Suchergebnisse

When looking at the literature surrounding the Iran Hostage Crisis, many scholars focus solely on the events that occurred in Iran leading up to the embassy being taken. This focus tends to paint Iranians as the "bad guys" in all situations. However, there was a large population of Iranian students in the US at the time, and these students had a completely different experience than those often remembered from the nightly news. Few scholars have set out to demonstrate the lives of those Iranian students, but those who have often describe the controversy that surrounded them. Scholars recognize how Iranian students in the US faced discrimination and how the US government was looking to deport them. These scholars tend to look at the lives of students who had it the worst, assuming all Iranian students' lives were atrocious in the US. They do not take into account those who were still welcomed at their universities throughout the crisis, as students disregarded diplomatic tensions and looked at the humans they spent their days with instead. By looking at more universities and more student experiences, a broader picture can be understood about the lives of Iranian students in the US during the crisis. ; Winner of the 2020 Friends of the Kreitzberg Library Award for Outstanding Research in the University Archives category. ; A Diplomatic Fiasco: How Iranian Students in the US were Affected Throughout the Iran Hostage Crisis Faith Privett Professor Boonshoft HI 249 Historical Methods 0800 5 December 2019 3979 Words 2 Not long after Ronald Reagan's inauguration as President of the United States on January 20th, 1981, former President Jimmy Carter was meeting the hostages he tried so desperately to release for 444 days. One of the bleakest moments of United States foreign policy history is the Iranian Hostage Crisis, which lasted from November 4th, 1979 to Reagan's inauguration day. In total, 66 people were taken hostage initially, but 52 were held for the full 444 days. America and the rest of the world watched as the days in captivity kept getting longer and longer, and their hopes conversely dropped. However, those accounts rarely showed the perspectives of the thousands of Iranian students in the US who suffered discrimination, harassment, and questioning throughout the crisis. They were seen as the enemy in a country that is supposed to be the "Land of the Free" and the "Great American Melting Pot." Nevertheless, this was not the case for all students; some were accepted with open arms throughout the crisis, as all so desperately sought world peace. Some students who did not necessarily feel the general American abhorrence were those who attended Norwich University, a private military college in central Vermont. Even though the rest of the country had conflicting views towards Iranian students in the US during the late 1970s, the Iranian Imperial Navy students at Norwich University were welcomed and well respected because of the well-developed program, the shared military experience and respect for authority, and the outward-looking ideals taught by the university, despite the tensions between the US and Iranian governments at the time. When looking at the literature surrounding the Iran Hostage Crisis, many scholars focus solely on the events that occurred in Iran leading up to the embassy being taken. This focus tends to paint Iranians as the "bad guys" in all situations.1 However, there was a large population of Iranian students in the US at the time, and these students had a completely different experience 1 Scott, "Bound for Glory." 3 than those often remembered from the nightly news. Few scholars have set out to demonstrate the lives of those Iranian students, but those who have often describe the controversy that surrounded them.2 Scholars recognize how Iranian students in the US faced discrimination and how the US government was looking to deport them. These scholars tend to look at the lives of students who had it the worst, assuming all Iranian students' lives were atrocious in the US.3 They do not take into account those who were still welcomed at their universities throughout the crisis, as students disregarded diplomatic tensions and looked at the humans they spent their days with instead. By looking at more universities and more student experiences, a broader picture can be understood about the lives of Iranian students in the US during the crisis. The US and Iran have a tumultuous diplomatic relationship that continues to this day, or better put does not continue to this day. The US had an interest in Iran during World War II and later into the start of the Cold War due to the fear of communism spreading and the fact that Iran had copious amounts of oil. In 1953, this came to a head when the leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, showed some "communist" tendencies that did not support US and British interests. The two countries staged a coup that removed Mossadegh and placed the previous ruler, Muhammed Reza Shah, back into power. This jumpstarted US involvement in Iran through diplomatic means that continued until the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. According to research by Dr. David Patrick Houghton, this involvement consequently may have led to the interest of the revolutionaries to take the hostages in 1979, as they saw the US as a threat to their sovereignty once again.4 2 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances." 3 Teague, "Hostages of the Crisis." 4 Houghton, US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis, 58-59. 