Bowden did an excellent job of fleshing out characters' backgrounds and writing with descriptive detail, but when he's not covering a fast-paced subject, like he did in Black Hawk Down, the book plods along and feels dull.

When the Iran hostage crisis kicked off in late 1979, I was all of 10 years old and utterly incapable of appreciating the historical context, the political/diplomatic/military maneuvers to bring the hostages back home, or the fallout from the extended scenario. This was very much the book I needed to read, at a time and place when I could better handle that firehose of information, in order to synthesize the wickedly complex events that played out.

In short, Bowden takes on the herculean task of synthesizing inputs from a wide variety of sources, including myriad news feeds from the international press and inputs from many of the hostages themselves. Through that integration of perspectives, the reader is taken on a journey that points out the wickedly complex political landscape that was (and, in many ways, still is) Iran. At the time, for example, US officials were crippled in finding an entity with whom to negotiate the hostages' release. The hostage takers themselves were a loosely structured network of college students. The Iranian government was provisional and toothless in the wake of the 1979 revolution. And the mullahs in the theocratic regime were often not plugged in to either of these other power centers, as they were working their own plays for dominance on Iran's political field.

Meanwhile, in describing the home front, Bowden ably maps out challenges in America's political landscape. Not only were American diplomats and politicians facing challenges in getting traction with the hostages' release, but they were routinely bombarded with inputs and commentary from the American press denigrating the lack of progress. Moreover, the public faced any number of challenges trying to synthesize the myriad inputs in real time, especially in the absence of actual on-the-ground context from the various competing power centers in Iran. All in all, this crisis was, as one might now say, one extremely hot mess.

In any event, I highly recommend making the time to take this journey with Bowden to help shine a nuanced light into the corners of a major historical event that is very worthy of this level of detail. It certainly opened my eyes to dimensions and subtleties of the problem I had never seen before.

An intense retelling of the embassy staff taken hostage in Iran on November 4, 1979. While we learn more about some of the hostages than others, it was overall an educational look at the situation which caused a break in ties between the two countries still present today.

I love history. I love politics. I love current events. There were two seminal events that influenced that love. The Iranian hostage crisis was one of those two events. During those 444 days I was glued to the TV watching every unfolding moment that related to the attempts to resolve the crisis and the upcoming 1980 election. Lately, I've been reminded that I view those incidents through the lens of a pre-teen and wanted to delve into a study to understand the context more.

On November 4, 1979, five college students that included Mahmoud Ahmadinejad planned and executed the siege of the US Embassy in Tehran citing US "crimes" in admitting the Shah into the US for medical treatment. Bowden, also author of Black Hawk Down provides excellent context on the US-Iranian relations twenty-five years prior to this incident, the factions competing for power within Iran at the time, details on the behind-the-scenes negotiations to release the hostages, mecahanisms the hostages employed to survive the ordeal, the role the press played, how American citizens developed ways individually and collectively to support the hostages, how this incident changed the trajectory of Iranian history, and how Iranians today view those 444 days.

Some of the things I learned:

1. Some of the students attended Berkeley at a time that student demonstrations were impacting the view Americans held on the Vietnam War. Returning home these students employed many of the same strategies, assuming American citizens would have a similar response "once they learned the truth about American involvement in Iran." Due to this misguided assumption the students allowed incredible access to the hostages by media and clergy. <

2. Even today we hear about Iranian misinterpretation of historical facts (i.e. Holocaust). It was amazing to see just how many other areas of history are skewed.

3. I was suprised to learn how many marines were on site and not allowed to defend the embassy.

4. Even though there is blatant bias (discussed more n a moment) on Bowden's part, I felt like I had a much better understanding of the severe missteps by Carter administration in the months leading up to November, the missteps in the decision making process during the crisis, and why the Shah's medical treatment in the US was such an issue. I'm not so sure I have a better understanding of the missteps in the rescue attempt, as Bowden seems to go against every other historian's view on this point.

5. How the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the war with Iraq influenced the negotiations and release of the hostages.

Bowden's overt bias kept me from rating this a 5 star book. Actually I'd rather the bias be this evident because it is then easy to separate fact from opinion; however, I still cannot bring myself to give a wok on history 5 stars when the author tries to push an agenda.

Extremely well done, straightforward story of the famous Iranian hostage crisis. As usual, Mark Bowden has compiled a ton of reseal and delivered a story both fascinating, easy to read and historically accurate. Highly recommended.

I would argue that this is Mark Bowden's greatest work. From a readability standpoint, it moves like a thriller. From a historical standpoint, it is exceptionally researched, offers fair assessments and commentary, and covers the scope of the crisis very well. This is a must read for anyone wanting to learn about the Iranian hostage crisis.

