, then it is a 1 situation

The role of X is to help those inside the circle

X

22

The 4 Options Model can be used in any situation in order to

help people decide about and how they want to approach a certain

conflict state and eventually make a decision based on the options that

were provided.

The Peacemaking Model

All parties make a commitment to be constructive

They mutually recognize the violation, injustice and/or problem

Parties find agreements that restore equality as much as possible and

clarify constructive future intentions

Follow up meetings are held in order to celebrate keeping of agreements

and/or discuss the need for further dialogue and additional agreements.

Some other important figures are to be mentioned in the

mediation theory, when it comes to defining a stable system versus a

non-stable system. We can bring the names of Roger Fisher30

and

William Ury31

, along with Stephen Goldberg32

when referring to the

theories of mediation.

30 Samuel Williston Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School 31 Famous mediator, known as an expert in the mediation and arbitration field, co-founded

the Negotiation Program at the Harvard University 32 Professor of Law Emeritus, taught mediation, negotiation and arbitration at the Northwestern Law University

23

Roger Fisher (May 28, 1922 – August 25, 2012) was an

Emeritus Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School33

and Director of

the Harvard Negotiation Project34

which is a university consortium

dedicated to developing the theories and several practices that are

specific to the negotiation and dispute resolution domains.

William Ury served as a negotiator and a mediator in the

conflict area from corporate milieus to ethnic wars that took place in the

Middle East, the Soviet Union and the Balkan area. It is important to

mention the fact that along with President Carter, William Ury co-

founded the International Negotiation Network35

which was constructed

to function as a non-governmental body for the purpose of ending civil

wars.

Stephen Goldberg is a Professor of Law Emeritus and has

taught negotiation, mediation and arbitration courses at Northwestern

University Law School36

. He is also the President of the Mediation

Research & Education Project. Inc.37

He is currently working as a

mediator in the sports arena and is the author of a large number of

publications.

Roger Fisher, William Ury and Stephen Goldberg developed

together a synthesis of the stable, versus the non-stable system with

regard to the relationship that is created between power, rights and

33 Founded in 1817 by Isaac Royall; is the oldest continuously operating law school in the

United States 34 A program founded within the Harvard Law School meant to improve the theory and

practice of conflict resolution and negotiation 35 Informal Network of eminent people who are able to provide assistance and advice in order to resolve disputes 36 Law School located in Chicago, Illinois, founded in 1859 as the Union College of Law

of the Old University of Chicago 37 Non-profit corporation, encouraging the use of grievance mediation.

24

interests. That synthesis is represented by two drawings that show the

way in which both stable and unstable systems are created. The

drawings are as follows:

Figure 2.3 Fisher, Ury and Goldberg

Stable System VS Unstable System

With regard to the Conflict Theory38

, one can mention some

important names that contributed to it, such as Charles Wright Mills39

,

who was the founder of the modern conflict theory, an American

sociologist who is known to have applied the theories of Max Weber40

in the United States. Also we can bring up the names of Gene Sharp41

,

38 Perspective in sociology, that emphasize the political, social and material inequality of a

social group, that critique the broad socio-political system 39 American sociologist, and professor of sociology at the Columbia University 40 German sociologist, philosopher and political economist, whose ideas influenced social

theory and research, and the entire discipline of sociology 41 Founder of the Albert Einstein Institution dedicated to advancing the study of non-violent action

Power

Rights

Interests

Power

Rights

Interests

25

who is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Massachusetts42

, and

held several positions throughout his career at the Harvard University43

.

He founded the Albert Einstein Institution44

in the year 1983, which is

known to be a non-profit organization that is bound to promote the use

of non-violent actions in cases of conflict worldwide.

According to Max Weber, there is a conflict perspective45

to be

taken into consideration that ultimately comes in contrast to Marx’s

conflict approach46

, since Marx brings to light the social structure47

, and

Weber emphasizes the social action48

.

Both Max Weber and Karl Marx stated that social relationships

are mainly characterized by conflict. The difference between the two

thinkers lays in the fact that Marx placed emphasis on the conflict

produced at an economic level, and on the fact that this particular type

of conflict was occurring between two social classes; while Weber saw

the conflict as arising from a variety of sources and possibilities, and

stated that economic conflict was of less importance, this ultimately

contrasting with the social struggles that occurred in history. Another

important thing to state is the fact that Marx saw the end of a conflicting

period arising along with the destruction of capitalism.

42 A five campus public university system of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

established in 1863 43 A private Ivy League research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in

1636 44 Non-profit organization that specializes in the study of the methods of non-violent

resistance in conflicts to explore its policy potential 45 Referring to the sociological perspectives that are connected to the conflict theories 46 Referring to the way that Marx approached the issue of conflict in his major works 47 Patterned social arrangements in societies that are both emergent from and determinant

of the actions of individuals. 48 Refers to an act which takes into account the actions and reactions of the individuals

26

According to Lewis Coser49

, conflict is defined by being “the

struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in

which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate

their rivals”.

Another statement that I found as being relevant for my work

was made by Ralph Dahrendorf50

, who emphasized the fact that conflict

can be found in a situation where the social order is maintained by force

from the top and with it the social system is marked by constant tension.

This explanation was given in the frame of the social and class struggle

that marks the modern society.

Figure 2.4 Conflict Emergence to Peace-Building Model

Stalemate

Conflict Escalation

Deescalation/Negotiation

Conflict Emergence

Dispute Settlement

Latent Conflict Post Conflict Peace Building

TIME

49 An American sociologist, serving at the 66th President of the American Sociologists

Association in 1975. 50 A German-British sociologist, philosopher and political scientist; class conflict theorist.

INT

EN

SIT

Y

27

We can see the state of latent conflict that can be observed in

an unpleasant situation, followed by conflict emergence – this being the

point where a dispute appears at the scene. Conflict escalation is the next

thing, when the situation gets overboard, followed by the stalemate, or

the crisis, which is the highest point of all the conflict stages, as it grows

in intensity and it is influenced by the passage of time.

The stalemate is the point where the crisis is present. During

this time, escalated levels of tension appear along the way. The victims

are traumatized and they feel like there will be no escape from the

situation, in many cases falling into depression and despair. It is

important to place emphasis on the huge psychological pressure that is

inflicted on the victim(s), along with the fact that this pressure can also

affect the attacker(s). This is the point where psychological breakdown

occurs, usually because coercion – where the powerless are obliged to

obey the powerful.

After the stalemate stage, the negotiation process comes into

play. In this situation, de-escalation of the conflict can be observed. The

opposing parties are having some kind of communication in an effort of

getting a glimpse of the other’s perspective. With regard to the

negotiation, a win-win situation comes to be at stake, eventually leading

the parties to the stage of dispute settlement. At the end, the post-

conflict peace building will require time, patience and effort from both

parties, in order to get at the end of that particular

unpleasant/unfair/stressful situation.

28

It is of outmost importance to point out the fact that the most

valuable asset of the negotiator or the mediator of the conflict is time.

The passage of time can influence a crisis situation both in positive and

negative ways. But when it comes to the mediation process, time is an

ally on the way of providing a proper solution for both parties that are

involved in the conflict. Time itself allows for the parties involved to

settle down and get a more logical and relaxed view over the situation,

leading them to think about solutions rather than concentrating on the

actions that might prove wrong in these situations.

In the following graph a model of how a conflict can escalate

all the way up to a state of crisis is provided.

Figure 2.5 – Conflict Escalation Model – 5 Steps

Disconfort

Incidents

Misunderstandings

Tension

Crisis

29

With regard to the stages of conflict, emphasis is placed on the

main approach to this issue, in order to get a better understanding of how

the conflict develops in time, from a simple misunderstanding to a crisis.

The stages of the conflict are: the incipient phase, which is regarded as

discomfort, followed by incidents, that usually upset the people involved.

Misunderstandings appear at the level of communication between people –

this is when quarrel starts, followed by tension. The tension is usually

affecting both parties of the conflict, this being the part when

psychological pressure is inflicted on the weaker side. The crisis is the

final stage that can lead to a very stressful and unstable situation, where

everything seems to get out of control.

30

Chapter 3

Mediation in Hostage Crises

Based on the information that was presented in the second

chapter, a brief analysis will be done in the following part. It is known the

fact that usually hostage-takers are resorting to the acts of kidnapping in

order to get something from the victim or from the relatives of the victim.

Sometimes the attacker looks for classified information, large amounts of

money, or some other things, such as a helicopter or one million dollars

delivered especially for him/her within hours. It is also known that hostage

takers usually develop psychopathic personalities, and the kidnapping acts

can also occur due to a certain passion that they have for a person, be it a

woman, a man that has an important job along with big responsibilities, or

a child ( like in the mediatised case of Jon Benet Ramsey51

).

With regard to the first theory of Claassen, I want to bring up an

example from the Iran Hostage Crisis in order to make a connection

between the much mediatised case and these particular theories.

1. No outside involvement

One of the parties has the ability to control

It can be interpreted that on November 4, 1979 a radical Iranian

group of militant students seize the US Embassy in Tehran and take almost

70 people hostage. In this case there is no outside involvement; we have

51 An American child beauty pageant who was kidnapped, raped and strangled to death in 1996 when she was 6 years old, this being a case that shocked the United States

31

two parties of the conflict, one being the militant Iranian students, and the

other party is represented by the American people who are taken hostage at

the Embassy and brought to the basement of the building. The party that is

in control is represented by the group of Iranian militants who exercise

force over the Americans.

2. No outside involvement

One of the parties has the ability to control

An outside authority makes a decision for the |‟s

Again, the party that is in control is represented by the group of

Iranian militants. The outside authority in this case may be Ayatollah

Ruhollah Khomeini, the man behind the whole hostage ordeal. The

Iranian militants were controlled by Khomeini, and were acting

according to his demands.

The |’s are the hostages themselves.

Another way to look at this theory is to place the outside

authority within the final stage of the whole hostage ordeal. In here, the

outside authority cannot be considered President Carter, because he

could not do anything about the hostages, even though he repeatedly

tried to send troops in order to save them, but failed miserably. I guess

that the outside authority can be interpreted as representing the Iranian

leader, Khomeini, along with Ken Taylor52

, the man behind the rescue

mission of six American diplomats, codenamed The Canadian Caper,

52 An American Diplomat, educator and business man, known for his role in the covert operation called the Canadian Caper, when he was the Canadian Ambassador to Iran

32

can be regarded as representing the outside involvements. These outside

powers are important, because they have the power to make decisions

regarding the people involved in the conflict.

