Introduction
Crises are unexpected and challenging situations that cannot always be avoided or controlled. When a crisis affects a state or government level, the potential negative consequences are dramatic, indicating that an effective and timely response is needed. The COVID-19 pandemic is a recent example of such a challenge that affected the entire world.
Other problems can be specific to individual nations, and this description refers to the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. It was a shock when dozens of American citizens were taken hostage, and the United States was forced to allocate its diplomatic and military resources to solve the problem and rescue its people. The analysis of crisis management and the assessment of the leader’s response reveal that some mistakes were initially made. Still, the US President took lessons from them to solve the problem.
Crisis Management Analysis
To begin with, one should explain what the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis was and why it happened. The problem occurred on November 4, 1979, when a group of college students took over the US Embassy in Tehran (Yaghoubi Jami & Tabrizi, 2023). As a result, 52 American citizens were taken hostage and held in captivity for 444 days (Yaghoubi Jami & Tabrizi, 2023). During this period, Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, was in office and made specific efforts to find a feasible solution. However, the conflict was only resolved after Carter left office and his follower, Ronald Reagan, became the 40th President.
The description above presents a brief, superficial analysis of the issue. Thus, it is reasonable to consider a broader historical context to explain why the crisis persisted for so long. In 1977, Iran and the United States were strategic allies, and Jimmy Carter even referred to the country’s then-leader in his New Year’s television speech (Yaghoubi Jami & Tabrizi, 2023). However, the massive forces opposed the American-supported Shah, and they organized the Islamic Revolution in 1979. A
s the Shah went to the United States for cancer treatment, the rioters stormed the US embassy. They demanded that the American government return the former leader to Iran to punish him for his crimes (Banks, 2019). The Iranian request faced a counter-demand to leave the embassy and liberate the hostages. Since the two claims were left unsatisfied, the crisis escalated and lasted for more than a year.
That problem was significant for the United States and its future. First, it demonstrated the need for a better intelligence network. If the US had had it in Iran, it could have predicted this probability and evacuated its citizens in advance. Second, the crisis demonstrated that the United States would need to be prepared for similar events in the future. It is better to avoid such problems than to solve them through reactionary policies.
When it became clear that the rioters would not release the hostages, the US government was forced to choose among various responses to mitigate the crisis. On the one hand, Carter could rely on diplomatic, economic, and political means to affect the new regime in Iran and force it to change its initial decision. On the other hand, the US could use its force and launch a military operation to rescue the citizens from the embassy. Carter used both options, and the following discussion will assess his response in detail.
Strategic Response Evaluation
At the outset, it is essential to note that the crisis posed a significant dilemma for President Carter. His management approach should have reflected a balance between saving people’s lives and demonstrating the United States’ intolerance for such situations, given the country’s status as a global power. In other words, relying on aggressive interventions could make Iranians kill the hostages, while satisfying their demands could be considered a sign of weakness. That is why this challenging situation obliged Carter to look for a trade-off, and he tried to manifest it through a combination of defensive and offensive strategies.
On the one hand, defensive strategies were numerous and could be summarized as an emergency response plan comprising economic, political, and diplomatic actions. Carter drew significant attention to economic sanctions because he understood that limiting Iran’s finances could significantly harm the nation. First, the President authorized the seizure of Iran’s property in American banks (Forughi & Hosseini, 2022). It is impossible to mention that this intervention was proper because it indeed punished Iranians who did not have any connection to the hostages.
Second, the US government imposed a trade embargo on the Islamic Republic (Forughi & Hosseini, 2022). This step was correct and influential because the absence of American exports could essentially weaken the Iranian economy and make the rioters release the hostages or soften their requirements. Third, Carter fully understood that oil was Iran’s primary source of income. That is why the crisis led to a ban on oil imports from this country (Forughi & Hosseini, 2022). This intervention seems reasonable because Carter tried to use so-called soft power to coerce Iran.