Mark Bowden gives a riveting count of the Iranian hostage crisis, during which 66 Americans were taken hostage by Iranian students at the US Embassy in Tehran. This 700+ page book is certainly not short on detail, but Bowden’s writing style and focus on the stories of individuals makes for a relatively quick and entertaining read. I learned a lot about the history of Iranian-American relations while reading "Guests of the Ayatollah", though I must say that the author could have devoted more of the book to the significance of the CIA-led coup in 1953 that overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah as an autocrat. He does highlight this theme throughout the book but does not provide a thorough analysis of the coup itself and the ramifications that ultimately led to the hostage crisis and the current state of Iranian-American relations. I was also surprised that he only briefly mentioned the “Canadian Caper”, during which six diplomats who had evaded capture were able to escape Iran with the help of the Canadian Embassy (which inspired the film "Argo").

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Bowden does a very good job of telling the story from many different perspectives in all of his books, and "Guests of the Ayatollah" is no different.

Being in high school when this came down, flailling my typeing klass, I've been curious for years. Iran has been paying the price for this errant deed, both internally and externally, for thirty years now. The religious powerbrokers were able to solidify their hold on the populace by eleminating political enemies and keeping citizens in a fever of revolt and hate.

Many times there was a deal on the table only to have the conditions change once the US agreed. I believe Carter did the best he could and behaved honorably. Blatent militarism could have met with the hostages death, and the martyrdom of thousands. Time was the best course of action. If only the European nations had stood with us stronger a successful resolution might have come sooner.

Colonel Beckwith assumed all responsibility for the mission failures. He made the decision to abort based on being one less chopper (5) that the stated minimum. That was three less than what he started. One turned back to the carrier during the encounter with the dust cloud. ( We get those clouds here in Ariz. let me tell you they can get to be huge and blinding). The second lost it's back up hydralics the pilot grounded the craft. #3? While lifting of in the desert. In a cloud of it's own dust. The pilot became disoriented, came up and around, sliced into a C-130 airplane loaded with extra fuel, then straddled and sat down on the fuselage. Everything went up in flames. Eight men died. I'm just not gonna buy into the idea that the actuarial tables would have accounted for that level of loss. Only one loss could be attributed to reliability (mechanical) issues and the mission could have still gone on.

Carter, being a nuclear submarine captian, would have known the dangers of a civilian becoming involved with the inner workings of a military mission. Had he done so there would have been strong criticism for micromanaging.

One thing that struck me was Bowdens glossing over the possibility of interference from Reagan during the final days of the election. I've always suspected Ronny of dastardly deeds. Bowden said he couldnt find anything, but I would have liked to know more of his efforts.

It seems like Reagan gets credit for the hostage release. But they were released on inauguration day after Carter stepped down. The low class moment of that day was Reagan not deferring to Carter to make the announcement to the world.

After the bare bones story the best part for me was the epilog. The chapters that dealt with Iran society in 2005. Thirty years later we see the losses and ramifications of this event that quickly got out of hand. Iran had some legitimate complaints of the United States but international backlash from kidnapping diplomatic personnel and the strengthing of the Mullahs internally has crippled life on the street for the regular citizen.

All in all, a terrific book.

Very informative and shocking!

I started reading this book 4 years ago on a visit to a family members house in Amman, Jordon. I had to leave it there but never forgot what I had read. So I decided to buy it and finish it. I will never forget what these Americans went through. I never knew they had been treated so badly and I doubt that most people do either.

This was a well researched well told history from the perspective of the hostages, the hostage takers and those who ruled Iran and the USA at the time. It's written in a style which is easy to read and floridly told in a personal style through the eyes of individuals.

I particularly liked his defenestration of left wing apologists for the kidnappers and the Khomeinist regime and the blow by blow account of what the hostages went through on an emotional and physical level. The failed rescue attempt was told very well additionally.

However, I do think there is a lack of understanding of Islamism and Shia Islam and the conclusion was a mish mash in my view not particularly well written and at times downplayed the brutality of the Khomeinist regime. I also felt he had bias towards Carter.

Despite some flaws this is a very well written book on the hostage taking of the American embassy in Iran, which I would highly recommend.

While I preferred David Harris's handling of the political maneuverings in his book The Crisis, Bowden does a much better job here of blending previously published captivity narratives and his interviews to give a sense of what the hostages' experiences were like. While it's successful in being highly readable and in conveying a lot of information, I did have some problems with the tone of the book.

Bowden heavily criticizes the pro-hostage-taker rhetoric of some American lefties at the time, in particular clergy members who visited the hostages in Tehran, and I agree that their insensitivity and irresponsibility are shocking. He points at numerous examples throughout of how not only the students but their sympathizers repeatedly attempted to minimize the shittiness of the hostage taking, when any reasonable, ethical person must admit that being held captive for 444 days is an incredibly shitty thing that cannot be justified or excused.