4 Iranians may also have related the actions of the Shah to US involvement because the US supported him despite his authoritarian tendencies. Dr. Matthew Shannon notes the injustices that took place under the Shah in numerous works. When the Shah came into power, he instilled policies that led to "rapid socioeconomic modernization," but the process in which he did it brings about questions of civil rights and democracy.5 The modernization process that took place in Iran, known as the White Revolution, made the country incredibly western by allowing capitalist practices in land and factory holdings and giving women the right to vote, among other things.6 However, the vote that supposedly put these acts into power was not necessarily ratified by the legislative body of Iran at the time, although the Shah made it look as such.7 By taking away democratic practices such as these, the Shah furthered his cause of becoming an authoritarian ruler without opposition. Along with taking away democratic practices, the Shah also limited expression in Iran, especially for those that may have come out against his reign. Much of this was enforced by SAVAK, or the National Intelligence and Security Organization, who was known for repressing any anti-government sentiments, especially anti-Shah sentiments. Starting in the 1950s, SAVAK was trained in the US by government officials, and their only oversight and command came from the Shah, meaning they did whatever they were told to do by him directly.8 News came out in the 1970s that SAVAK was using torture to suppress anti-government acts within Iran. Military tribunals, which were open to the public for a time, were moved behind closed doors for over a year by the Shah after a defendant showed scars during a tribunal they had obtained from torture by SAVAK.9 These human rights abuses and the fact that 5 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances," 662. 6 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances," 675. 7 Shannon, Losing Hearts and Minds, 63. 8 Shannon, Losing Hearts and Minds, 25-27. 9 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances," 681. 5 SAVAK could be anywhere instilled fear in the hearts of Iranians both at home and abroad, which helped the Shah uphold his authoritarian regime. Besides support for the Shah by the US, Shannon also focuses on how US involvement in Iran from 1953 to 1979 focused highly on education, as many of those who worked in the Iranian government in the early days of the Shah were educated at American universities. The exchange rate of students from Iran to the US to study in college was greater than any other country at the time, with over 50,000 Iranian students enrolled in US universities in the 1979-1980 school year, and in the years following, post-secondary education in Iran was oftentimes structured after American universities.10 The cooperation between the US and Iran regarding education before the Shah's removal helped to modernize the country, which was seen differently by each party involved. Luckily for historians, many of the documents from the era are still preserved in university archives, including those at Norwich University, where upwards of 134 Iranian students were attending in the spring of 1979.11 Numerous student newspaper articles, administrative files, and oral histories tell the stories of Iranian students at Norwich from 1976 to 1980. The President Loring Hart files describe the administrative set up of the program, which was modeled after the program at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), where Iranian students had been attending for a few years before the program starting at Norwich. Deputy Commander LTC Paul Lafond went down to VMI to review their program in early May 1976, and he detailed a report that helped to eventually flesh out Norwich's Iranian student program. Some of the recommendations Lafond had were that Iranian students should room with American students, not with other Iranian students, because this would help them adapt to American life and learn 10 Hamidreza, "A Follow-Up Study on U.S.-Trained Iranian Faculty Members," 1038-1039. 11 Hart, "The President's Corner," Norwich University Record. 6 English quicker.12 Because of the Corps of Cadets' lifestyle at both VMI and Norwich, other recommendations were made regarding how cadre, or student military leaders, should train the Iranian cadets, as their learning styles were not the same. Lafond recommended that Iranian students respond well to clear orders, but they do not always respond well to negativity or derogatory or vulgar language. They should also be told when something is wrong, as they are oftentimes eager to fix it, but they will not understand if it is not brought to their attention. Lastly, Lafond notes that English proficiency is the biggest issue on campus, and even though the students attended a summer program that focused on English, it was not enough.13 This information was taken into account when designing the Norwich program. The administration designed an eighteen-week summer program that prepared the first fifty Iranian students with classes mainly focused on English, Math, Physical Education, and Naval ROTC, before the start of the school year in August 1976.14 With each year that Iranian students were on campus, more and more were able to attend as they worked out some of the issues with the program, and it became better established. Early on, Iranian students on campus ran across a few issues in their daily lives that highlight some of the changes that Norwich went through from 1976 to 1980 to improve the program. In a Norwich Guidon article published in October 1976, American author Gerard Grimes interviewed "Recruit Mohammad Zerehi from Iran" about what life was like at Norwich and how students could better understand their international counterparts.15 Zerehi noted some of the issues he and his fellow Iranian students were having on campus included English proficiency, adapting to the climate, and the diet. Zerehi asks readers that they do not 12 Lafond to Hart, 7 May 1976. 