These defensive economic measures were subsequently transformed into offensive steps in the spheres of policy and diplomacy. This statement refers to the US administration’s efforts to persuade its international allies to impose the same sanctions and restrictions on Iran. However, the available evidence indicates that Europe largely avoided engaging in these activities for several reasons, including fear of further radicalization and its own interests in Iran (Forughi & Hosseini, 2022). This description demonstrates that President Carter failed to create an international coalition to make Iran understand that it violated generally accepted rules and that consequences could be dramatic. Thus, the first recommendation for the leader could be to invest more effort in finding effective leverage to attract American allies into the response procedures.
On the other hand, Carter saw that the strategies above did not generate any results. That is why he decided to rely on an offensive intervention and sanctioned a military operation called “Eagle Claw.” This attempt occurred on April 24, 1980, and resulted in a complete failure (Salih & Al-Karaawi, 2022). The operation was poorly planned, which led to the death of eight American soldiers in a helicopter accident. Carter later admitted that the failure was his fault, which undermined his support in the United States. Thus, the second recommendation was to refrain from such a military intervention.
The evaluation of the information above demonstrates that the nation’s leader took insufficient measures to manage the crisis. In isolation, economic measures were impactful but did not yield meaningful results. Simultaneously, Carter’s failure to solicit support from European partners and poor planning of a military intervention did not help the United States rescue the hostages. The fact that American citizens were released only after Carter left office confirms his inefficiency.
Development of Leadership Skills
Irrespective of the challenges and mistakes highlighted above, the crisis was eventually resolved, and the hostages were rescued. Thus, it is now reasonable to investigate and determine what lessons were learned from the emergency under analysis. That is why the given section will describe how Carter’s leadership skills changed during the crisis and what useful information American officials gained from their efforts to rescue the hostages.
First, the crisis significantly affected Carter and made him develop his leadership skills. Before the hostage-taking, the President adopted an autocratic style, as he could ignore recommendations and impose his own views (Atari & Essa, 2019). This decision led Carter’s administration to allow the Shah into the US, despite experts’ warnings of negative consequences (National Security Archive, 2019).
As the events unfolded, the leader was forced to change his approach to adapt to the existing conditions. Thus, he acted as an inspirational communicator, compelling international allies to adopt sanctions against Iran, a characteristic feature of inspirational leadership (Hergueux & Kessler, 2022). Even though this intention proved unsuccessful, Carter continued to rely on it to manage the crisis. Furthermore, the President actively relied on the servant-leadership approach, devoting all his time to serving his followers and being ready to take responsibility for their failures. There is no doubt that these events affected Carter and enabled him to develop various crisis management competencies that he later applied in other situations.
One should additionally explain that the crisis affected the American army. In particular, the nation understood that it was forced to upgrade and improve its military operation planning. Further analysis of the failure revealed that it had occurred because the team lacked cohesion and cooperation (Atlamazoglou, 2020). It occurred because the military professionals came from different divisions and had insufficient time to develop a team.
As a result, the United States created specific military divisions: the US Special Operations Command, the Joint Special Operations Command, and the Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Atlamazoglou, 2020). These bodies were responsible for preparing professionals who would be skilled and competent to participate in future military operations. This description shows that American leaders recognized the existing problems and sought to address them.
Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, additionally learned a significant lesson from the crisis. He knew that such a problem could occur, which made him more aggressive in international policy (National Security Archive, 2019). However, it is impossible to say that Reagan’s approach was better, as his term in office was marked by the Iran-Contra affair (National Security Archive, 2019). This description demonstrates that international crises can occur regardless of how effective and competent leaders are in running a nation.
This section indicates that the Iran Hostage Crisis had significant impacts on multiple stakeholders. While Carter was forced to update his leadership approach during the emergency, his successor and the nation had more time to extract important lessons. As a result, the US Army created new units, while Reagan did his best to prevent similar crises during his presidency. However, the evidence identified significant problems that can emerge across different types of statecraft.
