I don't know how accurate the movie portrayal of the embassy takeover was, but was it really as easy as cutting some chain on the gates? Wouldn't we have marines inside, with some mounted machine guns, ready to mow down the people as they funneled in through the gates?
In the movie we looked defenseless.
Have you ever been abroad?
No, normally marines are not guarding US embassies. Granted i have never been to a US embassy not being American, but I used to live close to one. The guards are most likely locals employed on-site by the embassy. Obviously Iran at that time might have been different but I supposed even then those staff members that did less, um, "academic" work, might have been locals. Having marines employed at every embassy, consulate, ambassador's residence etc would make a big dent in the US army.
The US embassies are the most heavilly guarded though. Where i lived before (S America) all the other embassies were not really distinguishable in the business district of other offices (sometimes you may spot a flag somewhere) whereas the US embassy was this huge prison-looking monster of a building in the suburbs.
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. For one thing, the Marine Corps isn't part of the Army. Marines definitely guard US embassies. Here's a link: http://www.mcesg.marines.mil
---
I'm just expressing my opinion.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
the Marine guards do have assault rifles and pistols but generally not heavier weapons and not tons of ammo. You will recall in the film the guy tells his men if we kill one of them they will kill all of us (and most of the people inside were women or civilians), so they tried to hold them off with tear gas. basically they knew that while they could probably kill a bunch of them that it would not end well because the mob had much greater numbers and things would escalate (they would get weapons and be back, or set place afire, etc.).
shareI guess the logical question would be, why have an embassy in a hostile country? If you are going to put an embassy in a hostile country, and not defend it properly, it seems like you are inviting this kind of situation.
No I have never been anyplace outside of North America.
I just couldn't imagine Putin putting up with one of their embassies being overrun without a fight.
in Iran I think we were kind of of taken off guard and didn't realize how quickly the situation would deteriorate, usually there would be time as things got bad to get everyone out safely so you don't need a fortress. I'm sure the Iraq/ Afghanistan embassies have very strong defenses. but those are exceptions. traditionally even very hostile countries would not stoop to attack diplomatic outposts. for example in WW2 countries declared war and invaded each other but generally the diplomats were allowed to go home safely rather than being attacked by mobs and taken hostage, etc.
shareI think closing an embassy in a country during conflict is the ultimate act, because it shows the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated allmost beyond repair. So I suspect, trusting in diplomatic immunity, countries often hold on to their embassies to show the situation is still solvable.
Of course there are situations when there's no other choice than to close an embassy, but sometimes its functions are just moved to another embassy in some close-by country as not to dissolve diplomatic relations totally. I'm actually not sure because i may be mixing UN offices and embassies but I think some embassies in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia at some point simply started running them from Nairobi, Kenya.
I read that the embassy had been stormed before earlier that year.
USA should have closed it or at least posted more guards there especially as the Shah had been allowed entry into the states.
More importantly they should have had contingency plans, like escape routes and safe houses for the staff. I would even have helicopters available to evacuate staff.
Carter was a pretty weak President. Putin by comparison is a strongmen. So I would say that this comparison isn't that helpful.
You can't expect Carter to show the same forceful response as Putin.
A crowd of angry protesters will not be stopped by the even the very best of security.
shareThe guards were marines and therefore US citizens. I think they just didn't realise that Iran would actually go down the terrorist route so maybe if they realised what was going to happen they would have opened fire. Maybe if they had used the tear gas more it could have driven the mob away .. who knows.
There are strict rules though about what guards/marines/soldiers aren't supposed to do when guarding embassies abroad and AFAIK there was no American ambassador there at the exact time of the attack so no direct order was given.
Plus the embassy was stormed before on Valentines Day 14th February 1979 and the "rent-a-mob" did go away eventually after a few days. So maybe the guards thought that would happen again.
Was stupid not to evacuate the embassy though.
why have an embassy in a hostile country?