When referring to the representations of Ury, Fisher and

Goldberg, there is no way I can state that the stable system applies in

this particular case. But the unstable one fits perfectly in the Iran

Hostage Crisis case. The explanation that I am providing comes from

the fact that power was the most important asset. If we look at the case

of the Iranian Revolution, one can clearly see that power was at stake,

ultimately leading to the build-up of a very unstable system. This

contributed to the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi, along with the

monarchical system that was present in Iran before 1979, and the

coming of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the new leader of Iran, who

installed a regime of terror in the country and turned his people against

the West and all that we regard as being Western values53

. His actions

led to the degradation of the relations between the United States and the

Muslim world, this being considered the stepping stone that was placed

for this relation in order to end up this way.

With regard to the rights that are mentioned in the drawing, we

can see that only the rights of the Iranian people prevailed, as they were

feeling threatened by the West, along with its values and customs. Their

main argument against the West lies in the fact that these “American

values” as the Iranians usually refer to, interfered with the Islamic

culture and way of life, destroying the lives of the youth through

attracting them to the modern thinking, thus placing at high risk the

future of Iran and the Islamic culture itself. The main important asset of

53 In this context, referring to the US as being a representative of the Western culture

33

the conflicting parties remains the power that each has, and feels

necessary to exercise. The core of power in this case is the Oil itself, this

also constituting the basis of the relations created between Iran and the

West.

“The struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power

and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize,

injure or eliminate their rivals”, is the definition of Lewis Coser given

to describe the conflict phenomenon. I chose this particular definition,

because I regard it as being perfectly suited for the case of the conflict

that was created between the Iranians and the Americans. There is no

doubt about the fact that the Americans and the Iranians were in a sense

competing to get the most power, when referring to oil. America needed

the oil that Iran was able to provide, this making the United States

somewhat vulnerable in front of this representative of the Muslim world.

As we are all aware of, oil began to be scarcer in the world, and as a part

of the modern society, the developed countries will always need the oil,

exactly as a human needs his lungs in order to breathe and to live.

With regard to the statement of Ralph Dahrendorf who stated

that “social order is maintained by force from the top” also making a

reference toward the fact that the modern society is marked by constant

tension, I may state that I find this applicable in the Iranian case,

especially by the time when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to

power. It may seem like he tried to build almost a dictatorial regime,

with him being the supreme leader, and the society being obliged to

praise him and obey his rules with unquestionable submission to his

will.

34

When referring to the model of conflict escalation, we can

bring into discussion both the Iranian Revolution and the Iran Hostage

Crisis.

In the case of the Iranian Revolution, we can observe the state

of discomfort that was created among the Iranians, because they were no

longer satisfied with the Shah Reza Pahlavi, so before the Revolution

even started, the Pahlavi Monarchy was overthrown. With the coming of

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the supreme leader of Iran, things

changed from bad to worse in the sense that Khomeini played a major

role during the escalation of the conflict, enraging the Iranians against

the West and the Americans, through malicious speeches, which were

meant to control the minds of the Iranian people. Also, there were other

speeches conducted by several officials against the Americans and the

West in general, and even women were appearing in public stating the

fact that the Americans have to pay a high price for the religious and

cultural damage that they thought was inflicted on the Iranian and in

more general terms, the Islamic world.

The state of discomfort was a short one among Iranians, as they

decided to take action, and reached the level of incidents faster than

anyone thought. The state of tension was installed along with the various

attacks at the Americans, both verbal and physical in nature. It is very

important to mention the scene of the burning of the American flag, this

ultimately leading to the state of escalating conflict that rapidly turned

into a crisis, along with the beginning of the Iran Hostage ordeal.

35

Chapter 4

Mediation in Iran Hostage Crisis

Case Study

To provide a better understanding of my research theme, I

chose to present the issues according to the time span that corresponds

to them. In my case, I will present the Iranian Revolution, the Iran

Hostage Crisis and the Canadian Caper. Also, I find important to briefly

present the history of Iran in order to get the necessary amount of

information about this particular case and to get to the reader in such a

way that it won’t be needed for him or her to look for extra information.

Historical Background of Iran

Iran developed from the Persian Empire, known in the past as

the Achaemenid Empire54

. The Achaemenid Empire is known to be the

ruling dynasty of Cyrus the Great55

and his family over the Persian

Empire56

from 550 to 330 BC. Cyrus’s empire included: Libya,

Ethiopia, Thrace, Macedonia, Afghanistan, Punjab and everything in

between. The Old Persian was known to be the language of the rulers.

Today Iran is also known as the Islamic Republic of Iran, since 1980,

54 The First Persian Empire; an empire in Western and Central Asia, founded in the 6th

Century by Cyrus the Great 55 Also known as Cyrus the Elder, was the founder of the Achaemenid Empire, eventually

under his rule, the empire expanded over the states in the Ancient Near East 56 Its name comes from the Persian Gulf Region located in Pars, Iran, the region in which Cyrus the Great reunited all other Iranian Empires

36

being bordered by Iraq in the west and by Turkey in the north-western

side.

I may state that the origins of the Iranian Revolution can be

traced back to the 12th

Century, when fundamentalist interpretations of

the Quran57

made their way to the Eastern part of the Muslim world,

being Arabia, Iran, Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt, later expanded to the

West, all the way to Northern Africa and Andalusia.

Iran is known to be a country where the social structure is

patriarchal in nature that ultimately remained very solid and active with

the passage of time.

One of the greatest landowners was the Shah – Muhammad

Reza Pahlavi58

, the son of Reza Shah Pahlavi, born Reza Khan, who is

known to have founded the Pahlavi Dynasty by 1925; the other forces

were represented by the Shia59

clerical establishment which was known

to have acquired land through religious means and endowments.

During the 1920s and 1930s Reza Shah, the leader of Iran,

followed the steps of Ataturk60

, but the Shah’s reforms eventually came

to an end along with the final days of the Second World War61

. The

Second World War interrupted the implementation of Reza Shah’s

57 The central religious text of Islam, literally meaning the recitation , regarded as being

the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language 58 The ruler of Iran from 1941 until his overthrow during the Iranian Revolution in1979 59 Representing the largest denomination of Islam, having the meaning in their name as the

followers of Muhammad 60 Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; the first President of Turkey, also an Army officer in the Ottoman military, credited with being the founder of the Republic of Turkey 61 Considered a global war lasting from 1939 to 1945, involved the most of the world

powers to include the Great Powers eventually forming two opposing military alliances, being the Allies and the Axis

37

reforms, as the king was in the end forced to abdicate by the Allied

forces62

in favour of his son, Reza Shah.

Under the Pahlavi Dynasty, secularism increased as the power

and the influence of the Shia scholars decreased. The Shah is known to

have allied himself with the secularists63

during the Iranian Revolution,

getting in a religious and ethical conflict with most of the Muslims who

held traditionalist values on various matters such as; the consumption of

alcohol and tobacco, foreign dress and various forms of Western

entertainment.

From 1941 to 1946 Iran was occupied by the British, Russians

and Americans, as it is known that the Allies indirectly interfered in the

Iranian affairs in order to achieve their goals and for their own national

interests.

During the 1953 – 1963 period of time, poverty marked the

lives of the Iranians, as the gap between the rich and the poor grew

continuously.

After returning to power in 1954, the Shah launched a

movement to modernize Iran on social and economic grounds, along

with protecting the environment known as the “White Revolution64

”.

62 Were the countries that were opposed to the Axis during the Second World War,

promoting the alliance with the scope of stopping the German, Italian and Japanese

aggression 63 The view that religious considerations should be excluded from the civil affairs or public

education 64 A far-reaching series of reforms in Iran that were launched in 1963 by Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, in order to strengthen the classes that supported the traditional system

38

On the other hand, his opponent, Khomeini issued a so called fatwa -

which is known to be a religious edict, against the reforms of the Shah.

Khomeini was enraged against the Shah and he wanted to see

Pahlavi out of the game. To increase his power in Iran, Muhammad

Reza Pahlavi established his own ruthless internal police, with the help

of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and the Israeli Intelligence

Agency, known as the SAVAK (Sazman-e Ettela„at Va Amniyat-e

Keshvar), in 1955, which was a relatively big intelligence organization

that operated in Iran until 1979, along with the overthrow of the Shah’s

regime.

In 1963 the Shah won the first round of elections, arrested

Khomeini and exiled him.

Between 1965 and 1975 the Shah’s character was influenced by

a series of factors that eventually led to a gradual change, as Fereydoun

Hoveyda, in his book named “The Shah and the Ayatollah – Iranian

Mythology and Islamic Revolution” states, “his dreams of grandeur

overbalanced his (the Shah‟s ) sense of reality...”65

During the period 1963-1967, Iran’s economy reached very

high levels. Oil production basically boomed, which led to an abundance

of money within the country. Steel mills rose from 1,602 in 1963 to

7,989 in 1977. Also the number of doctors tripled, and the conditions

from hospitals visibly improved.

65 Comment made by Feredoyun Hoveyda about the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

39

The International System and the Cold War

In the 1970-1980s period, during the Cold War66

, the

international system was influenced by the Great Powers of the world,

being the United States and Russia (The Soviet Union). These two

powers are known to have fought together in the struggle of

overthrowing the Axis Powers67

. Even though a certain bond was

created between these two countries, it is known that their relations

suffered a series of changes as the US and the USSR found themselves

in an extremely tense context. An interesting aspect is that the term

“Cold War” in itself, first appeared in a 1945 essay written by George

Orwell68

that was named “You and the Atomic Bomb”69

.

The United States, due to its strong Western values,

characterized by the liberalist influences, was much against the Soviet

Union, along with its communist ideals and their desire to acquire power

and transform all the powerful countries into communist entities.

The Post-War Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe

cultivated fear in the souls of many Americans, who were terrified of a

possible Soviet control over the entire world.

66 A sustained state of political and military tension between powers in the Western Bloc

and the Eastern Bloc ( the Soviet Union and the Allies in the Warsaw Pact) 67 Alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan, being the forces that fought against the

Allied Powers during the Second World War 68 An English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic; his work was influenced by mainly lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and commitment to

democratic socialism 69 An article by George Orwell, published on October 19, 1945, in “Tribune”, London, Great Britain

40

In the famous “Long Telegram”70

of the diplomat George

Kennan71

, it is explained the fact that the Soviet Union could not agree

with the US on grounds of modernization and implementation of various

liberalist policies, which ultimately resulted in “a long term, patient, but

firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies72

” . The

blame is put on the United States by the Soviet Union for their

impossibility to expand across the whole Europe.

70 The reply of George Kennan to the US Treasury Department, describing the Soviet Communism 71 An American adviser, diplomat, political scientist and historian, best known as the

“father of containment” and as the key figure in the emergence of the Cold War 72 Statement made by George Kennan with regard to the “Long Telegram” of 1946

41

Instability in the Middle East

On the other hand, in Iran, by 1970, along with the oil boom,

the Shah continued to change his behaviour, as his negative traits as

megalomaniac took over his entire personality. He is known to also

rename the White Revolution as the Revolution of the Shah and the

people73

.