13 Lafond to Hart, 7 May 1976. 14 "Iranian Students Come to Norwich" Norwich Guidon. 15 Grimes, "Iranian Students at Norwich" Norwich Guidon. 7 discriminate against the Iranian students on the issue of pork, which many chose not to eat, because it is a religious practice.16 Other accounts by Iranian students recognize the issue with pork as well, but that over time, both the students and the school were able to resolve these problems and continue growing.17 Because this was written so early on in the program, it is noticeable that eventually, American and Iranian students got used to each other's practices, which led to their friendship and respect for one another throughout the years. Vital to the descriptions of life at Norwich from 1976-1980 are the oral histories of Iranian cadets Arsalan Namdar and Benjamin Heydary. Both men described what training was like, how they got along with their classmates, struggles they had, and how they eventually had to leave. Namdar described Rook Week as a "Piece of cake" because they had already been through years of more intense training in the Iranian Imperial Navy (IIN).18 Namdar also noted the Iranians "goofed off" at the beginning of training, much to the chagrin of their American classmates. This behavior transitioned once tasks started getting more intense. Another issue they ran into was the fact that their cadre were often younger and more inexperienced than they were, which created difficulties when they would get yelled at and disciplined.19 Heydary described similar feelings towards younger authority figures, but that he often kept his head down and dealt with it due to his humble upbringing.20 Another issue that arose earlier in the Iranian student's time at Norwich was that they often had more money than their American classmates because they were still getting paid their full salaries while attending school. This created a bit of strife between students, as the Iranians were not afraid to spend their money on cars and stereos.21 16 Grimes, "Iranian Students at Norwich" Norwich Guidon. 17 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 18 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 19 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 20 Heydary, interview by Yahm, March 10, 2015, transcript. 21 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 8 Dr. Matthew Shannon also describes the Norwich Iranian Cadets in his book Losing Hearts and Minds. Without saying much, he recognizes that Norwich had one of the largest programs in the US training Iranian Naval officers and that it trained women as well, which was new in the era and especially in the Middle East. He also describes some of the programs at Maine Maritime Academy, The Citadel, the Virginia Military Institute, and the United States Naval Academy. In general, these programs were similar because they were building off of each other's programs; Iranian students studied engineering and business most often while receiving Naval ROTC training and improving their English.22 He finds that Iran sent their naval officers to US military schools because they wanted a standard education, which was difficult when they sent their cadets to numerous other countries to train as Iran did not have an officer training facility at the time. Also, Shannon notes that the US had an interest in training Iranian cadets because of the protection of oil assets in the Middle East.23 The Nixon Doctrine, which was President Nixon's plan to support conflicts in the Pacific through management and materials but not manpower, was also being upheld through the act of training and providing military aid.24 Iranian students throughout the rest of the country were not as lucky as those at Norwich, as protests against them often occurred on college campuses. Will Teague described some of the protests held on college campuses in the South throughout the entire hostage crisis, but mainly in 1979 as the news was fresh in the minds of Americans. Teague documents protests at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, the University of Tulsa, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. These protests included gatherings of hundreds of students marching against Iranians, 22 Shannon, Losing Hearts and Minds, 105. 23 Shannon, Losing Hearts and Minds, 103. 24 Gannon. "25 July 1969: The Nixon Doctrine." https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2008/07/25-july-1969-the-nixon-doctrine/ [accessed 20 Nov 2019]. 9 burnings of flags and images of Ayatollah Khomeini, and derogatory and threatening signs all directed towards the Iranian students that were on these campuses.25 Newspapers were also an outlet for protest, as correspondence and letters to the editor called Iranian students, "savages, barbarians, bandits, and terrorists."26 However, Teague also notes that Iranian students were writing to newspapers as well, trying to show their side of the issue. Overall, they described their confusion about the event, just as much as American students were confused, but they wanted their fellow students to know the Shah was not whom they thought he was, and because they were not the ones who experienced his reign, they should not be quick to let him into the US.27 Besides the protests against Iranians on college campuses, Iranian students in the US themselves were