State Sponsor Terrorism Case Study

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

The 1970s was a rough time for Americans. The economy was struggling and gas prices were doublings, sometimes gas stations even ran out of gas. While all this was going on, the media caught the attention of the American people on the story of the sixty six hostages that were captured in Tehran. Soon that became the center of attention. Both in Iran and America, people focused on what would happen and especially how President Jimmy Carter would respond. In his book, Taken Hostage, David Farber closely examines the events that led up to the hostage crisis. He informs us of America’s first encounter with radical Islam and what had caused the conflict between them. For four hundred and forty-four days, President Carter tried to put effort into resolving the issues but he failed on releasing the hostages. Since the American people paid close attention to this issue, they were highly disappointed with President Carter and his processes. From our class lectures and throughout the tensions illustrated in Farber’s book, we learn of how the role of Cold War policy had fueled the crisis between the United States and “Radical Islam”, the Cold War policy shaping the response of the U.S. to the crisis, and also understanding the present War on Terror.

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

last year, Iranian leaders have taken to pointing fingers at others to assign blame for the regional problems that they helped create. But before buying into their rhetoric, consider a few questions: Which country issues a fatwa for the execution of author Salman Rushdie, a death threat that is still in force today? (Iran.) What country has attacked more than a dozen embassies inside its own territory in violation of all international laws? (Iran.) What country managed, planned and executed the 1996 attack in Khobar Towers against the American Marines? (Iran.) Do these answers describe a country that is serious about combating terrorism and extremism?

Some countries provide safe haven to terrorist groups, while also failing to curb the funding they receive through private donations to ‘charitable organizations’ for carrying out jihad. Iran, for example is alleged to be an active sponsor of Hizballah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

“Because his American-supplied army and his American-trained secret police kept the shah in power, his opponents hated the United States almost as much as they hated their autocratic ruler. The shah’s rule was not one of constant decency” (Carnes and Garraty). From 1977 to 1979, Iran grew more and more unstable, as the Iranian people’s hatred of the shah further intensified. 1977 saw numerous riots, along with both the wounding and even killing of large numbers of the Iranian people. The Iranian people finally rose up against the shah in 1978, by January of the next year the shah was forced to flee. “A revolutionary government headed by a religious leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, assumed power. He that freedom was an enemy of Islam, as well as that Islam condoned terror. Khomeini denounced the United States as the “Great Satan” whose support of the shah, he said, had caused the Iranian people untold suffering” (Carnes and Garraty). Upon his exile, the shah was dying of cancer, after seeking refuge in numerous countries he was finally given refuge in the United States. The Iranian people wouldn’t have it, and began protesting outside the U.S. Embassy demanding the shah be returned, tried, and hanged. The Iranian Hostage Crisis was quickly approaching.

The Shah arrived in New York City on October 22, 1979, and the response in Iran was nothing out of the ordinary. However on November 4th, 1979, 3,000 Muslim students, some armed, took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran and took 65 American Diplomates as hostage. The hostage takers that were muslim students urged that America releases Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back to Iran, to which he would have been put on trial and possibly executed. The United States was not going to and did not had over the Shah as he was in America for medical attention. The hostage takers also wanted the U.S to apologize for the interference in Iran's internal affairs. One example of America's interference was it was primarily responsible for the overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddegh; this was not necessary. The last reason for the attack is that Iran wanted their frozen assets in America to be released

The Iran Hostage Crisis, the beginning of United States interactions with Islamic extremists and economic reform in the middle east lasted from 1979 to 1981. The birth of these extremists lies in the economic policies of the United States and the middle east. The Shah, who was the supreme leader of the nation of Iran, was an ally of the United States for several decades. Despite his support from the U.S. government, he was known as a brutal leader who used excessive force and torture of his people, mostly Iranian students who spoke out against him. After decades of death, torture, abuse and other heinous crimes against humanity, the people of Iran began supporting Ayatollah Khomeini, a fundamentalist. To force events to transpire quicker, students took action by attacking the United States embassy and capturing hostages. These protestors saw the embassy as a physical representation of support for the Shah and his oppressive and cruel regime. The Americans who were working in the embassy on that day were taken hostage. What was suspected as being a relatively short hostage situation

Fast forward twenty-five years, and we arrive at the beginning of the Iranian Revolution. In August of 1978, riots and civil violence were escalating dramatically within Iran, as supporters of the Iranian Shah and the Supreme Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini clashed in demonstrations that frequently turned lethal. The problem for American President Jimmy Carter was that both sides represented different evils, as the Shah employed the use of the SAVAK, the Iranian secret police, as well as torture to maintain control; but Khomeini represented a vehement hatred for all Western influence in his country, and his supporters often lit cinemas and other Western symbols on fire (Farber, 92). One incident in particular sparked the beginning of a

In the early 1950s Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was forced out of Iran by leftist and Democratic forces and Mohammed Mossedeq was elected as Iran’s new leader (Bowden, 2006, p. 6). In 1953 with strong influence from the British intelligence the Central Intelligence Agency conducted operations that lead to the return of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the shah of Iran which many and in particular Khomeini and his followers holding the hostages believe was a coupe (BBC, 2009). The Shah created and used the SAVAK, secret police, to keep a strong hand on the people until the revolution in 1979(White, 2014, pp. 209). 16 years prior to the revolution in 1961, the Shah exiled the Ruhollah Khomeini, who was a master of Islam to Iraq (PBS, 2013a).

On the day of the attack, this group of militant Iranians where protesting outside the U.S. Embassy causing a major disturbance that quickly escalated to the capture of 66 Americans. The group of militant Iranians was protesting for the return of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi because he was in the U.S. seeking medical attention. It was also a dramatic way for the student revolutionaries to declare a break with Iran’s past and an end to American interference in its

History is important and without an appreciation of the past, we cannot truly understand the present. It could be argued that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was America’s first experience with a direct act of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists against its citizens. This event was a precursor to decades of foreign policy conflict and mistrust that has embroiled the US and Iran and each countries’ allies.

Links between regims and terrorism can range from very clear lines of sponsorship to indefinable associations. When a government is using terrorism as an instrument of statecraft they can often control the degree of their involvement so that any incidents of terrorism cannot be traced back to the government. We can then conclude that state sponsorship of terrorism is not as straightforward as it seems. It is usually a covert policy that allows for the state to claim plausible deniability when accused of sponsoring terrorism. Because of these parameters a distinction must be made between state patronage and assistance.

Hezbollah receives financial aid, training, weapons, and explosives from Iran. Iran also helps with organizational aid. “According to Iran’s official budget, Iran gave $500 million in support of radical Islamic organizations around the world in the 1990s. Of that money, Hezbollah was reported to receive at least $250 million” (TRAC). Without this money from Iran, carrying out attacks cannot be accomplished.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party