Jim Patterson Reports on the 40th Anniversary of the Iran Hostage Crisis

Diplomat James (Jim) Patterson at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington DC. 

Lecture: Iran Hostage Crisis 40^th Anniversary Panel Discussion

Woodrow Wilson Center, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington DC Oct. 31, 2019

Panelists:

Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Brookings Intelligence Project and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy.

Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution and a Senior Fellow in the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy.

Malcolm Byrne, Deputy Director and Research Director at the National Security Archive.

Moderator: Haleh Esfandiari, Wilson Center.

Reporter: James Patterson, former U.S. diplomat, life member American Foreign Service Association and member Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.

Background: On November 4, 1979, Iranian students charged the U.S. Embassy Tehran and took hostage 52 American diplomats and citizens. For Iranian, the crisis was hailed as an act to stem U.S. subversion of the Iranian Revolution. U.S. President Jimmy Carter called it a terrorist act. The resulting diplomatic standoff lasted 444 days and damaged the institution of the U.S. presidency and the U.S. global reputation.

The rift in U.S.-Iranian relations deepened after multiple negotiations failed to win freedom for he Americans. On January 19, 1981, the U.S. and Iranian governments signed the Algiers Accords, which resolved the crisis. All Americans were released on Jan. 20, 1981 after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on possibly using the U.S. military to free the hostages. 

Now, 40 years later, the Iran Hostage Crisis is a defining moment in U.S.-Iranian relations. To mark the anniversary of this important chapter in American Foreign Relations history, a panel discussed how the Crisis is viewed today and how it continues to play a role in U.S. foreign policy.

Summary: Byrne cited three reasons for the Iranian hostage crisis: (1) S.Res.164 — 96th Congress (1979-1980) detailing Iran's human rights abuses. Iran singled out Jewish New York Senator Jacob Javits and claimed the U.S. and Israel were lying and interfering in their internal affairs. (2) The deposed Shah of Iran entered the U.S. for cancer treatment in October 1979. Ambassador Bruce Laingen wrote if the Shah was allowed entry to the U.S. it would have serious consequences to U.S.-Iran relations. On October 20, 1979, President Carter allowed the Shah entry urged, Byrne said, by "[former Secretary of State Dr.] Henry Kissinger and the Rockefellers." (Editor note: Interestingly, Byrne cited only Republicans as favoring the Shah entering the U.S. Later, Byrne said they did Carter and the Nation a great disservice for pleading on behalf of the Shah.) Finally, an “infamous” meeting between President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (1977-1981) and Iran’s revolutionary counterpart which elevated the international importance of the Revolutionaries as official leaders of Iran. Many foreign policy historians consider this a huge diplomatic mistake.  

Byrne mentioned the 2012 US film “Argo,” set in Tehran during the hostage crisis when several Americans, who were not in the U.S. embassy when it was stormed, escaped with help of Canadian diplomats and film crew. I asked him if he considered the film’s message to be accurate. He implied it played with the facts and Riedel agreed. Film also falsely dramatized CIA involvement in Iran. Riedel said the film's final chase scene never happened and the 'film crew" sailed through the airport to safety. 

Maloney gave historical perspective on Iran’s internal politics and the Iranian impressions of the U.S. and its relations with the Shah without regard to the Iranian people. (Editor note: This view despite the aforementioned S. Res. on human rights abuses in Iran.)

Riedel acknowledged that Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States due to the Iran hostage crisis and the national image that the U.S. was helplessly adrift. (Ed note; Carter had a great Secretary of State Cy Vance, but Brzezinski had greater control of Carter. The Vance- Brzezinski debate conflicted Carter for months and caused U.S. inaction and projected an image of U.S. as powerless in the world.)

Riedel said Reagan used psychology to influence Iran to release the hostages. Iranians called Reagan a “fascist cowboy.” It appeared to Iran that Reagan, unlike Carter, would eagerly take military action to release the hostages.  Further, Iran had gotten “everything it wanted diplomatically” from the U.S. in the Algiers Accords which ended economic sanctions and resumed trade. Thus, Iran no longer had an incentive to hold the Americans hostage and released them in Jan. 1979. President Reagan dispatched former President Carter to greet the Americans in Germany.