With regard to the Carter Administration, it was believed that

the Shah was a valuable ally and looked forward for a possibility of a

change within Iran’s political system.

During this time, Khomeini slowly but surely began to take

over Iran. He began by denouncing Bakhtiar74

for accepting the Shah’s

appointment as the new head of the government. Khomeini continued to

organize his forces against the Shah, created a so called “united front”

also known as the “Confederation of Iranian Students75

”. This

confederation organized various demonstrations against the Shah within

European and American borders.

By 1977, the protests against the Shah grew louder and louder,

becoming a vocal and constant source of annoyance for Reza Pahlavi.

On the other hand, another extremist group, known as the Mujahideens76

- or the Muslim Marxists – failed to mobilize the peasants and workers

to go against the Shah.

73 Name given to the White Revolution by the Shah of Iran 74 Iranian political scientist, writer and the last Prime Minister of Iran under Muhammad Reza Pahlavi (in office from 4th of January 1979 to 11th of February 1979) 75 An Iranian student organization with more than 10,000 members inside Iran and abroad 76 Term used by the Muslims to describe those they see as Muslims who struggle in the path of Allah

42

In January 1978, 4,000 Iranian students demanded restoration

of freedoms in an organized movement. The police entered the open

conflict with the demonstrators leading to 10 people being killed out of

72. Later that year, more specifically by November, it could be observed

that the military protection for the Shah was slowly but surely fading

away.

By the fall of 1978, the United States Embassy in Tehran had

been the scene of subsequent demonstrations of the Iranian extremists to

show their dissatisfaction with the American presence on Iran’s

territory.

The Shah eventually agreed to go abroad for a vacation next to

his family and accepted the installation of a new government led by the

Head of the Dissident National Front, Shakhpur Bakhtiar. By June 16,

1978, the Shah and his family left for Egypt.

Khomeini triumphed in the second round of elections by 1979

and returned to Iran after the flight of the Shah, more specifically on

February 1st, 1979.

On February 4, 1979, Mehdi Bazargan77

became Iran’s first

Prime Minister after the Revolution in Iran. Later that year, more

specifically by March 3, Khomeini announced that no judge was to be

77 A prominent Iranian scholar, academic, long time pro democracy activist and head of

the Iran’s interim government, Iran’s first Prime Minister after the Iranian Revolution of 1979

43

female; later, on March 6, he announced that all women were supposed

to wear hijab78

head covering, which is specific for the Muslim dress.

Political and social instability increased gradually in Iran, as

street battles raged in towns and various provinces between the

supporters of Khomeini, police and security officers, along with the

supporters of the classical imperial regime.

On the 11th

of February 1979, many tanks invaded the streets of

Tehran, leading to rumours about a possible impending military coup

that was apparently on the way. Three days later, more specifically on

February 14, a month after the flight of the Shah from Iran, the US

Embassy was attacked and briefly occupied. During this time, several of

its personnel got wounded or killed.

The Prime Minister, Bakhtiar eventually resigns two months

later, this event adding to the victory of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in

the national referendum, and bringing him closer to his goal.

On April 1, 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini proclaimed

the establishment of the Republic of Iran. What followed is known to be

regarded as a reign of terror over the Iranian population.

In October 1979, the United States State Department was

informed that the deposed Iranian monarch, Shah Muhammad Reza

Pahlavi required medical assistance and treatment, that his aides claimed

it was only available on US ground. The Shah eventually arrived in New

78 A veil that covers the head and the chest, which is particularly worn by a Muslim female beyond the age of puberty in the presence of adult males outside their immediate family.

44

York City on the 22nd

of October, while it was argued that the initial

response of Iran at a public level was moderate.

It is important to note the fact that the Soviet government was

watching all the Iranian drama from across the borders, and seemed very

pleased of the whole picture that was created. Soviet officials saw the

collapse of the Shah’s regime as a big American loss, which in the end,

turned out to be in the benefit of the Soviets.

It wasn’t needed for the Iranians to be influenced by the Soviet

propaganda against the Unites States, as they thought it was more than

enough to remember the times of 1953, when the Prime Minister

Mohammad Mossadegh79

was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the

United Kingdom and the United States.

79The democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953, when his regime was overthrown in a coup d’état, orchestrated by the British M16 and the American CIA

45

Takeover at the United States Embassy in Tehran

By the start of the hostage crisis, the US Embassy in Tehran

massively reduced its personnel, from 1,400 men and women (that were

employed before the Iranian Revolution) to about 70 people. Due to the

fact that great emphasis was placed on the safety of the people, the

Iranian authorities sought to strengthen security around the American

Embassy.

On November 4, 1979, at 10:00 a.m., the US Embassy in

Tehran was attacked by Iranian students breaking into the embassy

compound and smashing the gates at the entrance, actually bringing

down the 13 US Marines80

that were guarding the entrances of the

Embassy. The Marines eventually saw the mob approaching through the

cameras that were provided at the place and immediately put on their

weapons.

At first, approximately 150 students made their way into the

Embassy and filled in the space of the compound. Over the next hours,

other high school and university students climbed the fence that guarded

the Embassy, reaching a number of approximately 3,000. Some of the

students were heavily armed, and after a relatively short siege, took no

less than 66 American men and women hostage, a total of 90 people

were captured.

At the basement of the Embassy, other Iranian students were

interested in getting the classifieds in order to weaken the personnel.

80 A branch of the US Armed Forces, responsible for providing power projection from the sea using the US Navy mobility to deliver arms task forces.

46

According to David Farber, in “Taken Hostage – The Iran Hostage

Crisis and America’s First Encounter with the Radical Islam81

”, the

students knew most of the Embassy personnel, and that the most

important American documents were located in the chancery, and it

eventually took a very small group to smash the bars of the windows of

the basement and make their way through the steel bars. About 40

students made it into the embassy basement.

The American Marines were instructed to hold their fire in

order to avoid killing people, or worse, to put in danger the lives of the

hostages. The other Americans in the chancery were doing their best to

destroy the classifieds, in order to avoid the situation in which that

precious information could actually get into the Iranian hands.

David Farber states that no one in the Embassy was actually

expecting a long-term situation with regard to the hostage crisis, but

they did expect a short term disaster. They tried to burn all the

classifieds, but it did not work for the highly large amount of material

that was available, so the Embassy staff actually began to shred the

documents, hoping that they will destroy the means of information for

the Iranians.

The Iranians instead, ended up doing a job that was extremely

tiring for the mind, being that of having sweatshop kids reassemble the

shreds, in an almost stupid effort, in my opinion, to get the information

that they needed.

81 Book by David Farber, that describes the Iran Hostage Crisis, Princeton University Press

47

Almost fifty of the militant students gathered at the steel doors on the

second floor of the chancery, pounding at the doors in order to get in. A

hostage tactic was used after they decided to use one of the captured

Americans in order to make his colleagues surrender, threatening that

they will kill him. That officer made the mistake of stepping outside the

Embassy in an effort to negotiate with the extremist group, hoping that

they will eventually settle down. He was captured and blindfolded and a

gun was placed to his head. Within the next minutes, another official

had the same faith. In the meantime, the Embassy personnel was trying

to settle the situation, also getting several advices from the Foreign

Ministry. After some other minutes the Embassy personnel surrendered.

The Iranian group entered the Embassy space. They blindfolded and tied

the hands of the personnel.

A couple of Marines managed to hide their weapons, and they

were told that they will be killed if they refuse to surrender. The Marines

refused to get in the hands of the Iranians without at least trying to fight

them.

Even though most of the personnel were missing, a small

group, according to David Farber, continued to destroy as many

documents as they could, as they continued to work intensely for two

hours in a desperate effort of avoiding the situation in which the

documents could get into the Iranian hands. Then, they had no other

choice but to surrender to the Iranian militants.

A small group of Americans, who were still not captured,

managed to destroy the visa plates, so that the Iranians will not get a

48

hold of them. The Americans managed to make their way out of the

Embassy, but they were captured by the Iranians and forced to get back

to the Embassy, where they were taken hostage.

The Iranian students ended up capturing 63 Americans as they

considered themselves to be very successful, hoping that the mass media

will involve in this case. The militant group also prepared several

messages for the world’s mass media.

Within 48 hours from the takeover, Mehdi Bazargan, an Iranian

prominent scholar and head of Iran’s interim government, along with

Ebrahim Yazdi82

, who is an Iranian politician and diplomat that served

as a deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, known to

have headed the Freedom Movement in Iran83

, both resigned. Their

attempts to end the takeover were stopped by Khomeini’s allies, and

several reports were made at that time with regard to their possible

collaboration with Brzezinski.

Various officials that attended regularly the meetings held on

the issue of the hostage crisis, stated that the hostages were nothing else

but political tools that Khomeini used in order to fulfil his desires on the

grounds of political power.

Despite all the pressure that was placed on the American

people, Carter maintained his belief that the hostage situation will

eventually diffuse itself in a relatively short period of time. According to

David Farber, the national security team agreed on sending two people

82 An Iranian politician and diplomat who served as deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs in the interim government of Mehdi Bazargan, until his resignation in

November 1979, in protest at the Iran hostage crisis 83 An Iranian political organization that was founded in 1961 by Mehdi Bazargan and some other important political figures of the regime.

49

to negotiate in Iran. This team was composed of Ramsey Clark, who

was a former attorney, and who had to deal with Ayatollah Khomeini in

the past, and William Miller, that staff director for the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence, who is known to have had some kind of

contact with the supporters of Khomeini.

According to Robert Wright84

, in his book named “Our Man in

Tehran – The Truth Behind the Secret Mission85

”, the Iranian students

that seized the Embassy were compelled to do so because they feared a

repeat of the coup that took place in 1953, being orchestrated by the

United States and Great Britain, when the Prime Minister Mohammad

Mossadegh was overthrown.

After a relatively short period of time, 14 people were sent

home because of the health problems that they developed during the

captivity. By approximately July 1980, it is known that 52 people

remained captive in the basement of the Embassy.

An interesting fact to point out is that the hostages were never

seriously injured, but they were at all times placed under a huge

psychological pressure, being subjected to actions that were absolutely

terrifying, and were continuously threatened. All of them were

blindfolded and paraded in front of TV cameras and basically walked

through crowds that were screaming and making fools out of them. The

most important psychological tool that the Iranian group used while

84 The author of several publications on the Iran Hostage Crisis, from the Princeton

University, nominated for the Pulitzer Prize, author of bestselling books about science,

evolutionary psychology 85 Best seller, book that inspired “Argo” movie

50

having the hostages in custody is keeping them under a constant

pressure, in such a manner that they never knew if they will be injured,

tortured, killed, or for how long they will be kept there. Probably the

people that were taken hostage were thinking whether or not they will

ever see their families again, or if they will live to see themselves free,

getting back to the normal course of their lives.

