Allegedly Among Hostage Takers at U.S. Embassy
United
States today expressed outrage over Iran’s choice of an allegedly former
hostage taker to become its new ambassador at the UN, with the State Department
spokeswoman calling the nomination “troubling.”
Iran has
nominated Hamid Aboutalebi to replace the current ambassador Mohammad Khazaee
at the UN, who has already left for Tehran. U.S. State Department has so far not issued an entry visa for
Aboutalebi, pending further investigation of his alleged role as a member of
the militant group Muslim Students
Following Imam’s Line, which held 52 Americans, including senior diplomats,
hostage in Tehran for 444 days after seizing the U.S. embassy on 4 November
1979.
“We're taking a close look at the case now, and we've
raised our serious concerns about this possible nomination with the government
of Iran,” said Marie Harf, the State Department spokeswoman. “I will say that
we think this nomination would be extremely troubling.” (AP, 2 April)
Aboutalebi has said his involvement with the student
group, which took the Americans hostage, was minimal, adding that he only acted
as a translator. However, his photograph is displayed on Taskhir (“Capture”), the website of the Muslim Students Following
Imam’s Line, Bloomberg reported. (Bloomberg, 30 March)
Aboutalebi has served as Iran’s ambassador to Italy, Belgium, Australia and the EU.
Aboutalebi has served as Iran’s ambassador to Italy, Belgium, Australia and the EU.
Photo credit: Hamid Aboutalebi, now and then. (iranhumanrights.org)
I would like to add that the hostages were taken as a direct result of the US refusing to hand over the shah.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would like to add that despite being in captivity for 444 days, there was not one single incident of physical or mental torture on the hostages. At least nothing even remotely close to what the US has and continues to practice under the banner of "Enhanced interrogation techniques".
The mentioned points should have been presented with the author's post, but as usual, Nader does not mention the historical accuracies, and wishes to present a biased view.
Hostage taking is a crime, punishable by life-in-prison in the countries that follow the law, including the United States. The defense by those students that they held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days because the U.S. government did not hand in the shah does not fly in a court.
DeleteThese days, Iran is experiencing hostage taking as well. Five border guards were taken hostage, although they committed no crimes. But the militants took them hostage anyway to protest against central government’s cruelty against the Baluch. Very much like this story, taking 52 hostages for 444 days because they were not happy with the U.S. government’s handling of the Shah. Iran is ready to send troops into Pakistan to free the hostages. What do you think it would do with the hostage takers? Be honest.
If I were Aboutalebi, I would have turned down the appointment to the UN. His presence in New York will create problems at a time when we need cooperation between the two countries. This appointment does not bode well with the ongoing efforts on parts of the moderates in both countries to start a new chapter in the relations between their countries. Very surprised why Rouhani administration should nominate a person involved in hostage taking to be based in New York, out of all the places on this globe.
Oh well we wouldnt want to offend your good friend the us now would we!,the same us who is still threatening military action by the way.The us could`ve easily resolved the "hostage crisis" by returning the shah to iran to stand trial for his crimes,they chose not to
Delete"there was not one single incident of physical or mental torture "
DeleteClassic Iranian dishonesty. By definition being taken hostage is mental torture. Iranians lie all the time.
NADER
Deletetoo many old men in the US administration !!.It is a new day a new beginning in the latest effort to normalize relations b/tween Iran and the B.O.D !.If we start scratching old wounds then it becomes painful on both sides.
AND Nader you seem to give much attention on the hostage taking ,will you attempt to to also give some attention to the deliberate bombing of the Iranian civilian plane by the B.O.D?.
Well said Mr. Uskowi. I am quite surprised myself as to Rouhani's decision to nominate him.
DeleteAnon 7:32 PM
DeleteWho the hell is the US to hand over the Shah to a bunch of spiteful and disgusting criminals?
These subhuman trash who are presently occupying Iran will be the ones who will be put on trial for their crimes against Iran.
When shah , his family and cronies had stolen or transfered (public) money; was that issue also stated in demands for return of assets, at the time of hostage crisis ??
DeleteAnon 4:18 PM
DeleteFor over thirty four years the Islamic terrorists occupying Iran tried to prove the Shah "stole",with no results to this day. As sure as night follows day everybody can clearly see that the criminals in Tehran are stealing Iran's wealth. When you have someone like Khamenei say; "Don't stretch it",that proves that the regime as a whole are covering up their crimes and are nothing but thieves and murderers against the Iranian nation.
Mr Uskowi is absolutely correct in condemning any form of hostage taking for whatever form and shape. The takeover of US embassy in Tehran supported by that ahmagh Khomeini and the other clowns from the Iranian mazhabi and bazari families was probably one of the most shameful points in Iranian history. For that Iran paid a price of nearly one million dead in the war with Saddam.