In conclusion:  This was an excellent panel discussion on an important and policy making historical chapter in American Foreign Relations History. The Iran Hostage Crisis led President Carter to make The Carter Doctrine, a policy he proclaimed in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf. Since then the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf has dramatically increased.

Special Note: Ambassador Bruce Laingen, aged 96, died July 15, 2019. He was held hostage 444 days. I recommend his book, "Yellow Ribbon." RIP 

-30-

Writer and speaker James Patterson is a contributor to Foreign Service Journal, The Hill and TheHill.com, Agricultural Historical Society, and a commentator on Al Jazeera US, CNBC.COM and others. JEPDiplomat@gmail.com

Jim Patterson on the 75th Commemoration of Deportation of Crimean Tatars

Jim Patterson with bust of President Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington D.C., October 2019

On the 75th Anniversary of the Deportation of Crimean Tatars, members of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR) attended a lecture at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D. C. The lecture was co-sponsored with the International Committee for Crimea in Washington, D.C. and the American Association of Crimean Tatars, New York.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of the forcible deportation of Crimean Tatars from Crimea by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in 1944. Crimean Tatars were not allowed to return to Crimea until the late 1980s. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 presented the community with new challenges. Panelists addressed the history of the deportation and the contemporary issues facing Crimean Tatars.

Speaker included Gulnara Bekirova, Historian and Editor, ATR, Kyiv, Ukraine; and Brian Williams, Professor, Islamic History, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. Professor Williams gave background on the deportation and Bekirova spoke about Crimea's current occupation. She repeatedly declined to speak the name Vladimir Putin and described Crimea as "in a bad situation."

The Minsk Agreement, or Minsk I, was an arrangement between Russia, Ukraine, and "separatists," to stop violence over Russia's 2014 invasion. Ceasefire failed to hold and in February 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkle and French President Francoise Hollande, on behalf of the European Union (EU), resumed ceasefire negotiations and their outcome was Minsk II, which excluded Crimea.  Washington was not a party to the negotiation.

Background: In 2014, the EU and Ukraine began relations through the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. The EU wanted, to the consternation of Russia, gradual economic integration and political cooperation with Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine because it said "separatists" wanted to remain in the Russian Federation. In the process, Russia annexed Crimea. Although the Obama administration objected, annexation held. The Obama administration also objected to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but failed to provide any military or diplomatic assistance. 

The presentation was historical with little discussion on the current situation in Crimea or Ukraine. Based on Bekirova's comments and lack of criticism of Russia, I felt she was concerned Russian agents in the audience would report back to the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Washington, D.C. The lecture drew an audience of about 30.

Questioning grew intense at moments, especially over the 1943 Tehran Conference (codename Eureka) between President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin. In brief, questioners believed FDR and Churchill could have stopped Stalin's brutality against Crimea, but allowed it in order to accomplish other objectives. Interestingly, author Bret Baier's new book, "Three Days at the Brink," is about the Tehran Conference. Questioners saw similarity between Crimea's treatment in WWII and in 2014's annexation, especially US absence.

The Wilson Center, chartered by the U.S. Congress as the living memorial to President Woodrow Wilson, is the nation’s key non-partisan policy forum. In tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue, the Center informs actionable ideas for Congress, the administration, and the broader policy community.

-30-

Jim Patterson is a foreign policy analyst, former U.S. diplomat, and a life member of the American Foreign Service Association. He is a member of the Nation Book Critics Circle and Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. His work has appeared in Foreign Service Journal, and others. 

Jim Patterson on Tensions in the Middle East Continue

North Korean President Kim Jong Un galloping on Mount Paektu. 

USAToday

World Series Washington and Tehran

If the Trump administration is planning a military action against Iran, then he may have been wise to avoid a troop buildup on the Syrian border and likely military confrontation with Turkey. We read about a recent U.S. cyber attack against Iran. We also read that Iran's economy has contracted about 10% due to the Trump administration's economic sanctions. Washington has sent 2,000 troops to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to guard against another damaging Iranian drone attack on Aramco's oil facilities.