Dirty Hands Dilemma
Numerous experts are unanimous in stating that politicians often face the dirty hands dilemma. This term refers to situations in which a leader decides whether to take a morally wrong action. This act can yield positive outcomes for a particular group of people, but it can be negative or even harmful to other individuals or entities (Eggert, 2023). In other words, this dilemma implies that a politician considers placing some people in unfavorable conditions to achieve good results in another area.
As for the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Carter experienced this dilemma, even though the exact terminology was not used. As the emergency began, the President had several options for addressing it. One of them was a significant military invasion with an attempt to rescue the hostages and liquidate the aggressive rioters who had relied on terrorist measures.
On the one hand, this decision could have provided the United States with two advantages. In addition to rescuing its people, the armed intervention would have demonstrated that the US remained a powerful nation capable of forcefully responding to such crises. This decision could additionally be an effective sign for terrorists that their acts of violence would be adequately punished.
On the other hand, such a military operation would have obligatorily led to a high number of killed people. This statement refers to rioters, American soldiers, ordinary Iranians, and even the hostages. Even though it is counterintuitive, the armed invasion to rescue the American citizens could eventually contribute to their deaths.
The identified information shows that Carter was presented with challenging, morally difficult alternatives. The course of history shows that he chose not to accept this dilemma, and an analysis of the crisis from the current perspective confirms that his decision was correct. Even though the 39th President of the US did not manage to save the hostages during his presidency, his reluctance to initiate a fully-fledged military intervention helped save thousands or even millions of lives. Thus, one can conclude that this leader’s decision was the most suitable response to the emergency under analysis.
Conclusion
The Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979 was a significant and adverse event for the United States. Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans into captivity for 444 days, and it was a significant challenge for then-President Jimmy Carter. The combination of multiple factors led to the emergency, and it was important for the US to find an effective, feasible solution.
The global power needed to rescue its citizens and demonstrate that this problem was a rare exception. That is why Carter relied on multiple steps to cope with the issue. Specific actions included imposing sanctions, soliciting international and diplomatic support, and launching a limited military operation.
The evidence identified shows that none of these interventions rescued the people, and the latter ended as a complete failure. Since the President also failed to secure the support of European allies for all economic sanctions, one can say that Carter was neither an effective leader nor a crisis manager. However, his notable decision was to avoid an extensive armed invasion, which saved multiple lives.
Even though the 39th President tried to adapt to changing conditions, the hostages were released only after the end of his presidency. The crisis was also notable because it prompted the United States to strengthen its military and better prepare it for limited military interventions. Furthermore, the succeeding Presidents remembered the crisis and its consequences for Carter, which made them improve their diplomatic skills to avoid similar problems.
References
Atari, A., & Essa, E. B. (2019). The relationship between followership styles and leadership styles. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 4(2), 407-449.
Atlamazoglou, S. (2020). How a disastrous mission in Iran 40 years ago changed the way US special operators fight. Insider.
Banks, D. E. (2019). The diplomatic presentation of the state in international crises: Diplomatic collaboration during the US-Iran hostage crisis. International Studies Quarterly, 63(4), 1163-1174.
Eggert, L. (2023). Dirty hands defended. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 1(aop), 1-21.
Forughi, F., & Hosseini, R. (2022). France-US negotiations on Iran sanctions during the 1979 Hostage Crisis (based on France’s Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs declassified archived documents. Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies, 6(3), 411-437.
Hergueux, J., & Kessler, S. (2022). Follow the leader: Technical and inspirational leadership in open source software. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systmes, 303, 1-15.
National Security Archive. (2019). 1979 Iran hostage crisis recalled.
Salih, M. K. M., & Al-Karaawi, W. S. A. (2022). Britain’s position on the intrusion into the US embassy in Iran and its implications 1979-1980. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(6), 5248-5260.
Yaghoubi Jami, P., & Tabrizi, K. (2023). Contemporary mirror imaging between American and Iranian citizens: An exploratory mixed-method research study. Psych, 5(3), 724-741.