DeleteIt is ironic that after 35 years of this hokumat lahnaty we still have the same guys running the country. I believe this has more to do with Iranian culture and nativity than anything else. If this nation was culturally progressive they would not be following or allowing this bunch to rule the country. Now they want to plant an idiot as Iranian ambassador to UN. They know perfectly well that on the other side’s they are those paid by the Jewish lobby that will be looking at discrediting Iran at any turn. This man for god’s sake must have some shame and do the honourable thing and decline the role to remove the fuss. Frankly I don’t think anything is going to happen until and unless these lot are kicked out. Very disappointing indeed!
Anon 6:31
DeleteKhomeini knew full well that his forces were unable to score a decisive victory over Iraq, even prior to issuing the first major offensive into Iraqi territory in mid 1982. The sole reason that can be ascertained from his fool hardy decision to protract the war for another 6 years must have been that he wanted to strengthen his revolution and vitalize his own image at the expense of, probably what amounted to, an entire generation of Iranians, that were brainwashed to sacrifice themselves.
Basrawi (former IQAF Mirage F1 pilot)
DeleteIf someone attacks you you dont just drive them back to their side of the border and then leave it at that,you make sure that they can never do it again,and saddam at the end of 88 was certainly in no position to try that little trick again,he`d been bled white and bankrupted and we all know what he did after that,things would have been very different if iran had agreed to any peace deal in the early 80s,one only has to look at iraq today to see what saddams stupidity in attacking iran led to,how many lives did he squander in his mad dreams of a new babylonian empire
Hostage taking is criminal but somehow throwing out a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 by a coup and violence and killing is "OK" !???!
DeleteLet's be clear what you are saying: is hostage taking after the 1953 coup no longer a criminal act? Isn't it natural to condemn what the Iranian government did as against all norms of civility and diplomacy; while condemning the coup as well?
DeleteBy the way, why do we need to link the two events? The Islamists (notably their leader at the time, Ayatollah Kashani) took shah's side in the 1953 coup against Mossadeq. Same group cannot justify hostage taking because they were "angry" at the coup. Their side won in 1953. It's the height of hypocrisy for the Islamic Republic to link the two events. You cannot have the cake and eat it too! (Unless if you are Khomeini, I guess!)
Nader UskowiApril 4, 2014 at 7:08 PM
Delete"You cannot have the cake and eat it too! "
Isnt that exactly what the us is doing,it says the appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi is troubling,yet almost in the same breath you have the us Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey threatening military action and stating that the us and israel were in broad agreement over the iran threat,obviously they dont seem to care that iran might view that as "troubling",as usual its one rule for the us and another for everyone else,do you subscribe to that as well mr uskowi?
Why do you need to change the subject? I was discussing your earlier comments linking the U.S. embassy hostage taking and the 1953 coup. I was telling you that the Islamic Republic did not have the standing to link the two events, as the Islamists in Iran at the time of the coup, notably their leader Ayatollah Kashani, sided with the shah and against Mossadeq. Any response?
DeleteAnd by the way, what does our discussion about the U.S. embassy hostage taking and the 1953 coup have anything to do with the U.S. and Israel agreeing on Iranian threat in 2014?
DeleteAnon 5:52 PM
DeleteThere was no "democratically elected Prime Minister" in 1953. Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah and approved by Majles. You seem to have forgotten Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah in 1941. Go and read the Iranian 1906 constitution before making any more comments as regards this matter.
And one more thing,Uskowi is right about the Islamists groups in Iran.They did support the Shah in 1953,and it was the Shah's biggest mistake to trust those two faced charlatans.They benefited the most from the Shah and in the end they also let him down by stabbing him in the back. Now they cheekily claim they are the champions of resistance.They need to retire to their mosques and when called for,attending funerals.
Well According to the papers released officially by CIA several years ago "Mosadegh" was elected by the will of the people. May be you should teach CIA about constitution... and let's not forget who took Reza Shah away from Iran and jailed him when his only fault was declaring Iran neutral in WWII. Do you Gents see the pattern? whenever Iran has had a leader worth his head over his shoulder he was removed by British/US illegal interventions. Those are historical facts, deal with them.
DeleteAnon 2:04 PM
DeleteAnon 2:04 PM
Please stop kidding yourself ! The CIA didn't right the 1906 Iranian constitution. Mossadegh was not elected by the will of the people.He was appointed by the Shah and approved by Majles. In the 1906 constitution it is written the king has the right to close parliament and to fire the prime minister as well as being the commander in chief of the armed forces. Please read the Iranian constitution of 1906 before any further correspondence.
FACTS are a stubborn thing. It is a Fact that "On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new Prime Minister by a vote of 79–12". Should re-familiarize yourself with Iran's recent history!
Delete
DeleteIt is a fact,the Shah appointed Mossadegh and it was approved by Majles.
might be interesting to say if something happens to him in New York and he disappears for a year or maybe even longer.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. needs to stop crying over a hostage taking that happened 31 years ago. Lots of countries including the U.S. have done lots worse so get over it.