President Trump considers the Iraq War a mistake even a "disaster." Much like the late French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, President Trump thinks war is a failure and he worries about war's misery and suffering. It would be a failure of diplomacy for Trump to expand U.S. conflicts to Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

Many administration critics, I was not one of them, suggested Trump was eager for a Middle East War. It would show his political base his toughness, the critics said. The Wall Street Journal and others are now suggesting Trump fears a military confrontation anywhere in the world and this could embolden military adventures of Russia, China, North Korea, and others. 

We recently saw North Korea's Chairman Kim manfully riding a galloping white stallion in the country's sacred Mount Paektu, the highest point on the Korean Peninsula. This had the Internet and professional foreign affairs analysts nervously watching Kim for other manful and possibly military actions against South Korea. A conflict with Chairman Kim could be dangerous and Trump's Kim Charm Campaign may be wilting as tensions mount in the Middle East.

Syria's Kurds and Turkey's President Recep Erdogan are a dangerous combination especially since President Trump ordered U.S. troops out of northeastern Syria. I applaud President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for finding a ceasefire between the two sides though it appears not all warring parties got prompt word of it. Shelling persisted after it was announced.

President Trump initially seemed ready to battle Capitol Hill Democrats on why they want security at the Syrian/Turkish border when they refuse to secure the U.S. Southern border with Mexico. That argument evaporated as the conflict intensified between Syrian Kurds and Turkish forces. President Trump also  argued he did not want to initiate another endless Middle East conflict since he campaigned in 2016 on an end to such wars.

President Trump might have also decided to opt out of a border dispute much like State Department officials told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before he invaded neighboring Kuwait in the summer of 1990. The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Canada, the United Kingdom and Bangladesh, liberated Kuwait in February 1991.  History seems to indicate that engaging in border disputes between nations can lead to war and ignoring border disputes can similarly lead to war. Diplomacy is the preferred course to resolve border disputes and wars they might ignite.

The Kurds are a symbolic resistance to Turkey, a NATO ally for nearly 70 years. The U.S. presence in Syria served as something of a stabilizing force. With current chaos, the U.S. has to reconsider its options.

The U.S. has two military bases with known nuclear capabilities and more than 5,000 troops in Turkey. Turkey has strong diplomatic ties with Russia and Iran and it is feared the Kurdish conflict will broaden the reach of a hostile Iran toward Israel. Strategists also fear Turkey and Iran plan to take over Syria's oil fields. Pence and Pompeo have reportedly given assurances of U.S. diplomatic and, if needed, military assistance to Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu should conditions warrant.

President Trump is working very hard to control the Turkey/Syria situation of his making, though with the noblest of intentions. I think we should know soon if Washington needs more troops to the Syrian border with Turkey. Such a move would likely indicate greater Iranian involvement.

We may be where we were in the summer with Trump and Tehran at a stalemate, but not in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. and Iran conflict many expected then may now happen in the fall. The world series may be between Houston and New York with a Washington and Tehran game getting more attention.

-30-
Jim Patterson is a former U.S. diplomat and life member of the American Foreign Service Association.

Jim Patterson on The Arctic Plastic Ocean

October 17, 2019 

Russian Cultural Center

Washington DC

We attended a lecture by Dr. Katya Uryupova, Ph D., marine biologist/oceanographer, photographer and polar guide. Dr. Uryupova spent most of her life in Siberia. She has PhD is marine biology from Moscow State University and earned a master's degree in science communications from University of Salford, UK. She has worked in the Arctic and Antarctic since 2000. Her research projects focus on polar marine ecosystems. Her interests range from general biology to the human impact on the environment to multidisciplinary research. She has focused on marine-protected areas, fisheries management, climate change and environmental monitoring programs. 