At home, the Americans began to be more and more enraged

against the Iranians, due to the hostage crisis. ABC News86

showed a

howling mob in front of the US Embassy burning an American flag;

while it was shown that the Americans who were supposed to be

protected by the government were into the hands of the Iranian

extremists. This was regarded as a horrible offense for the American

government. According to David Farber, the Americans did not want to

send the Shah back to Iran, so that he could be executed by Ayatollah

Khomeini. President Carter found himself deeply disappointed with the

whole hostage situation, and made the following statement about

Ayatollah Khomeini: “It‟s almost impossible to deal with a crazy

man...”

86 Famous news network that exists in the United States of America

51

On the verge of Crisis

By the 4th

day, the American government already knew that

they were dealing with a hostage crisis. The concern about the hostages

became the main focus, according to David Farber, to the American

public opinion, along with the White House87

.

The author also states the fact that the American administration

was mainly focused on results during the hostage crisis, which, in my

humble opinion, was the most appropriate manner to handle the

problem. The main focus was centred on the lives of the hostages, as the

officials were very cautious as not to lose any American life by Iranian

extremist hands.

With regard to the Iran Hostage Crisis itself, it is well known

that secrecy was almost impossible to keep.

Due to the crisis situation that was created, Carter took into

consideration the fact that the relations between US and Iran will be

damaged because of the intervention for rescuing the hostages, adding

up to the huge political crisis that was all over the international arena.

He decided to act immediately in the Iranian case, no matter the

outcomes, and preferred to break the relations with Iran for the good of

his own people and the American society.

87 The official residence and principal workplace of the President of the United States, located in Washington DC.

52

Everybody was expecting that the hostage crisis will eventually

end relatively soon, but it seemed that it wasn’t quite like that. As days

went by, the US population was confronting a mix of feelings that were

almost depressing and exhausting. The situation seemed to get in a dead

point, especially because the Iranian militants had no clear demands in

order for the hostages to break free, and this eventually led to the

American officials to be more and more confused about the case.

Another fact that is relevant for the case, according to David

Farber, is that a number of Iranian students living in the US decided to

unite in order to hold several rallies in several Universities across the

country, in the most important countries, in which they demanded the

return of the Shah to be prosecuted by the Revolutionary Council88

.

President Carter tried to make some arrangements in order to

stop and prevent future protest by young Iranians, as they were

disturbing the population, and increasing the tension during the times of

the Iran Hostage Crisis. There was an issue of questioning the capacity

of Carter in handling the Iran Hostage Crisis, even though the security

precautions were ensured in this case.

In the first weeks of the hostage ordeal, it seemed that everyone

was focused on possible and viable ways to help the hostages, as an

effort was made by the American population to show that they actually

cared about the faith of the captives.

President Carter proved to be very committed to the situation

during the hostage crisis, fact that brought a little bit of comfort to the

88 A group that was formed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to manage the Iranian Revolution on the 12th of January 1979, right before he returned to Iran.

53

American population. The people were well-aware of the fact that

President Carter was making a huge effort to mediate somehow the

situation, and to bring the people that were taken hostage on American

ground. Because of this particular fact, President Carter enjoyed support

from the American people all throughout the hostage ordeal.

In order to rescue the hostages, two approaches to the problem

were embraced, one focused on a diplomatic approach, and the other

one, on military power.

54

Using the Art of Communication

An essential factor in the hostage ordeal was the attempt of

negotiating with the Iranian extremist group by William Miller89

and

Ramsey Clark90

. Because of the media involvement, the White House

officials believed that the media coverage came to be a total

disadvantage, as it was contributing to the refusal of the Ayatollah to

discuss with the American negotiators. All the negotiation results were

almost kept within a diplomatic frame, as everything that was discussed

was under the light of extreme precaution and security frame.

Ramsey Clark had to deal previously with Ayatollah Khomeini,

and he was somehow prepared for the other unpleasant part of the talks

that would eventually lead nowhere.

Khomeini refused to see the American negotiators, fact that in

the end, made the situation worse. Because of the Ayatollah’s refusal to

cooperate, Carter started to look for military options in order to get the

hostages out.

The State Department Officials eventually performed a crisis

task force – named the Iran Working Group91

. The mission of the Iran

89 The 65th US Secretary of the Treasury, that is known for his involvement in the negotiation process organized for the freeing of the American hostages from the US

Embassy in Tehran 90 An American lawyer, activist and former public official that worked for the US Department of Justice, and US Attorney General from 1967 to 1969 under L. B. Johnson 91 A group that regularly convenes specialists from the DC policy community, along with a

number of research projects, and an exchange program between US and Iranian religious leaders.

55

Working Group was to communicate with the Iranians and eventually

negotiate an end to the ordeal. In order to have a successful negotiation

process and to get the hostages out, the negotiators had to find the

optimal combination of pressure, persuasion tactics, along with the right

personalities and the kind of promises that would actually reach the

hearts of the Iranians.

There was a quest from the State Department for efficient and

rational negotiation processes, according to David Farber, that were

disturbed by the hostage takers and their irrational will to die and be

regarded as martyrs, along with the fact that they were presenting the

Iranian government as being a fragile entity, incapable to conduct a long

and stressful process of negotiation with the American authorities.

Another factor that had to be taken into consideration with regard to the

incapacity of the Iranians to involve in a complicated negotiation

process was because Iran was extremely unstable, as it was deeply

marked by the changes that were made in the political regime and it

seemed to be very much affected by the Iranian Revolution. On the other

hand, the Americans were only bringing up the news about their own

people, (which was a very natural way of acting, given the situation), but

the lives and the feelings of the Iranian population were simply ignored.

From this point of view, the two opposing parties in the negotiation

process do not benefit from the same amount of importance and support

at least from the outside environment, so it was basically impossible to

conduct a fair process of negotiation facing the situation that was

created.

56

Iran versus the West

From the Western point of view, the hostages were simply a

sort of political tools that were meant to be used in the midst of the

Presidential elections, and many Americans started to look down on the

whole ordeal in the sense that the candidates for the Presidency of the

United States were in some way taking advantage of the state of

confusion that was created within the electorate. Maybe the question of

political fair-play arose in the minds of the American society by that

time.

Ayatollah Khomeini called the United States of America “The

Great Satan”92

as he was sure that the Western values that the American

society is promoting, are doing nothing else, but contributing to the state

of terror and confusion that was already created. Along with the acts of

continuously blaming the US for all the “religious mess” that was

created, in their almost sick minds, the Iranians figured out that the

American system is also guilty for the unstable situation that was

developing in Iran itself, adding up to the fact that the Iranian population

was much against the Shah, and could not stand the US supporting his

reforms and regime. On the other hand, when it comes to the negotiation

process, according to Farber, it seemed that the Carter Administration

was just not strong enough to face the Iranian political arrangements.

92 Expression described by David Farber with regard to the opinion of the Ayatollah about the Unites States and the Western values that it promotes in the whole world

57

The militant students wanted to keep the hostages until the

Carter Administration would return the deposed93

Shah of Iran and

allow for him to be executed.

As far as the story of the Iranian militants and supporters of the

Islamic Revolution goes, it was said that the US Embassy officials were

seen as some important representatives of the American government,

according to the author, that eventually undermined the political system

of Iran, as well as supporting a ruthless dictator who killed dissidents

and sought to destroy their revolution. America was regarded by the

Iranians as “a superpower that had always treated their nation, culture

and religion as expendable pawns in a bigger game94

”; also stating the

fact that the regime of Khomeini had at its core a sort of “moral

geography95

”.

With regard to the lives of the hostages during the crisis, the

students made continuous efforts to interrogate and indoctrinate the

people. The Iranian group went as far as sending letters to the parents of

the people that were in their captivity.

The hostage-takers began the interrogations with the targeted

groups to make sure there wasn’t any CIA involvement into discussion.

Two weeks into the siege, Khomeini delivered a message to the young

students stating that they are to release the women and the African

American people that were captive unless they were found to be spies.

As the author states, Khomeini regarded the black minority of US as

93 Referring to the fact that the ruler of a country was removed forcefully from office 94 Referring to the international arena and the impact of the decisions of the world leaders,

a game that is played at high political levels 95 A sort of respect for the geographical boundaries of the territory that is in discussion

58

being themselves victims of the unjust American society and could not

be blamed for the policies of their domestic politics. In the end, 13

people were released.

In David Farber’s book, the action that Khomeini undertook, in

particular that of freeing the African-American captives, was not

regarded simply as a random decision, but a sort of tactic, in order to

consolidate the leftist forces96

that were part of the anti-Shah coalition97

.

He was also careful in choosing the people that seized the Embassy in

Tehran, so that all the militants that completed the malicious act were

actually very much against the regime that was imposed by the Shah.

Khomeini also used the act of hostage-taking, according to the

author, in order to prove the fact that the mission of the Iranian

Revolution was totally against imperialism, and it had to be regarded as

a way of showing solidarity towards the under-developed countries from

the African region. Also, it is important to note the fact that Khomeini

actually benefitted somehow from the Embassy takeover, as it was

regarded by him as an effective tool of revenge against the overthrow of

the Mossadegh’s regime in the 1953 coup98

that was orchestrated by the

CIA99

. Khomeini in the end, according to the author, had no interest in

96 Referring to the Tudeh Party of Iran, being at its core a communist party; played an

important role during Mossadegh’s campaign to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and his team as Prime Minister 97 Movement that was organized by Ayatollah Khomeini and other Shiite Muslim clerics

who wanted to demonstrate their hatred towards the Shah 98 Known in Iran as the 28 Mordad Coup; involving the overthrow of the Prime Minister

Muhammad Mossadegh, being orchestrated by the United Kingdom 99 One of the principal intelligence gathering agencies of the US federal government; its headquarters is located in Langley, Virginia, just few miles from Washington DC

59

negotiating a quick end to the hostage crisis, as the advantages had a

tendency of increasing in his favour, along with the passage of time.

By mid November, the US government stopped buying oil

from Iran. Later, according to the author, Carter ordered that all the

Iranian assets that were present in the United States, to include the

deposits and foreign assets that were deposed in the American banks

both pertaining to US and Iran be frozen until the end of the hostage

crisis.

On the other hand, Farber states that the student hostage takers

wanted to prove to the world that the people held hostage were nothing

else but allies of the evil and they were employed as spies on the

governments of the whole world. In other words, the Iranian militant

group wanted to show the world that the American Diplomatic services

and administration was working in the disadvantage of many countries.

While the hostage crisis continued to unfold, the Iranian group

kept searching for evidence that will eventually show them that the

Embassy personnel acted against their government. After a mind

boggling search of the documents, all that they found was only a fake

passport issued on the name of one of the hostages that was part of CIA

personnel. Through this desperate act, in my opinion, they made a move

in order to find a reason for the seizing of the Embassy and for the state

of crisis that they created.