protesting, for other reasons. The Iranian Student Association in the United States (ISAUS) was a student led-group with chapters around the country that organized protests and lobbied against the Shah's actions. Because they were in the US, they were able to use their freedom of speech rights to express their beliefs, where if they were in Iran, they most likely would not have been able to express their opinions for fear of getting imprisoned. Early on in the history of the ISAUS, their goals were to advocate for more democratic practices in Iran, including freedom of expression. They lobbied the Kennedy administration, specifically Robert Kennedy, to try and influence US foreign policy towards Iran and the Shah's regime.28 After news of SAVAK's torture started coming to the US from new students arriving, the ISAUS switched their tactics and started advocating for bringing to light the crimes against humanity that the Shah and SAVAK were committing. The ISAUS issued "On the Violation of Human Rights in Iran," which outlined the abuses under the Shah and called for the US to stop 25 Teague, "Hostages of the Crisis," 115-116. 26 Teague, "Hostages of the Crisis," 120. 27 Teague, "Hostages of the Crisis," 116-118. 28 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances," 672-674. 10 supporting him. They were able to get attention in newspapers around the world, but the US continued to support the Shah due to their prior commitments.29 Protests against the Shah continued throughout the US the entire time he was in power. However, both Namdar and Heydary describe what set Norwich Iranian cadets apart from the rest of the Iranian students in the US at the time. Namdar states, "In later years…Americans and Iranians really became friends based on the values…."30 He goes on to say, "I think Norwich taught me a lot in terms of quality and integrity…experiencing life, and trying hard, and just trying to work with others and be friendly."31 At first, things were difficult for the students because of the language barrier and the fact that the Iranian and American cultures were so different. As Namdar recognizes, through time, both the American and the Iranian cadets learned more about one another and grew to respect the fact that they were different, which improved how they worked together. One can hypothesize that this might have something to do with the military training that all students received at Norwich. The military encourages the fact that soldiers need to work together to produce the best outcome in the field, despite their differences at home, which allowed the Iranian and American cadets to look past their many differences and unite on common ground. President Loring Hart described the impact that the Iranian students had on the American students at Norwich as, "They have brought to all of us broader horizons, and a new awareness…. They have provided a current which has flowed through our campus and our town…, reminding us that our college and our community is indeed a part of the greater scene beyond us."32 This statement describes the worldly perspective that Iranian students brought to the school and how it made Norwich students more aware of others who were not like 29 Shannon, "American-Iranian Alliances," 682-684. 30 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 31 Namdar, interview by Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript. 32 "The Rest of the Story," Norwich University Record. 11 themselves. Like Heydary states, there were instances of discrimination or derogatory slang terms used against the Iranian students at the beginning of their time at Norwich, but once students got to know each other and the barriers were broken down, they were able to become friends despite their differences.33 After all of the unrest occurring in Iran at the time, 1979 was the icing on top of the cake. The Shah left Iran in early 1979, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a popular religious leader who was incredibly anti-Shah and anti-American and who became an icon for revolutionary voices within Iran while in exile, took power shortly after.34 The entire country was calling for the Shah's return so he could face charges in front of the people he oppressed for so many years. Instead, the Shah sought cancer treatment in the US, which is what most people think caused the hostage situation to occur. A substantial diplomatic issue arose as President Carter considered allowing the Shah into the US, which many Iranians thought was the US harboring their criminal and preventing them from exerting their sovereignty. When the Shah was admitted into the US, the unrest came to a peak, and protesters outside the US embassy in Tehran, Iran, many of which were US-educated students, stormed the embassy and took 66 Americans inside hostage, 52 of which they held for the entirety of the crisis. With so many people protesting the Shah both in the US and Iran, there is much to say about how the media spun the story to make all Iranian's the bad guys in the situation when they faced discrimination in the US themselves. Professor Catherine Scott explained the "captivity narrative" that was portraited throughout the crisis by the media and the government, which convinced the American citizens to hate Iran more than they ever had before. A captivity narrative is best described when a story is portraited in such a way that the victims' actions 33 Heydary, interview by Yahm, March 10, 2015, transcript. 34 Shannon, Losing Hearts and Minds, 70. 