ReplyDeletethe swine who took the hostages blamed it on an event that happened 26 years before that, and they were still wailing, were they not?
DeleteI am not quite sure , if we should call this a "Hostage issue".....
ReplyDeleteIt was then and now judging with sometime in between, actually a "pre-emptive measure" . The objective was to avoid a new coup d'etat a la 1953 . ... Let us not fool ourselves, the term "den of spy" with regard to the US embassies around the world, should actually be as famous as the words "prestroika" and "glasnost" in a modern political scientific terminology
Look what has emerged lately in information regarding how and on what scale these embassies are eavesdropping and managing events.....Iran For its part has been bitten before from this hole.... and maybe for the run of history and Iran's independence, it was the inevitable path...
Now what the yellow press and American public opinion wants to call it should be looked at with a smirk ! ....
Azari by Fortune and Iranian by Grace of God.
Dariush London
Anon 10:47 AM AKA "Dariush"
DeleteSo you're saying that the so-called Iranian embassies abroad don't have agents and assassins who are willing to carry out the Islamic dictatorships bidding against the real Iranian opponents of the regime?
Since you are comfortably living in London you should know that London "embassy" was used for spying on Iranian political exiles as well as recruiting non-Iranians for propaganda operations. If as you falsely claim Iran is so "independent" under these barbarians,why is the anti-Iran regime bending over backwards giving concessions of our natural resources at far below market prices to countries like China and Russia? Is it because it is a protection racket that the regime is paying for it's so-called "independence"?
Smirk !
DeleteMr Uskowi,why didn't you allow my post through as regards the human trash pictured above?
ReplyDeleteWas it so harsh of me to mention that this vermin should be arrested when arriving on US soil?
I know you don't agree with the principles that this regime stands for.
Piruz
ReplyDeleteWhere have you been before ?
You don't have to be suprised, because President Rouhani had taken oath, in front of the Majlis, to protect and defend ideals and system of the Islamic Republic........and not your desires.
Not an U..'S altar boy
BASRAWI [former Iraqi pilot] -difficulties on your comment!!-
ReplyDelete@ -YOU say that the IMAM 'knew full well that His forces could not score a decisive victory over Iraq , even prior to issuing the first major offensive into Iraq teritory in the mid 1982.
Question One-
-What makes you believe that the IMAM 'KNEW FULL WELL that His forces could not score a victory againt Iraqi forces-I mean what formula are you using that gives you a direct conclusion that the Imam "knew full well"-. Im asking this because One, can never choose to be a hopeless liar and wish to stand as an honest AND asitute historian,
question two
Your general portrayal of the Iman has been pathetic presenting Him as an agressor or one driven by madness in defending the Nation this has not escaped the attention of your readers , Was He to fold his arms and let your wise man SADDAM do his bussines simply because He was a MULLAH? and that it was wrong on His part to defend the Nation?.
WILL you afford to write some few lines to critisize your commander in chief SADDAM and be honest to yourself AND AT LEAST let your readers see for the first time some balance from you.
@-YOU say -"the sole reason that can be ascertained from his fool hardy decision to protract the war for another 6 years must have been that he wanted to strengthen his revolution and vitalize his own image at the expense of, probably what amounted to, an entire generation of Iranians, that were brainwashed to sacrifice themselves. "
Question one
Assuming that you were gallantly figting on the other side of the border then, what wrong decisions did Saddam make that you may wish to share with your readers?.-I have with me many history books and in then are replate with Leaders, commanders, Kings making some wrong decisions in the middle of a war that sometimes cost their outright victory or even signal the end of their rule a very glaring example is the decision by the US commanders in Afghanistan in sending the neavy seals on a mission in that dangerous valley that saw them killed by the Talibans- [a decision the US military will live to regret] SO WHY DO you always come around -PIN down the LEADER as the only one in the history of mankind to have made an 'unsound' decision in refusing a ceasefire from an unpredictable virulent aggressor ?.
question two
Why aren you dashing into a conclusion into portraying the Leader as unwise without wishing to to walk a mile in his shoes!.Do all historians commenting on the WAR have a common consesus on those same issues you are presenting ?- or are you simply driven by a phobia on Shia political Islam?.
CONCLUSION
No amount of lies from anyone will erase the fact that all soldiers and civillians who died defending the Iranian Nation against a heartless dictator fought as mujahedeen and died as shuhadaa waiting their lofty reward from the Almighty -and any sound or unsound decision made by the LEADER and His commanders during the war is not a reason to cleanse SADDAM of his sins and portray Him AS A Saint.
sorry Guys for the typo on the name!!
DeleteB.M.A
ReplyDeleteDo not waste your time with this saddam apologist. The question I want to ask him is where is saddam today and what state did he left Iraq? No amount of hypocrisy can white wash the obvious answers to these questions. As the saying goes 'those who live by the sword die by the sword.'
Anon 8:13 AM "those who live by the sword die by the sword."
ReplyDeleteThat also applies to the occupying Islamist regime in Iran.