Despite of all the pressure, Carter wanted to make sure, as the

author presents, that the United States was ready to retaliate in case that

any of the hostages was executed. Hundreds of hours were spent in order

60

to consult various officials and experts on the case of the hostage crisis

in order to find an optimal solution to the ordeal.

Unfortunately, for the Carter Administration, the situation

complicated even more than anyone actually expected. With the Iran

Hostage Crisis in his thoughts, according to David Farber, the President

had to deal with yet another major problem, this being the Soviet

military100

invading Afghanistan101

, as 85,000 troops were sent there.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, is a Polish American political scientist

that is known to have served as the US National Security Advisor under

President Jimmy Carter. He played a major role in the foreign policy of

the United States during the Iran Hostage Crisis. For quite a long time,

he had been warning President Carter about the actions that the Soviets

pushed for in order to obtain control of Afghanistan. Also, one of his

major fears actually related, according to Farber, to the possible

infiltration of the Soviet power in the Persian Gulf region.

100 The Armed forces of Russia and Soviet Union, from their beginnings, in the aftermath

of the Russian Civil War, to their dissolution in 1991. Composed of the Ground Forces, Air Forces, the Navy, the State Political Directorate and the convoy guards. 101 Soviet War of Afghanistan (Dec. 1979 to Feb. 1989) was a part of the Cold War,

composed of two alliances between the Soviet led Afghan Forces against the Mujahedeen – which was a multi-national insurgent group.

61

Hopes were Dashed by the Desert Winds

By March, according to the author, the United States saw itself

forced to exercise the military option that was taken into consideration

from the very beginning. By mid-April, Carter already had in mind a

plan of rescuing the hostages, being an operation conducted by a

commando rescue team that will act in such a way that they will free the

hostages and kill as many hostage takers as they can. This had to be

done quickly and with as little damage as possible.

In the meantime, a team of highly skilled military professionals

have been trained especially for conducting the planned rescue operation

in Iran. The team was composed of Delta Force102

officials, and it was

subjected to daily training for the operation. All the military exercises

had to be done in a secured area, according to Farber, in order to prevent

media involvement.

The rescue plan was called Operation Eagle Claw103

, and was

anything but a simple action. It involved eight helicopters, and an assault

of 118 men would make their way, according to the author, from the

carrier Nimiz, which was located in the Gulf of Oman, to another desert

location in Iran, called Desert One. From there, the team was to make

its way safely to the US embassy in Tehran. An important detail of the

operation was that the location of the hostages was very precisely known

by the rescue team. The Delta Force Team were to enter the embassy

102 A US Army component of the Joint Operations Command, formerly listed as the Combat Applications Group by the Department of Defense. 103 US Armed Forces operation that was ordered by President Jimmy Carter in an attempt

to end the Iran Hostage Crisis, by rescuing the 52 diplomats held captives at the US Embassy in Tehran.

62

compound, kill every armed individual that was to be found, each of

them were to be executed with two shots to the head, get a hold of the

hostages and in the end, they had to make sure that the Americans would

get home safely.

The mission eventually failed, resulting in three helicopters

failing because of mechanical problems that arose following a severe

dust storm, two helicopters turned around, and the last one faced

hydraulic problems. On top of that, there were only five functional

helicopters that remained in the mission. This actually implied that 20

men were to be left behind. This situation, according to the author,

would not help any on the people involved in the crisis, to include the

hostages and those that were sent in the rescue mission. The operation

was in the end aborted.

According to the author, exactly when everybody thought that

no more difficult situations will arise, shortly after the abort order was

communicated, a helicopter lifted and collided with a plane. An

explosion followed the collision and eight people were killed.

After the failure of the mission, President Carter had to face

waves of criticism from the press. “New York Times” and “The Wall

Street Journal” are just some of the important US newspapers that issued

information criticizing the President and implying that he (the President)

was “unfit to be a President during times of crisis”104

104 Apud Joseph Craft, “The Washington Post”, David Farber in “Taken Hostage...”

63

Fighting for Freedom

The term in office of Carter was near its end. Because of this,

the officials that were in charge of the hostage crisis made desperate

efforts to get the American people out of Iranians’ hands. Interesting

situations emerged, in the sense that the Iranians (apart from those

pertaining to the extremist group) were actually interested to find a

solution to the hostage crisis, and were starting to make steps toward

freeing the captives. They started to get involved in the processes of

hostage negotiations. According to the author, the Iranians that actually

looked for the end of the hostage situation, as they wanted Iran’s frozen

assets back into their possession, along with the American-based assets

that pertained to the Shah.

Along with the crisis, there was now a question of the Shah’s

location, as nobody knew exactly what happened to him. The Shah

became the main focus of the problem, but Carter no longer trusted him.

On July 27, the Shah died in Egyptian exile because of serious health

problems.

With regard to the hostage negotiation processes, it seemed that

the Iranians were way too focused on their home country’s political

drama, as they were less concerned with the negotiation stages.

As far as the expectations of the Americans are concerned,

people started to take into consideration the possibility that the

American captives will be set free before the start of the US Presidential

64

elections. According to Farber, despite their expectations, nothing

happened in this respect.

Carter eventually lost the presidency to Reagan. As the author

agrees, the ongoing hostage crisis was not the only reason for Carter’s

defeat. The pain of the American nation actually deepened, as they were

continuously bullied by the Ayatollah, who was regarded as being

beyond evil, “perceived as a crazy, religious fanatic105

”, along with his

religious and political followers from Iran.

As far as the American population is concerned, the hostage

crisis itself was not the main reason for the crisis situation that US faced.

According to the author, rather the “foreign policy mess106

” was in a

way “responsible” for the feeling of instability and terror that the

Americans experienced during the 1979 – 1981 period of time. The

economic and energy crisis was the main factor that produced instability

in the country, while the situation of the hostages was regarded,

according to the author, as a horrible situation that the “American

brothers107

” had to face. It was more a question of nation and family

values pertaining to the society of the United States.

The American hostages were freed on the 20th

of January 1981.

They were held captives for 444 days, and a total of 52 survived to see

themselves finally free.

On their way home, the Americans held hostage were surprised

to encounter vast media attention oriented toward them. They actually

105 David Farber “Taken Hostage...” p. 179, Princeton University Press, 2004 106 Idem p. 179 107 Ibidem p. 179

65

made a stop in Algeria, where the population was centred on their case,

as the reporters were trying to get interviews and footage from them.

An important fact to point out is, according to the author, that

in November 1980, the Algerian diplomats took on the role of mediators

between Iranians and Americans. They served as a sort of “cultural

brokers”108

between the United States and Iran. The Algerians were in

the end regarded as people who did their best to perform a vital role in

mediating between two completely distinct and separated cultures. The

Algerian team, according to the author, was the best when it comes to

mediation skills and tactics during times of crisis, and it seemed that

they actually managed to do a great job for the American people109

.

According to Farber, the final negotiation sets encapsulated

very complex financial concerns. The Iranians wanted their frozen

accounts back at all costs, while the American Banks were pressuring

the Iranian government to pay off the loans that were given to the Shah’s

regime. The American Banks also had a very strong negotiating power

in this economic part of the US – Iran relations. After some short rounds

of negotiations, the Iranians gave up the idea of getting back the assets,

and the United States agreed in meeting one of the fundamental

demands of Iranian population, being that of not interfering with the

Iranian Government or in the internal issues of the country.

There was a kind of twisted sick joke in this difficult situation,

being that in fact, Khomeini released the hostages because he no longer

could make use of them. With Carter out of the game, the Ayatollah

108 David Farber – “Taken Hostage....” p. 181, Princeton University Press, 2004 109 Argument defended by Christopher Warren, who was an American lawyer, diplomat

and politician, serving as the 63rd Secretary of State under Bill Clinton’s first term as President, being also the Deputy Secretary of State under the Carter Administration

66

concluded that he succeeded in humiliating the President of the United

States and seemed very satisfied, despite the horrible acts that he

supervised.

Khomeini’s plan went so far that he actually waited for the

term of Carter to end until the last minute, when he found out that

Ronald Reagan took the Presidential Office in the United States. In a

matter of minutes, the American hostages were released. The Ayatollah

had fulfilled his desire of having Carter humiliated during the last

months of his term.

67

The Canadian Caper

The Canadian Caper was a mission of hiding six American

diplomats that evaded capture on 4th

of November 1979, during the day

of the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. Lee Schatz, the

Agricultural Attache, along with Robert Anders, the head of the

Consular Department, Joe Stafford and Mark Lijek, who were Consular

Attaches, with their wives Katherine Stafford and Cora Lijek. They were

helped by the Canadian Ambassador, Kenneth Taylor, who took three of

them at his private residence, and the other three would go to his official

residence. All of them were described to the staff as tourists that came

for a visit from Canada. After three months of hiding at the Canadian

Embassy in Iran, the diplomats made it through the airport, the

remaining documents were shreded and the other unclassified material

was eventually sent to New Zealand. The six American Diplomats left

Iran on a Swissair flight, at 7:35 a.m. on January 27, 1980.

68

Lessons Learned

The Iran Hostage Crisis, as the author states, was “a wake-up call

for the American people and the nation‟s leaders”110

. Important lessons

were learned in the aftermath of the hostage crisis. Among the lessons

were those of learning not to trust dictators, or to allow the foreign

services of other countries to be viable sources of information with

regard to their own country.

Also the United States was accused of having “short memory”

because of the reminiscent ideals that used to pertain to the Imperialist

regimes, and this was done, according to the author, in an effort to cover

all the mistakes for which the US Government felt guilty.

Another major mistake of the United States was, as the author

agrees, that of believing the fact that the whole world actually embraced

Western values, which was not the case for the Iranian population and

politics. Also a brief statement was made: “differences among

civilizations are not real, they are basic. The people of different

civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man

<...> between liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy.”111

Also, I agree with the statement of the author, saying that

“some differences should and will result in conflict, even violent conflict.

But understanding the significance and power of such differences offers

110 David Farber - “Taken Hostage...” p. 187, Princeton University Press, 2004 111 Apud, Samuel Huntington in “The Clash of Civilizations”, David Farber – “Taken Hostage...”, p. 189

69

at least the possibility of useful, informed negotiation.”112

, because one

cannot solve a conflict situation unless the differences between the

conflicting parties are taken into consideration, which is a crucial basic

step that needs to be made in order to conduct a fruitful negotiation

process.

112 David Farber -“Taken Hostage...”, p. 190

70

Press Analysis

The 1979 – 1981 period was much mediatised in the United

States of America, and later in the whole world. The Iran Hostage Crisis

became known as the longest hostage crisis that ever took place, lasting

for 444 days.