12 against the captors are justified because of the actions that were committed against them.35 What she is saying is that the Americans knew they were the victims during the hostage crisis, and they played into it, but they were not willing to take into account the atrocities that they themselves committed beforehand. Retaliation, by any means, was not only justified but also necessary to protect the American people. This only increased the abhorrent treatment by Americans against Iranians because it was for the public good, even if the public included over one hundred thousand Iranians. The fact that the media portraited the US as victims, and the federal government was retaliating against Iranians just made it more acceptable for the everyday Americans to lash out against their Iranian counterparts. Because of the backlash against Iranians by the US public, there was also government backlash as well. President Carter issued Section 214.5, which called for the investigation into Iranian students in the US to ensure that they were abiding by their visas. If they were not, they were to be deported. This turned into somewhat of a witch hunt as Iranian students could be investigated and deported at any point. According to Tinsley Yarbrough, the deportations were supposed to reduce the number of protests in the US against Iranians so they would not get in the way of hostage negotiations.36 However, many people outside of the government sector questioned the constitutionality of the act, including members of the ISAUS, who brought a case forward against Section 214.5 in late 1979. The original ruling on the case by DC District Court Judge Joyce Green was that the students were correct, and the order was unconstitutional due to discrimination.37 The Appeals Court overruled Judge Green's decision because Section 214.5 had to due with foreign affairs, and under the Constitution, the judiciary could not shoot down 35 Scott, "Bound for Glory," 180. 36 Yarbrough, "Federal Alienage Doctrine," 248. 37 Teague, "Hostages of the Crisis," 124-125. 13 any law regarding the handling of foreign affairs by the executive.38 This allowed the deportations to continue without question, and arguably set a precedent that is followed today. While the rest of the country was dealing with Section 214.5, Iranian students at Norwich encountered a different dilemma. Because they were members of the Iranian military, they had different travel visas than Iranian students at other universities around the US. On April 9th, 1980, President Carter issued a deportation order that all, "non-diplomatic and consular officials and employees of Iran in the US leave no later than Friday April 11th."39 This made it clear that the Iranian cadets at Norwich had to leave for good because their visas made them fall under this category. A newspaper article from the Iranian students' departure day describes the fact that President Loring Hart and the administration contacted as many agencies as possible, trying to allow the cadets to remain at school to finish the year, but there were no loopholes they could use as students at the Citadel and VMI also had to leave. The article then goes on to describe the last few days of the Iranian students on campus, their rush to pack and sell their belongings, and the "emotional farewell" that awaited them on April 11th.40 Cadet Kazem Yahyapour stated in an interview on the day he was forced to leave that he wished he could kiss everyone goodbye, and that, "friendships…made at Norwich will never be forgotten."41 The article also says that Cadet Yahyapour hugged Cadet Colonel William Elliott in a "symbolic gesture."42 This symbolic gesture represents the experiences Iranian cadets had at Norwich, and how their time was much different from that of their counterparts at other American universities, as Norwich welcomed 38 Yarbrough, "Federal Alienage Doctrine," 252-253. 39 "Fond Farewell to Iranian Students" Norwich Guidon. 40 "Fond Farewell to Iranian Students" Norwich Guidon. 41 "Fond Farewell to Iranian Students" Norwich Guidon. 42 "Fond Farewell to Iranian Students" Norwich Guidon. 14 these students with open arms despite the hard times in their country, when they could have turned against them as so many others in the US did at the time. Overall, the Norwich program tried incredibly hard to welcome the Iranians into the US by basing their training and education off of other programs in the US and using their misgivings to make their program the best they could be. The values of respect, tolerance, friendship, integrity, and hard work made people from different backgrounds, and even different countries, able to work together instead of hate one another when diplomatic ties between the two countries fell apart. This was not the case in the rest of the United States at the time, when tensions ran high among neighbors, and Iranian students were constantly on edge, wondering when the government was going to send them back to their revolution-torn homeland. Today, diplomatic ties still have not been reestablished, and the situation with Iran created a deeply divided society in which blame was able to be placed on anyone at any time based on where they came from, a sight not unseen throughout history before and since then. However, the precedent set by Norwich students during the crisis could be an example to the rest of the world of how people from different backgrounds can learn to work together when their two countries could not seem to get along. 