Dr. Uryupova participated in a number of research expeditions at different bases in Antarctica. A member of the Russian Geographical Society and the German Society of Polar Research, she is also an Association of Polar Early Career Scientists Council member. She also completed an internship at the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty in Argentina, and worked for the Smithsonian Institution.  Dr. Uryupova lectured on marine plastic litter, one of the greatest threats to ocean health globally. She said, plastic pollution is present throughout various Arctic realms from the water column to deep sea fauna. The Arctic Ocean is no longer pristine, she said,"as big pieces of plastic, as well as microplastics, travel the cold ocean." Litter circulates around gyres and makes it easy for sea creatures to digest these toxic materials.   Dr. Ekaterina Uryupova has collected data from various locations, especially near Svalbard and Franz Josef Land. Svalbard is a Norwegian archipelago between mainland Norway and the North Pole. It is one of the world’s northernmost inhabited areas, it's known for rugged, remote terrain of glaciers and frozen tundra sheltering polar bears, Svalbard reindeer and Arctic foxes. Franz Joseph Land, a Russian archipelago, is inhabited only by military personnel. It is the northernmost part of Arkhangelsk Oblast. After Dr. Uryupova's hour-long lecture she presented and discussed twenty of her strikingly original photographs which illustrated the beauty and challenges of conducting scientific research in the Arctic. She answered questions: 1) Is there evidence marine life is changing due to the presence of plastics in the Arctic? She mentioned several interesting ways such as plastic blocking sun from growing kelp which lowered oxygen and reduced/relocated fish populations.  2) She said there is evidence microplastics pass from the water to sea life and, when consumed, into humans. She said microplastics were in the air and found in snowflakes. She said such microplastics were likely due to incineration of plastics which have heavy metals and may, she suggested, be a source of lung cancer in nonsmokers.  Dr. Uryupova, fluent in English, presented an excellent scientific program which lasted more than two-hours.  -30- James Patterson is a former U.S. diplomat and life member of the American Foreign Service Association. JEPDiplpmat@gmail.com

Jim Patterson Reviews Minhwa Art at Korean Cultural Center, Washington DC

October 5, I attended the opening reception for an elegant exhibit on Minhwa: The Beauty of Korean Folk Paintings, at the Korean Cultural Center, Washington DC. The program included lecture, presentation, tour of two rooms with Minhwa canvasses. Finally, attendees were invited to paint a pre-printed figure in minhwa style.

Minhwa: The Beauty of Korean Folk Paintings included an exhibition of works by 19 living artists following in the footsteps of an iconic art tradition, in partnership with the Korean Minhwa Center at Keimyung University. This exhibition introduces minhwa, Korea’s traditional folk paintings that depicted people’s tangible hopes and dreams through unconventional yet artistic expressions. Popularized during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1897), minhwa are known for their bright colors, humorous depictions, and various virtues embedded symbolically within the imagery.

Minhwa: The Beauty of Korean Folk Paintings comprises 20 paintings by 19 artists from the Keimyung University Korean Minhwa Center who have followed in the footsteps of traditional minhwa painters of previous centuries. Their work spans a variety of iconic styles and subjects, including flora, fauna, landscapes, iconology, and a traditional study complete with books and stationery. Through a broad sampling of minhwa’s major thematic elements, viewers encountered this elegant and cherished art form in all its glory while also glimpsing at the mythology, beliefs and views of the Korean people throughout time.

Minhwa: The Beauty of Korean Folk Paintings continues through October 21, 2019, at the Korean Cultural Center, Washington, D.C.

I highly recommend this exhibit of elegant and beautiful minhwa art. I especially enjoyed the canvasses shaped like bookcases filled with books. 

My hosts and photographer noted my tie's orange was similar to the orange used by the artist in this Minhwa canvass. 

My hosts explained that tigers an magpies were symbolic figures in minhwa art. 

-30-

Jim Patterson is a former U.S. diplomat, life member American Foreign Service Association, member Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Associate Member Korean War Veterans Association, member U.S.-Philippines Society, life member Associates of Vietnam Veterans Association, member Sons of the American Legion, Associate member Veterans of Foreign Wars, and a contributor to Foreign Service Journal.