With regard to the impact that the Iran Hostage Crisis had on

the media, some of the well known newspapers from the Unites States

were chosen for review. In doing so, newspapers such as the “Wall

Street Journal113

”, “The Washington Post114

”, “The New York Times115

”,

and “The Miami Herald116

”were consulted, considering the above

mentioned as being an appropriate source of reference when conducting

research in this particular case. The vast majority of the articles that

were found are from 1980, and describe somehow the social and

political situations that were present at that time.

In “The Washington Post” (21st of February, 1980), in a

commentary by George Will there are presented several talks about

“tightening the screws” and making Iran pay “an increasingly higher

price”. According to George Will, the US did everything it its power to

avoid all measures that might punish Iran; there is mentioned the fact

that “the US is paying political ransom to political kidnappers”. As a

113 American English international newspaper, established by Dow Jones and Company;

the largest US newspaper by circulation 114 American Daily newspaper, founded in 1877, making it the oldest newspaper in the area 115 Idem, founded in New York City since Sept. 18, 1851, winner of 112 Pulitzer Prizes 116 Ibidem ,founded in Doral, Florida, 1903 , the largest newspaper in Florida, also circulating in the Latin America and the Caribbean

71

conclusion of the article, Iran fails to release the hostages, instead

raising the price that the United States will have to pay.

In “The New York Times” (26th

of April 1980) in an article by

Philip Taubman, the rescue mission called “Operation Eagle Claw” was

presented, in which 8 helicopters were sent to rescue the hostages. This

operation eventually failed, and 8 people died. One of the helicopters

had to undergo reparations, so it left the mission, and another helicopter

failed. On top of that, one of the six helicopters sent in mission went on

fire, 8 people got killed and other 4 injured.

In “The Miami Herald” (27th

of April 1980) in an article by

Hugh Sydney, criticism addressed to President Carter can be observed,

as the author is accusing him of media manipulation and suggesting the

fact that Carter did not really care about the situation of the hostages, but

about the image that he was constructing during the ordeal in the

international arena.

In another article that was consulted, pertaining to the “Wall

Street Journal”, by Daniel Pipes (no date), the Iranian Revolution is

described briefly, and Ayatollah Khomeini is portrayed as being the

“antithesis of the Shah117

”, and in my opinion, the author is trying to

provide a critical short analysis of the Iranian Revolution, along with the

reasons of the Iranians for hating the Western world, especially the

United States.

117 Comment made by Daniel Pipes in Wall Street Journal (no date available)

72

According to an article that was published in “The Wall Street

Journal” on the 16th

of January, 1980, named “Iran, Afghanistan and

Soviet Military Doctrine”, by Paul Craig Roberts, the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan constituted a surprise for the American policymakers. The

State Department Officials declared themselves embarrassed by the

situation that was created in the international arena, also making several

comments regarding the weakness of President Carter when it comes to

a crisis response. According to the article, if the Soviets were to seize

Iran, the Persian Gulf would also become part of their territory, and the

access to oil would be very much restricted if it was to get into Soviet

hands. Also, there is an idea concerning the fact that Western Europe

and Japan would eventually accomodate to the Soviet policies, this

ultimately leading to the difficulty of the Presidents of any country to

involve in any US-Chinese military alliance.

There is also mentioned the fact that the United States will

refrain from dealing with Iran, in order to avoid some other brutal

conflict arising on the international scene.

Concerning the hostages, there was not still clear in whose

hands they ended up, as emphaisis is placed on the departure of the

Shah, and the political state of chaos that was created in Iran, following

the installation of Ayatollah Khomeini as the new leader of the country.

In the end, the author makes a remark on the position of the

United States in the situation, stating the fact that he finds it way too

dangerous for America to involve in the Soviet affairs, also blaming

Carter for all the foreign policy mess.

73

In an article pertaining to Roy Childs Jr., in “The Libertarian

Review” (February 1980), the attitude of the Shah Muhammad Reza

Pahlavi is mainly blamed. This author also expresses his concernes for

the lives of the hostages and tries to provide a logical explanation of the

“Iranian Drama” to the people from the United States. He is mainly

concerned with the faith of the Shah during the hostage ordeal. He states

the fact that the Shah left from San Antonio, where he received

assistance to “a small island off the coast of Panama”. Soon after this

information got into the minds of most people, Ronald Reagan stated

that he would grant the Shah “permanent asylum” because he was a

friend of the United States. Regarding the illness of the Shah, the Iranian

population proved to be somewhat reluctant to any information of that

kind, in the end asking for proof of the illness of the King. The Shah is

also portrayed by the author as a symbol of the United States foreign

policy, and, according to Kissinger, he is also “known as being one of

the closest allies in foreign policy”118

.

In conclusion, the press of the 1979 – 1981 period played an

important role during the Iran Hostage Crisis, getting the people to know

the case in a realistic manner. Other articles criticize the system and the

leaders, and a it can be observed that a series of pro and con arguments

were always at stake.

118 Roy Childs, apud Henry Kissinger “The Libertarian Review” February, 1980

74

Chapter 5

Analysis of the Mediation Techniques in Cases of Hostage Crises

In the following part, I will try to elaborate a game that will

help me and the reader understand the process of hostage negotiation

and mediation, when it comes to a hostage crisis situation. In doing so, I

will use the Claassen’s theory of mediation, and Glasl’s model of

Conflict escalation, in order to see which of them actually confirm in the

presented case:

Let us assume that a relatively small group of people are taken

hostage and they are taken to a place that is isolated, somewhere outside

the area of a city.

The hostage-taking act was planned in advance, and there is

one leader of the action that is making the decisions concerning both the

hostage-takers and the hostages. The hostage takers are taking control

over the space in which the hostages are held. We may add the fact that

there was no physical harm inflicted so far on the hostages, but they are

close to psychological breakdown.

In the following drawing, I wanted to show the situation that I

presented above, in order to provide a visual tool to the reader, hoping

that it will be helpful for him or her to get a better understanding of the

game I tried to construct. The situation is presented using simple

drawings and colors, and each drawing is accompanied by brief

explanations in order to get to the reader’s mind in an easier manner.

75

Mediation and Negotiation Options/ Strategies for Solving a Hostage

Situation

Figure 3.1 – Hostages and Hostage-Takers

The red dots are the hostages

The rounded rectangle with the tilted lines represents the secured space in

which the hostages are trapped

The blue dots are the hostage takers that guard the compound

The outside involvement is the leader of the hostage taking group

The Leader

Th

e hostages

76

A team of mediators/ negotiators appears at the scene. There is

the Primary Negotiator who takes control of the situation. Let’s assume

that I am the Primary Negotiator, and I have the Secondary and the Back-

Up Negotiators next to me.

The first thing that I have to do is to gather as much information

as possible concerning the background of the hostage takers, especially of

the leading figure in the ordeal. I will need to have information about their

families, about their peers, about their occupation (if there is one besides

being a hostage-taker). I also have to be aware of a variety of issues, such

as: ethnic and religious background, psychological factors, poor mental

health, sick attraction towards the hostages (there are cases when the

hostage taker either praises the victims as he or she wants to keep them

close to him or her, sexual demands toward the victims may arise into

question) along with the desire to get some material benefits in exchange

for the release of the victims. Other reasons would simply constitute the

racial, religious, ethnic and gender differences, which can ultimately be

regarded as “motifs” for the act of hostage-taking.

The next thing that I have to do is to take actions of isolating the

hostage-takers and surround by outnumbering them with the officers I am

bringing to the scene.

77

Figure 3.2 - Surrounding Tactic for Cases of Hostage Situations

The red dots are the Hostages

The dotted lines, along with the rounded rectangle and the blue lines

mean the fact that the hostages are confined within a highly secured area

The blue dots are the hostage takers

The orange circle along with the triangles are the police officers and the

mediators

The purple circle is the head of the hostage taking act

The green dot is the primary negotiator

78

In my team there are also highly skilled officers and mediators

that will try to take control over the situation that was created.

I will have to isolate the hostage takers and I have the

responsibility to secure the perimeter. As the primary negotiator, I have

the responsibility to get to talk to the leader of the hostage taking act and

I will try to establish a rapport with him/her. I will try my best to use a

friendly approach, at the same time controlling my tone and my body

language. I have to present myself, and I will also ask the hostage takers

about how he/they like to be called. Even though I feel frustrated with

the situation that was created, I have to be polite with the hostage taker

and to be careful not to offend him. I will do my best in quickly getting

him whatever he wants. Example: Do you want your money? Here you

have the bag. Please check it. Take your time and count the money, to

make sure that the deal we had is respected. Active listening is also a

very important asset in the discussion that I am conducting with the

hostage taker. So is empathy, which will be shown by using various

forms of communication, such as direct eye-contact, nodding from time

to time, along with using verbal “aids” such as I am trying to understand

your point of view/ how you feel about the situation. Empathy can prove

to be also an effective tool on the way of establishing trust between me -

as the mediator and the hostage taker.

Developing rapport is another crucial step in the process of

hostage situations, especially when it comes to the job of the mediator.

This means that I am trying to get the hostage taker to some sort of

comfort in the whole situation, in the sense that I have to make him

believe that I am the only person capable of helping him and the victims.

79

Because I am also aware of the fact that the hostage taker actually

knows what the consequences of his acts can be, I have to inflict some

psychological pressure on him, by convincing him of the fact that I am

his only option in the case he wants to preserve his freedom. For

example I can use the following phrase: If you cooperate, I will set you

free, and we will all calm down, you will free everybody, and we will go

home safely. This is your best option. In the phase that I just described,

we can clearly see the last stage of managing a hostage crisis, being the

influence. Apart from this process, I may add that I have to make the

hostage taker understand that I am seeking an agreement at all costs. I

also have to provide the hostage taker with reasons for my efforts, in this

case, the best option for me (the negotiator/ mediator) would constitute

the fact that I am mainly concerned with everybody’s well-being, and I

have to stress out the fact that I do not want to have anybody imprisoned

at the end of the ordeal. Another important process will be that of trying

to generate options for both parties in order to make them understand

that the conflict/crisis can be relatively easy to diffuse.

If the hostage takers will find themselves outnumbered and I

(the negotiator), along with my team will be successful in applying the

steps that were presented above, the attackers will gradually fall into the

stage marked by the surrender ritual. At first they will be scared,

because they already know that they are guilty, then it is important to

note the fact that the attackers had also undergone some psychological

processes that affected and still affects them; then it is the surprise

factor, because the mediators ended up in the same place as the

attackers, as the latter were unaware of the fact that this thing could

actually happen. The last thing I have to do is to use time as my main

ally. As the time passes, the attackers will feel more and more pressured,

80

and they will end up either inflicting pain by hurting themselves, either

will surrender and will submit to the police forces.

How to survive while being a hostage

In a hostage situation, most of us will have difficulties when

dealing with the psychological processes that occur during those

particular times. After consulting some articles online, I decided to

provide some survival techniques for such a case. Everything seems to

be related to self-control and patience. The basic steps to survive a

hostage situation are:

1. Remain calm: this approach to the problem will prove to be

effective, as through this attitude one will be able to get a

clearer picture of what is actually happening, and will try to

remain focused on solutions, rather than on the feelings of

loneliness and despair.