Unfortunately, I think Bowden got too sucked into taking sides, and the result is a bias and lack of objectivity that I felt undermined the book. There were many places where he seemed to be trying extra hard to make the Iranians look bad, when objective language would have gotten his points across more effectively. For example, an incident that occurred during the disastrous US rescue attempt is described in language that is, simply put, jacked-up. The elite Delta Force is shocked when they encounter a bus full of Iranian civilians traveling through the nighttime desert where the Americans are staging to refuel their helicopters:

[The passengers] were all instructed in Farsi to remain silent, without effect. Most of the passengers were women, all of them wearing chadors and wailing eerily in their distress. Sergeant Eric Haney had trouble silencing one of the few young men among them, who insisted on loudly whispering to the others despite even their apparent desire for him to shut up. Haney put the muzzle of his automatic rifle under the man's nose and repeated, in Farsi, for him to be silent. But soon the offender was whispering again, so Haney roughly put the muzzle of his weapon in his ear and dragged him away from the group. Fearing he was being taken off to be shot, the young man began crying and begging, holding both hands up beseechingly. Haney sat him down on the road a good distance from the others and left him there, whimpering and praying. (p. 443)

To me, what is striking about this scene is that it is so much like the encounters between the Iranian students and American diplomats that have been recounted in the book to this point, only the roles and nationalities have been reversed (Their solution is that the bus passengers be forcibly flown out of Iran in a C-130, to be returned home after the mission!). But rather than acknowledging the irony or locating any empathy, Bowden describes the Iranian hostages in condescending and dehumanizing terms: the women are "wailing eerily," the man who believes he will be shot is "crying and begging," "whimpering and praying." In a similar scene, that of the harrowing mock execution of American captives, a hostage does not cry or whimper but shouts "Oh my God!" and "No! No! No!" These seem to me to be pretty much the same reaction to very similar situations, and for me the point was that oh man, it really sucks when you think someone is about to shoot you, whether you come from America or Iran.

I don't think showing some empathy for Iranians condones the students' actions at all, and throughout the book I think Bowden's writing gave support for the view of Americans as arrogant and spoiled bearers of a double standard, which could have been avoided and if it had been, his book would have been better. The hostages' experiences speak for themselves. I am a super lefty and I totally get why Iranians might have gotten irate with the US -- we DID organize a coup against their democratically elected prime minister, and we WERE involved in running their country in a sucky way, and our culture DID threaten these students' Islamic beliefs. I strongly believe you can understand other people's perspectives while still clearly seeing their actions as wrong. This is part of what makes me not a fundamentalist, and it's why I can't trust things that remind me at all of propaganda, as this book did at times.

Still, it's not a bad book and I feel I have a much better picture now of the hostages' experiences. I do think Bowden was basically trying to be fair -- he does explain the Iranians' grievances and repeatedly notes how little effort was made to do this by the American media at the time -- but I felt he was worried that he needed to make his allegiance to the Americans clear and that his efforts sort of weakened the book. An American audience is naturally going to "side" with the hostages, though I'm not sure taking sides in a historical incident does any of us much good in the end.

4 ☆

Like most of the great turning points in history, it was obvious and yet no one saw it coming.

After finishing All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, I was curious enough about the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Iran to brave this nearly 700 page tome. Once I got past the first few chapters, the comprehensive recounting just took off and I was eager to keep reading.

n  

n    In retrospect, it was all too predictable.

[Washington DC] had not foreseen the gathering threat to its longtime Cold War ally Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the now reviled, self-exiled shah. A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before Pahlavi fled Iran for good, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even prerevolutionary situation." n  

n

Oh, the mistakes in judgment on both sides. There were many moving parts to this 444-day pivotal international drama that had begun in November 1979. Three zealous University students --Mohsen Murdamadi, Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, and Habibullah Bitaraf -- conceived the dream of freeing their nation from scheming American interlopers and reasserting Iran's greatness and independence from "colonial subservience." They had claimed that they only wanted a peaceful protest at the US Embassy that would last no more than three days. But they had not correctly foreseen events and how other political factions would capitalize on their endeavor.

President Carter had not been sitting on his hands during this hostage ordeal. He had even expressed concern that the US Embassy would be taken again after an attempt earlier in February had failed, to which his foreign policy people offered no reply. With the Shah's exit, Iran's governance was in a state of flux which made diplomatic efforts more challenging and likelier to stall. And the US military was not capable of mounting surgically precise ops in the late 1970s.

Mark Bowden provided a comprehensive account of the hostage crisis. It made for compelling reading. On a minor critical note, he did incorporate his personal opinions and / or speculative musings at times. They weren't totally off-base but I would have preferred them to be minimized lest he be guilty of one of his own opinions --

n  

n    ... nations invent their own pasts, and how the simplification of history can create impossible gulfs between peoples.n  

n