RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Friday, it seemed as though the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K. and France plus Germany) were on the verge of signing an interim accord to “freeze” Iran’s nuclear program for six months. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry buoyantly cut short his trip to Israel, to fly to the round table in Geneva to celebrate the ostensible breakthrough.

Fortunately, it was not only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who expressed outrage at what he called “a very bad deal.”

On Saturday morning, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also came out against the “sucker deal.” And, by nightfall, it became clear that no agreement would be signed during this round of negotiations.

Instead of wasting their time planning the next round, the West would do far better to undergo a history lesson.

Thirty-four years ago, on Nov. 4, 1979, a group calling itself the “Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line” executed a carefully laid plan to the overtake the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The date was selected for its significance.

Symbolically, it marked the 15-year anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s forced exile by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and a year since a student demonstration quelled by the shah had left many protesters dead.

Logistically, because a mass demonstration planned to commemorate both events was scheduled to take place that day, the Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line could make their move on the embassy without being noticed among the throngs already filling the streets.

Early that morning, the key organizers of the takeover gathered in a room at the Islamist Abu Kabir University to outline their plan to the hundred other students who would be among those carrying out the siege.

Maps of the embassy buildings were laid out and pored over; specific tasks were assigned to each participant. The idea was to break in to the 27-acre compound and take the embassy staff hostage for three days.

The purpose of the siege was to assert an Islamic victory over American power; to send a message to the West that there would be consequences for harboring the ousted shah; to demonstrate utter loyalty to Khomeini, who had returned to Iran on February 1; and to serve as a warning to the interim government — considered treasonous for its behind-the-scenes dealings with the Carter administration — that any interference on behalf of the “Great Satan” America would have dire consequences.

Among the students involved in the takeover was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 23 years old at the time. His proposal to besiege the Soviet Embassy was outvoted on the grounds that the Russians would view such an event as an act of war and have no problem killing them all. In contrast, the Americans were more likely to ask the Iranian government to intervene — as they had done during a smaller-scale takeover of their embassy on February 14.

Though the students did not reveal their plan to Khomeini, they did discuss it with another respected religious leader, Mousavi Khoeniha. Khoeniha opted for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in regard to the ayatollah. He was certain that Khomeini would not disapprove of the action once it was underway, but would be put in a bad position vis-à-vis the interim government if he were requested to give the green light in advance.

The students then approached the police and Revolutionary Guards, who promised to leave them alone to carry out their mission.

At 10:00 a.m. on the day in question, as chants of “Allahu akbar!” and “Death to the Great Satan!” permeated the air, some 100 to 200 students broke into the embassy. Watching on in awe were thousands of other demonstrators, who then began to scale the walls of the “den of spies.” True to their word, the Iranian security forces whose job it was to protect the outer perimeters of the compound did nothing.

Nor were any U.S. Marines near the entrance. They witnessed the break-in on closed-circuit TV. Immediately, they grabbed their weapons and waited while embassy staffers were grabbed, tied up and blindfolded. Cries about their diplomatic rights being violated was of no interest to their aggressors.

Locked in a room and hearing frenzied Iranians banging on the door, the military liaison and other embassy employees received instructions by phone from their bosses to “surrender with your head held high.”

It was a surrender that resulted in the captivity of 52 hostages for 444 days — and in a series of fruitless attempts at negotiating with Khomeini.

Bruce Laingen, the acting U.S. ambassador to Iran at the time (who was held hostage at the Iranian Foreign Ministry), explained the rationale behind the command to surrender. During an interview at his home in Maryland three years ago, he said: “According to the traditions of American diplomacy, force is only to be used in extreme cases.”

The problem with U.S. foreign policy under Carter, then, was how his administration defined “extreme cases.”

The presidency of Barack Obama engages in a similar abuse of the dictionary. Iran is still run by the ayatollahs. It is soon to have a nuclear bomb. Its former president, Ahmadinejad, was among the hostage-takers in 1979. Its current president, Hasan Rouhani, was among Khomeini’s closest confidantes. In fact, he lived alongside Khomeini for the entire 14 years of his exile, and returned with him to lead the Islamic Revolution. His “moderate” stance is an admitted ploy to keep the West calm while the centrifuges whirl.

Nor should the U.S. and Europe be encouraged by the fact that his current boss, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is allowing him to negotiate with the West. It is part of a grand plan to buy time while pretending to engage in diplomacy. It is thus that the Tehran municipality ordered the removal of anti-American posters on billboards across the city ahead of the current round of talks.

But this did not prevent 10,000 Iranians from demonstrating at the site of the former U.S. Embassy last Monday, burning effigies of Obama and American and Israeli flags. Though an annual Nov. 4 event, this year’s protest was 10 times larger, precisely due to negotiations with the West.

Unlike during the 2009 demonstrations against the mullah-led regime, this one was not met with police brutality, however, since the Revolutionary Guard is on the side of the protestors.

Four years ago, Obama looked the other way while democracy-seeking Iranians were gunned down for their efforts. He did this because all he cared about was negotiating with the regime. Today, he is ignoring an opposite reality: that this week’s demonstrations reflect the regime’s true position. It is with this in mind that the West should be cocking its rifles in Iran’s direction, not “surrendering with its head held high.”

Ruthie Blum is the author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.'”