2. Be a good observer: through making a mental effort of

observing the surroundings, one will be able to get a hold of

crucial information that will later serve him/her at the rescue

process. It is good both for the mind of the hostage, because

he/she will not be overwhelmed by the feelings of despair, and

will also prove effective when discussing to the police, to

ensure the success of the rescue operation.

81

3. Speak only when the hostage-taker is speaking to you: avoid

talking more to the hostage taker than you are supposed to.

One has to keep in mind the fact that, for the moment, the

hostage is only regarded as a tool for the attacker in order to

gain several benefits. Even if the hostage develops feelings of

hate toward the attacker, he should treat the last as an important

individual, ans avoid being aggressive at all costs. When

speaking to the authorities, give only “yes” of “no” answers. It

is crucial not to talk to the hostage taker about religious, ethnic

and racial background.

4. Communicate with the hostage taker in case you need vital

medication or medical care: as it could be observed in the Iran

Hostage Crisis case, there were some people who were set free

due to their medical conditions. Usually, the hostage takers do

not keep ill people into custody. Also, at a psychological level,

those who suffer from panic attacks should be very careful too,

because these situations could lead the hostage taker to the

extreme level of actions, and from here only two choices

remain. Either they set the people free, either they kill the

latter.

5. Do not try to escape: in this situation, the only outcome of the

actions will be murder. The loss of lives should be avoided at

all costs by both parties of the conflict, to avoid a more

complicated approach to the crisis.

6. If the police enter, hit the ground immediately: when referring

to the intervention of the police, one has to keep in mind the

fact that the authorities will shoot at the ones standing, as they

are instructed to do, in cases of crisis.

82

According to the Theory of Mediation, I am aware of the fact

that the hypothetical case that I presented above requires a long and

difficult process of mediation, because I am dealing with an escalated

conflict, which is at the point of transforming into a crisis. I also have to

take into account the difficulty of the situation, in order to apply the

mediation techniques that suit the case.

Another thing that I am taking into consideration is the

Corollary 1 of the Theory of Mediation which states that Evaluative

mediation is not efficient or effective at high levels of conflict; which is

applicable in my case, which by definition, requires a long process of

mediation and negotiation in order to get both parties out of the ordeal.

When dealing with hostage crises, it is of outmost importance

to understand the fact that a conflict has to pass through cretain stages in

order to get to a crisis situation. A crisis is a result of a conflict that has

gone overboard. Also, at a psychological level, the crisis is a situation

that a person perceives as persenting great obstacles in achieveing

goals119

.

With regard to the mediation style that can be used in cases of

crisis and conflict, according to Tobias Bohmelt in his book

“International Mediation Interaction - Synergy, Conflict,

Effectiveness”120

it is clear that states have to rely on third parties,

especially at an economic level. A proper example would constitute the

intervention of the Algerian Diplomats in the process of negotiations for

119 Apud Caplan 1961; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1977 – Crisis (Hostage) Hegotiation:Current Strategies and Issues in High-Risk Conflict Resolution in Aggression and Violent

Behavior 10 (2005) 120 Bohmelt, Tobias; International Mediation Interaction - Synergy, Conflict, Effectiveness, VS Research, 2011, p. 87

83

the freedom of the American people that were trapped in the Embassy

compound.

As for the case of the discourses presented in the thesis, a clear

distinction can be drawn between the speeches of Carter and those of the

Ayatollah.

President Carter had a great influence over the American

population, as he tried to do anything in his power to save the people

that were held hostage at the American Embassy in Iran. In every speech

and press declaration that he gave to the media, one can easily observe

the fact that Jimmy Carter was very much concerned about the

American people and he promoted peace during his term, despite the

situation that was created.

During the Iran Hostage Crisis, this being the event that deeply

marked the American foreign policy in the 1979-1981 period, the

speeches that were given had a great influence over the populations of

both conflicting parties. Even though the speeches had similar goals, the

people that were listening and participating to the discourses held by the

two leaders, eventually came to conflicting conclusions.

These discourses, were, in fact, the main reason for the

conflictual situation, later the ctrisis that developed between Iran and the

United States. The main argument comes from the idea of power and

struggle for influence; also, human and natural resources are at stake.

These factors came to be the core motifs for the Iranian Revolution and

the Iran Hostage Crisis.

84

One significant speech that I found pertains to President Jimmy

Carter and it is concerned with the Iran Hostage Crisis. The President

says that the country was facing a very difficult situation in Iran, when

the US Embassy was seized and more than 60 Americans were taken

hostage, “ in an attempt to force unnaceptable demands on our country”

. The President did his best to use “ every available channel to protect

the lives of the hostages and secure their release”. Carter also stresses

great importance and showed gratitude toward the solidary action that

was taken by the American people during the crisis. He is also taking the

situation in a very personal manner, referring to the hostages as “our

people” and brought to light the fact that the basic rights of this people

were severely violated in a situation where political and power relations

were at stake. In the end President Carter ordered for the American

Government to stop buying oil from Iran.

On the other hand, Ayatollah Khomeini was also conducting

speeches, as the ruthless political and religious leader of Iran, right after

the overthrow of the Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi. In a speech that I

found, the Ayatollah starts by addressing condolences to the mothers

and fathers who have lost their sons in the Iranian Revolution. He was

emphasizing the fact that the Iranian population did not deserve to go

through the Iranian Revolution, which ultimately caused a great pain and

suffering among the people. His speech is centralized on the Shah, as he

calls the Pahlavi Dynasty as being granted the high positions in an

unlawful manner, along with blaming the dynasty for being corrupt and

for disrespecting the rights of the Iranian people. Ayatollah basically

calls the Shah a criminal, and emphasises the fact that he (the Shah) and

his administration all deserve to be brought to trial as he (the Ayatollah)

is trying to communicate to the population that he is the best way for

85

them to make justice in the end. He is applauded by the people standing

by, as one can observe a sort of unity that was created between the

Ayatollah and the Iranian people on their promised path to freedom.

These two speeches were chosen as they stand as a good

example of antethisis of the two political rulers and these illustrate the

great differences that cand be observed between the mai political leaders

of the parties in question. President Carter is more focused on the rights

of the people, having a more human approach on the issue of the

Hostage Crisis, in an effort to bring a little bit of confort to the

Americans, while Khomeini is not communicating to reach the hearts

and the humanity in the Iranian people, rather he conducted speeches

meant to enrage the population, leading them to engage in cruel actions

oriented toward the West, and increased hatred for the Americans and

the past regime.

The political and media speeches that were conducted had a

very important role in the 1979 – 1981 politics in the United States and

Iran, amidst the Iran Hostage Crisis, because these both served as means

of communication for the people – for the Americans, and also as very

effective ways of indoctrination and enrage – as for the case of Iranians.

86

Answers to the research questions

When referring to the relation between the President Carter

and the extremist Islamic group, can one state the fact that Carter tried

to assume the role of a mediator in the whole hostage ordeal?

Going back to the research questions that were presented in the

first chapter, one can state that Carter assumed somehow the role of a

mediator between the US population and the Iranian government. His

attempts of mediation could be easily observed in the speeches that he

gave to the press during the Iran Hostage Crisis ordeal. In my opinion,

Carter was a President that wanted to avoid conflict at all costs, and did

the best he could to solve the hostage crisis by peaceful approaches to

the issue.

Was Carter successful in his attempt of peaceful resolution of the

situation?

Jimmy Carter did not succeed in his attempt, and ended up by

being humiliated by Ayatollah Khomeini, brutally criticized by the

population and the press. Despite the criticism that was oriented towards

him, the American people supported Carter for a period of time, until the

times of the presidential elections, when he eventually lost the

Presidency to Ronald Reagan. My opinion is that President Carter was

caught in the middle of the situation, and he struggled to save the

Americans held hostage in Tehran. Another thing that has to be taken

87

into consideration when referring to this issue, is the involvement of the

press in the case, that ultimately had a great influence over the opinions

of the American population.

The Iran Hostage Crisis remains in the minds of the population

as the longest hostage crisis that ever occurred, leaving painful marks in

the hearts of many, probably both Americans and Iranians. It is regarded

as an event that had a great impact on the foreign policy of America,

along with representing the event that in a way, lead to the path of the

permanent degradation of all level of relations between the United States

and Iran. In the end, this cruel act, remains a proof of the hatred of the

extremist Muslim cathegory that was oriented toward the West, formed

on the basis of differrences between the two parties, and of the lack of

acceptance of the concept of “the other”. For me, personally, remains a

very sad event, that destroyed the lives of many, along with the relations

between important actors on the international scene, that in the end,

lacked both a real motif and rationality.

88

Conclusions

Through this research paper I tried to present a very important

event that relates to hostage crises. I chose the Iran Hostage Crisis

because it is known to be the longest hostage crisis in history, and

because it is known to have had a great impact on the foreign policy of

both the United States and Iran. This case study shows the way that the

relations between the Muslim world (here referring to the extremist

parties and groups) and the West eventually degraded along with the

passage of time, due to the cruel and abnoxious events that took place

between them.

The qualitative method was chosen for this thesis, because it

was regarded as being the most appropriate method of research in this

particular case. To ensure the validity of the research, I also presented

the stages of the qualitative methodology, as I tried to follow along with

them throughout the work.

The theories that were used in the research were concerned

with the issues of mediation and conflict, these ultimately adding up to

the core of the thesis. I also tried to come up with some of the important

names in the field, taking into consideration the fact that from those

particular sources I could obtain the most appropriate information when

it comes to conflict theory and conflict resolution.

The theories were later correlated to the subject of the case

study, in order to establish a logical and proper connection between the

89

two aspects of the study. In the case study, Iran is presented also in a

larger “picture”, because I wanted to lead the reader to a deep

understanding of the event, fact that could not be possible without

presenting a sort of background of the Islamic culture, along with

mentioning some historical aspects. Also, I tried to at least mention the

main hostage crises that occurred in the world, in an effort to raise

awareness of this particular fact, and to show to the readers that these

situations actually appear at any time and place, disregarding the

ongoing processes of modernization, as this fact could be perceived by

some as being so called “old fashioned”.

A comparison between Iran and the West was made, in order to

provide a more profound understanding of the roots of the onging

conflict. This particular conflict, even nowadays, seems to have no

resolution, because both parties want to have the most power in the

world. As I stated in this thesis, the main reasons of the conflict were the

relations of power and the fight over resources. Other considerations

would constitute the differrences at the levels of politics, religion, way

of life, culture, freedoms of the individual, ultimately placed in an

antagonistic relation, along with many aspects that were mentioned in

the thesis.

