Steve Taggart

History to 1700

Cody Carlson

Movie Review: Argo.

Ben Affleck stars as an up-and coming CIA agent, straddling the bullet ridden nexus of
the Iranian takeover of the U.S. Embassy there in 1980. A few hapless, cleverly hidden and very
lucky American Embassy employees who are trying to ride out the storm in a caretakers shelter,
the home of an American Friendly Diplomat. During the majority of the film, the embassy
employees are still trapped in Tehran, where the initial violent uprising took place. At the time,
the vast majority of these embassy employees colleagues, hundreds of American souls, were
callously imprisoned and herded into makeshift prisons for the entire duration of the conflict.
The boisterous, ridiculous, and politically potent world of Hollywood cinema also emerges as a
key factor in the absolvement of the political strife. Allow me to explain.
In 1980, Iran was a political mess (Iran is still a political mess). Their recently deposed
leader, the Shah had travelled to the U.S. to receive state of the art medical treatment for
cancer complications. Upon the discovery of his un-willful deposition, the Shah sought political
asylum in the U.S. under the shroud of diplomatic immunity, heralded by the internationally
respected policy of international law. American key players viewed the issue thusly: Regardless
of the moral quality of the diplomat, he or she would be granted political asylum if serving in the
capacity of a diplomat- convention such as these are the hallmark of peaceable international
relations. Iran, however, was seeking a scapegoat to place their international woes upon, they
wanted blood- the Shahs blood. Grievously wronged Iranians saw American reticence to hand
over their botched leader as nothing short of aiding and abetting a criminal fugitive. Because of
the delicate relationship between the war-wary U.S. policy, instigated and facilitated in large part
by the valorous efforts of top-tier CIA Agents acting under the politically charged policy of

whichever executive officials were calling the shots, times were terse. This uprising occurred in
the midst of the Carter/Reagan presidential shift, which compounded matters greatly, and
eventually, everything came to a head. A violent uprising of the Iranian people resulted in the
mass imprisonment of U.S. embassy workers for 444 days. Keep in mind, the Vietnam war had
just ended, the cold war was in full swing, and the political unrest so oft presented in Iran issued
forth a violent, hate-fueled and politically charged uprising against the perceived insensitivity of
U.S. foreign policy.
Ben Afflecks character, Tony Mendez, has friends in Hollywood. His office, that of the
Central Intelligence Agency, is all afluster because the relatively innocent people of the U.S.
Embassies lives are at risk as a result of the internationally violent failure to communicate. He
interludes with a brilliant solution, availed by his ingenious connections in the ego fueled L.A.
Bowl- he will mount an undercover extraction mission under the guise of an American Film
Crew out and about, scouting a possible new film location in the politically unstable Iran, and
then flying out of the country via fake passports and smooth talkin. The idea is brilliant, an
example of American ingenuity in a pinch; the result was spectacular. Some 15 American
political refugees are gracefully swooped out of the hot spot and into free, easy livin
international airspace under the un-knowing noses of the overly aggressive Iranian mob. America
relied on its unique culture and intrinsic cleverness to help members of its community, and to
overcome violent circumstance, and they emerged victorious. Huckleberry Finn would have
been outrageously proud.
This tale has clear resonations to the early standards of American War, molded and
perfected most explicitly by one George Washington, a true military innovator, and highly
successful General, one whose military exploits are seen spanning several of Americas initial

wars. Washington is largely credited with the employment of guerilla warfare against the Britts
during the American Revolution Although many of the engagements of the American
Revolution were conventional, guerrilla warfare was used to a certain extent during this conflict
from 1775-1783, which made a huge difference.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare) He was often be recounted fondly
for feeding his angsty soldiers copious amounts of booze,
(http://www.drunkard.com/issues/56/56-founding-drunkards.html) purportedly to stabilize
morale and to stave off desertion and dissention. Bootlegging, military flexibility, and care for
the plight of the members of the country, all promulgated by the intrinsic aspects of burgeoning
American culture were paramount aspects of this behavior. Here again, we see that clever
employment of graceful, American innovation with the intent of emerging victorious in the wake
of international armed conflict.