15 Bibliography Primary Sources Arsalan M. Namdar, interview by Sarah Yahm, April 2, 2015, transcript, Norwich Voices Oral History Project, Norwich University Archives, Kreitzberg Library, Northfield, VT. • Arsalan Namdar was an IIN student at Norwich and faced the issue of deportation in April 1980. His oral history was recorded in 2015, and he looks back on his time at Norwich, as well as his experiences in the US in general and back home in Iran. Benjamin Heydary, interview by Sarah Yahm, Northbridge, MA, March 10, 2015, transcript, Norwich Voices Oral History Project, Norwich University Archives, Kreitzberg Library, Northfield, VT. • Heydary's oral history works alongside Namdar's oral history to describe what was going on at Norwich from 1976 to 1980 when they were both IIN cadets at Norwich. Heydary also explains how he got to Norwich and how he actually went back to do his military service under the Ayatollah before coming to the US. "Degree Status of Deported Iranian Students" Norwich University Record, May 1980. • The article describes a meeting with the Board of Trustees to determine the degree status of those Iranian seniors who were deported but who were supposed to graduate in May or in the summer. It states that they can get their degrees eventually once relations with Iran are restored, which to this day have yet to be formally restored. "Fond Farewell to Iranian Students" Norwich Guidon, May 10, 1980. • In an article written in the Guidon following the deportation of the Iranian students, the author describes the scene in the last few days the students were on campus. They note specifically that the Iranians had to leave because of the Executive Order issued by 16 President Carter on April 9th that all, "non-diplomatic and non-consular officials and employees of Iran in the U.S. leave no later than Friday April 11th." They state the overall good relations that everyone had on campus, even though the rest of the country was deeply divided along the lines of their country of origin. Grimes, Gerard. "Iranian Students at Norwich" Norwich Guidon, October 31, 1976. • A Guidon writer, Gerard Grimes, interviewed an Iranian recruit, Mohammad Zerehi, about his experiences and those of his fellow Iranians during their first year at Norwich. It describes the overall good treatment the students received, although this was before tensions rose too much between Iran and the US. Hart, Loring. "The President's Corner" Norwich University Record, March 1979. • The article describes President Loring Hart's views about the IIN students at Norwich at the time. He mentions how there is currently turmoil in the country, and that he wishes for peace. He also notes how many students are at Norwich and that Iranian women are now enrolled. "Iranian Students Come to Norwich" Norwich Guidon, May 6, 1976. • The article describes the beginning of the program at Norwich after the students arrived and some of their expectations overall, including some of the characteristics of the new students. Report from Deputy Commandant LTC Paul Lafond to President Loring Hart, 7 May 1976. Loring Edward Hart Records, Box 12, Norwich University Archives, Kreitzberg Library, Northfield, VT. • The report states the observations that LTC Lafond made when he went to VMI to go over their Iranian exchange program to see what would work best for Norwich. This 17 bases their program off of the VMI program, based on their mistakes and successes, including how the language barrier made a difference. "The Rest of the Story" Norwich University Record, Winter 2012. http://thenorwichrecord.com/the-rest-of-the-story/ [accessed 20 November 2019]. • This is a story from the alumni newspaper was written long after the Iranian students left campus. However, it takes into account the memories of IIN students of their time at Norwich, departure day, and what it was like going back to Iran. It paints a picture of the Iranian students on campus and when they left. Secondary Sources Chaichian, Mohammed A. "The New Phase of Globalization and Brain Drain: Migration of Educated and Skilled Iranians to the United States." International Journal of Social Economics 39, No. 2 (2012): 18-38. • Dr. Chaichian is a professor of sociology at Mount Mercy University. His article recognizes the "brain drain," which is the emigration of educated individuals that is currently occurring from Iran to other western nations, like the US. He states that this is caused not only by a shift in the internal structure of Iran and its acceptance of western-based education but also the international economic opportunities that are available outside of the country. Gannon, Frank. "25 July 1969: The Nixon Doctrine." https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2008/07/25-july-1969-the-nixon-doctrine/ [accessed 20 Nov 2019]. • This article makes note of President Nixon's words regarding the announcements he made about his plans for Asia, which explains what came to be known as the Nixon 18 Doctrine. He wanted to get away from using manpower and focus more on management and support for countries attempting to fight oppressive or communist regimes than by providing troops. Hamidreza, Arasteh. "A Follow-Up Study on U.S.