Also, I took into consideration the historical development of

the event, as I tried to present the events in a chronological order, also

being careful not to make confusions in the historical phases.

90

The Iran Hostage Crisis was presented mainly through the

channels that were related to the negotiation and mediation processes, to

ensure the success of the research, as an important emphasis was placed

on this aspect, in this way avoiding the situation in which I could make

the mistake of deviating from the subject.

The aim of the work was that of at least providing some

civilized and peaceful options for the resolution of conflicts, even in

these cases of crisis. To provide a better understanding of the stages of

conflict, I tried to come up with theories, drawings and various forms of

interpretations on this subject. An effort was made to establish

connections between the case study and the theories, in an attempt to

have a logical structure of the work, with the intention of covering the

subject almost entirely, without leaving behind any questionable parts of

it.

From the case study presented, I tried to bring to light the

mediation and negotiation processes that took place during the crisis, by

mentioning the main actors involved in the negotiation stages.

In the last important chapter of the thesis, the main negotiation

techniques are presented that are relevant for cases of hostage crises. I

also provided the main techniques of negotiation and mediation, to

ensure the validity and the logical structure of the research, along with

creating situations that could be applicable in reality, at the same time

trying to provide solutions or options for solving or managing a high-

risk situation of conflict. I also find important to mention the fact that

the subject of the thesis was chosen out of a true passion for the fields of

91

conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation. In the same chapter, my

own theories were developed in the form of a game, in order to provide

a personal approach to the topic. The game that was constructed was my

own idea, that was later correlated to some of the theories and to the

negotiation strategies. It was more about an exercise of imagination and

a way of showing the fact that I found myself very involved in the case.

Some of the important names in the press pertaining to that period, along

with the most attracting titles were briefly presented.

In the end of the thesis, I personally consider that I respected

the aims of the work, as I was able to provide explanations for all the

theories presented and to answer to the research questions.

92

Bibliography

Special Thanks to

Associate Professor Gabriela Ciot Ph. D course of “European

Negotiations”, and

Lecturer Laura Herta Ph.D courses of “Theory and Negotiation of

Conflicts” and “Analysis of International Relations”

General Works:

Barbero, J. Martin, Communication, Culture and Hegemony – Form the

Media to Mediators – Communication and Human Values, SAGE

Publications, London, Newbury Park, New Delhi 1993, pp. 5-73

Bohmelt, Tobias, International Mediation Interaction – Synergy,

Conflict Effectiveness, VS Research, 2011, pp. 23-25, pp. 39-42, pp. 87-

92, pp.103-105

Haynes, John Michael; Haynes, Gretchen L.; Sun Fong, Larry, Positive

Conflict Management (Suny Series in Transpersonal and Humanistic

Psychology), State University of New York, Albany, 2004, pp. 1-23

Woolford, Andrew and Ratner R.S., Informal Reckonings, Conflict

Resolution in Mediation, Restorative Justice and Reparations, Routlege

Cavendish, 2008, pp. 39-63

93

Special Works:

Farber, David, Taken Hostage - The Iran Hostage Crisis and America‟s

First Encounter with the Radical Islam, Princeton University Press-

Princeton and Oxford, 2005, pp. 9-191

Hitchcock, Mark, Iran – The Coming Crisis – Radical Islam, Oil and the

Nuclear Threat – Is The Stage Being Set for the End Times?, Multnomah

Publishers, 2006, pp. 31-107

Hoveyda, Feredoyun, The Shah and the Ayatollah – Iranian Mythology

and the Islamic Revolution , Praeger Publications, Westport,

Connecticut, London, 2003, pp. 5-90

Mendez, Antonio, The Master of Disguise – My Secret Life in the CIA,

HarperCollins e-books, Copyright 1999 pp. 196-308

Wright, Robert, Our Man in Tehran - The Truth Behind the Rescue

Mission, Other Press Edition, 2011, pp. 26-100 , pp. 116-203, pp. 235-

272

94

Articles and Studies:

Childs, Roy: “The Libertarian Review” – “The Iranian Drama”

February 1980

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-Iranian-

Drama_Roy-A.-Childs-Jr_Feb-1980_The-Libertarian-Review.pdf

(Consulted on May 10, 2014)

Emery, Christian: “The Transatlantic and Cold War dynamics of Iran

Sanctions, 1979-80” in “Cold War History” – Routledge, Vol. 10, No.

3, pp. 371-396, August 2010

Grubb, Amy: “Modern Day Hostage (Crisis) Negotiation: The

Evolution of an Art Form within the Policing Arena” in “Aggression

and Violent Behavior” no. 15, pp. 341-348, 2010

Kobetz, W. Richard: “Hostages: Tactics and Negotiation Techniques –

State of the Art” Behavioral Research Division; International

Association of Chiefs of Police, no. 44, pp. 177-188, 2000

Gaithersburg, Maryland

Law Tech Publisher (Editor): “Introduction to Hostage Negotiations”

Miller, Lawrence; “Hostage Negotiation: Psychological Principles and

Practices” in “International Journal of Emergency Mental Health” ,

Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.277-298, Chevron Publishing

Pipes, Daniel: “Why Did the Shah Miscalculate So Badly?” in “The

Wall Street Journal” (no date available)

95

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Why-Did-the-Shah-

Miscalculate-So-Badly_Daniel-Pipes_nodate_The-Wall-Street-

Journal.pdf (Consulted on February 17, 2014)

Roberts, Paul Craig: “The Wall Street Journal” on the 16th of January,

1980, named “Iran, Afghanistan and Soviet Military Doctrine”

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Iran-Afghanistan-and-

Soviet-Military-Doctrine_Paul-Craig-Roberts_January-16-1980_The-

Wall-Street-Journal.pdf (Consulted on May 10, 2014)

Scott, V. Katherine: “Bound for Glory: The Hostage Crisis as Captivity

Narrative in Iran” in “International Studies Quarterly”;

Sydney, Hugh: “ The President Doesn‟t Have What It Takes” in “ The

Miami Herald” from April 27th

, 1980

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-President-

Doesnt-Have-What-It-Takes_Hugh-Sidey_April-27-1980_The-Miami-

Herald.pdf (Consulted on February 17, 2014)

Taubman, Philip; “Carter Vows to Pursue Hostages‟ Release by

<<Every Avenue>>After US Rescue Failure; Khomeini Warn Against

New Moves” in “The New York Times” from April 26th

, 1980

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Months-of-Plans-

Then-Failure-in-the-Desert_Philip-Taubman_April-26-1980_The-New-

York-Times.pdf (Consulted on February 17, 2014)

96

Vecchi, Gregory; Van Hasselt, Vincent; Romano, Stephen J.: “Crisis

(hostage) negotiation: current strategies and issues in high-risk conflict

resolution” in “Aggression and Violent Behavior” no. 10, pp. 533-

551, 2005

Will, George; “ US is Paying the Price for Retreating” in “The

Washington Post” from February 21st, 1980

http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/U.S.-is-paying-the-

price-for-retreating_George-Will_February-21-1980_The-Washington-

Post.pdf (Consulted on February 17, 2014)

97

Electronic Sources:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=h

ostage&searchmode=none ( Consulted on November 10, 2013)

http://www.eisf.eu/resources/library/hostage_negotiation.pdf

(Consulted on November 10, 2013)

http://www.mediationmatterssd.com/mediationmatters/history.html

(Consulted on February 10, 2014)

http://www.heritage-

history.com/www/heritage.php?Dir=characters&FileName=polybius.p

hp (Consulted on February 10, 2014)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005252.html (Consulted on February

10, 2014)

www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-690006 (Consulted on November

10, 2013)

www.history1900s.about.com/od/timelines/tp/1980timeline.htm

(Consulted on February 11, 2014)

www.peace.fresno.edu/rlclass.php (Consulted on February 15, 2014)

http://peace.fresno.edu/docs/Ron%20Claassen%20article.pdf

(Consulted on November 10, 2013)

www.nollassociates.com/Law_Class/Conflict%20Resolution%models.

pdf (Consulted on November 11, 2013)

www.law.harvard.edu/news/2012/08/27_roger_fisher_1922_2012.html

(Consulted on February 18, 2014)

www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/speaker_william_ury.asp

(Consulted on February 18, 2014)

98

www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/StephenGoldberg

(Consulted on February 18, 2014)

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/StephenGoldberg/

(Consulted on February 18, 2014)

http://www.mediate.com/people/personprofile.cfm?auid=623

(Consulted on February 25, 2014)

www.law.harvard.edu/news/2012108/27_roger_fisher_1922_2012.html

(Consulted on February 25, 2014)

http://www.usip.org/node/5660 - (Consulted on February 25, 2014)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382979/C-Wright-Mills

(Consulted on March 2, 2014)

http://www.sociology.org.uk/siweber.pdf (Consulted on March 2,

2014)

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/coser.htm (Consulted

on March 2, 2014)

http://www.mediate.com/articles/jordan.cfm (Consulted on March 10,

2014)

http://howtostartarevolutionfilm.com/indez.php/about/gene-sharp

(Consulted on March 11, 2014)

www.sagepub.com/upm_data/43449_6.pdf (Consulted on March 15,

2014)

www.csun.edu/~snk1966/Lewis%20A%Coser%20Social%20Conflict

%20amd%20the%20Theory%20of%20Social%20Change.pdf

(Consulted on March 16, 2014)

www.sagepub.com/newmon4study/resources/dahrendorf1.htm

(Consulted on March 16, 2014)

http://www.biography.com/people/jonbenet-ramsey-12986606

(Consulted on April 20, 2014)

99

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/kenneth-douglas-

taylor/ (Consulted on April 28, 2014)

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/acha/hd_acha.htm (Consulted on

April 21, 2014)

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus.php (Consulted on

April 22, 2014)

http://www.archaeology.about.com (Consulted on April 25, 2014)

www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html (Consulted on March 20, 2014)

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/272687/Iran-hostage-crisis

(Consulted on March 20, 2014)

http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war (Consulted on March 30,

2014)

http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/cold-war-history (Consulted

on April 2, 2014)

http://international.gc.ca/history-histoire/people-

gens/ken_taylor.aspx?lang=eng (Consulted on May 5 2014)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/6-ways-to-survive-

being-taken-hostage/ (Consulted on May 17, 2014)

100

Annexes:

Figure 2.1 - Claassen‟s Four Options Model

Figure 2.2 – Claassen‟s Four Options Model

Figure 2.3 – Fisher, Ury, Goldberg – Power. Rights and Interests

Figure 2.4 – Conflict Emergence to Peace Building

Figure 2.5 – Conflict Escalation Model – 5 Steps

Figure 5.1 – Hostages and Hostage Takers

Figure 5.2 – Surrounding Tactic for Cases of Hostage Crises

101

Cosmina Craciunescu 2014 – All Rights Reserved/Tous Droits Réservés

102