Tags
1979 Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Blowback, Chalmers Johnson, CIA, Coup, Donald Nuechterlein, foreign policy, international affairs, Iran, Iran hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter, Overthrow, Stephen Kinzer, unintended consequences, United States of America
To understand the U.S. involvement in the Iranian revolution of 1979, it is first important to understand the concept of “blowback”. Blowback, a term invented by the CIA, refers to the unintended consequences of American policies in relation to foreign policy and intervention (Johnson xi). As Chalmers Johnson writes in his book Blowback, “In a broader sense, blowback is another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows”(Johnson xi), that what comes around goes around. With this concept and definition in mind, and the 1953 coup case in the forefront, it is clear to see why the infamous Iranian Revolution of 1979 occurred; moreover, it is plain to see that the Iranian Revolution is perhaps the most concrete example of blowback in action.
In 1979, the country of Iran underwent radical changes during its violent revolution. Taking to the streets, angry crowds of Iranians protested the Shah’s rule, “surging through the streets…crying ‘Death to the American Shah’” (Kinzer 202). Leading this charge was the Islamic cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a fervently anti-Western figure. Khomeini’s “revolutionary Islamist movement… promise[d] a break from the past and a turn toward greater autonomy for the Iranian people”.
With this desire brewing for nearly 30 years, a movement snuffed by the U.S. with the coup of 1953, his movement became so powerful that the Shah was forced to flee from Iran and sought exile in Egypt. Soon after, needing cancer treatment, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to enter the United States for his medical care. This outraged the revolting Iranian crowd stirring even more anti-American sentiments. In response, the new Ayatollah regime sanctioned the storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the taking of hostages (Kinzer 202). On November 4th, a group of pro-Ayatollah students smashed the gates and scaled the walls of the American embassy in Tehran holding 52 hostages captive.
Needless to say, the entire hostage crisis humiliated the United States. Donald Nuechterlein, in his book America Recommitted, goes so far as to call it “the most political damaging foreign policy problem…for the country’s international prestige [at that time]” (Nuechterlein 83). Implementing the Shah’s rule had become a safety blanket for Presidential cabinets for decades, though it was indeed a false sense of security. More importantly, the mass of the American populace was oblivious to why the events occurred, chalking the affair up to irrational anti-Americanism. However, one of the Iranian militants involved with the situation later explained their motivation as delayed retribution for American intervention in the form of the 1953 coup that altered the course of Iranian politics and government (Kinzer 202).
As noted before, this is a clear case of blowback; American international affairs backfiring with unintended consequences. After numerous attempts to rescue the hostages, they were eventually returned safely to the Unites States after 444 days of captivity. This event, in turn, changed the relationship between the two nations forever.
The post hostage crisis interaction between Iran and the U.S. was almost non-existent with the destruction and abandonment of the American embassy in Tehran. Tensions were high and contempt ran deep on both sides – the “umbilical cord” now severed between the two nations. And, even until today, this contempt still appears to guide U.S. – Iranian relations.
Non linked sources:
Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow. New York: Holt, 2006.
Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Holt, 2004. Print.
Nuechterlein, Donald E. America Recommitted. 2nd ed. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2001.