-Trained Iranian Faculty Members: Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions." College Student Journal 43, No. 4 (Dec 2009): 1037- 1045. • Dr. Hamidreza is a professor of education and psychology at a university in Tehran, Iran, and his study is based on US-educated college faculty in Tehran, giving him access to the information. He notes some of the problems that US-educated faculty have because of the openness of American education and the structured, hierarchal nature of Iranian that do not always agree with each other. However, Iranian higher education is still based on the American system of higher education. Houghton, David Patrick. US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. • Dr. Houghton is a professor of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College and is an expert on US foreign policy. This book goes into depth about the actions taken both in Iran and the US to solve the Iranian Hostage Crisis, while also going into depth about the causes of the crisis from both perspectives. He analyzes how each group, Americans and Iranians, looked at the historical background of the situation and drew upon different events to support their reasoning for their actions during the crisis. The argument is that it was their own experiences that validated their analogies and their actions. The issue of foreign policy is brought up as there was no precedent for this, so 19 they analyze the information that was used as the basis of American and Iranian decisions. Kessel, John H. "The Structures of the Carter White House." American Journal of Political Science 27, No. 3 (Aug 1983): 431-463. • This article is from 1983 and was written shortly after President Carter left office. Professor Kessel was a distinguished scholar at Ohio State, and he interviewed the members of the Carter administration upon their phasing out, getting information straight from the source. He sets up what the Carter administration did, how it changed over time, and how the goals and interests of the President are carried out through his staff. It never uses the words "Iran Hostage Crisis" at all. Mobasher, Mohsen. "Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States." American Behavioral Scientist 50, No. 1 (Sept 2006): 100-117. • Dr. Mobasher is a professor of anthropology at the University of Houston. This article recognizes the shift in pride within Iranian immigrants to the United States during and after the crisis, and how it has affected them to this day. Because of their status as both Iranians and as Muslims, American society automatically looks down on them and makes assumptions, which puts them in a position to suppress their heritage and culture. Scott, Catherine V. "Bound for Glory: The Hostage Crisis as Captivity Narrative in Iran." International Studies Quarterly 44, No. 1 (Mar 2000): 177-188. • Scott is a professor of political science at Agnes Scott College. In her article she describes the use of the media to influence the stories coming out of crises, such as the Iran Hostage Crisis, that made America rally behind the hostages and the President as the 20 victims who were fighting brutal and vicious Islamic captors, changing the narrative for years to come. Shannon, Matthew K. "American-Iranian Alliances: International Education, Modernization, and Human Rights During the Pahlavi Era." Diplomatic History 39, No. 4 (Sept 2015): 661- 688. • Professor Shannon is educated at UNC and Temple and teaches history at Emory and Henry College. He also authored Losing Hearts and Minds about Iranian relations. Shannon tells the story of American-Iranian relations that began and ended with the shah. Iranian students in the US tried multiple times to get the US to dump the shah because of his authoritarian tendencies and campaign against human rights, although the US's international policy regarding them eventually failed. Shannon, Matthew K. Losing Hearts and Minds: American Iranian Relations and International Education During the Cold War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017. • By describing the events of the Iran Hostage Crisis and those that lead up to it, Shannon focuses on the importance of education throughout. He recognizes how the Iranian students that came to the US and went back helped to support the White Revolution and how all Iranian students, in turn, became voices for their country outside of its borders because they could not within. The main argument is that it was the students who inevitably brought about the Iranian Revolution and the actions that came with it due to their activeness in government, including how they used their American educations to further their causes and cause the destruction of US-Iranian relations. 21 • The book actually mentions the military programs at the SMCs that were in place and how they inevitably influenced the educational training aspect of both country's diplomacy towards one another. Teague, Will. "Hostages of the Crisis: Iranian Students in Arkansas, 1979-1981." The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 77, No. 2 (Summer 2018): 113-130. • When writing this journal article, Teague was a doctoral student of history at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville, so he had the access and resources to make a clear argument for examples within the state of Arkansas and its experience with Iranian students. He also uses sources from other universities, mostly throughout the South, which painted a picture of what protests were like and how often they occurred on college campuses with Iranian students. This can be used to compare Norwich to the rest of the country. He also adds some of the challenges that came up with deportation, and how America was trying to decide whether or not it was legal, which can be related to past events like Executive Order 9066 and even today with President Trump's Muslim ban. Yarbrough, Tinsley E. "Federal Alienage Doctrine and the Iranian Student Litigation." Human Rights Quarterly 4, No. 2 (Spring 1982): 243-260. • Tinsley Yarbrough is an expert on the mid-20th century US Supreme Court and has published numerous books and articles on the topic. By relating the Iranian student litigation in 1979 to numerous cases and rulings throughout the 20th century regarding immigration issues, he establishes a precedent for the decisions made that can be brought into question in the modern-day by explaining the arguments of the case against Section 214.5.