Book Review: Taken Hostage by David Farber

Taken Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam is written by American historian David Farber, who has written various books on modern American history from the 1950s onward. As the book’s title suggests, the work centers around the Iran Hostage Crisis that took place between 1979 and 1981. In particular, it focuses on the discourse in American society that resulted from building tensions with Iran and negative feelings about the presidential policies of Jimmy Carter. The book doesn’t necessarily focus on the events that occurred during the actual crisis, instead using it as the culmination of political turmoil that occurred throughout the 1970s and explaining all of the reasons why it took place.

Farber chooses to structure his book mostly chronologically, starting each chapter with small anecdotes that relate to the general theme of that chapter before recounting the political tensions leading up to the hostage crisis in more general detail. The hostage crisis itself is only described in detail in the last two chapters of the book, with the first three focusing on U.S. relations with Iran, Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on policies that embraced human rights in the country, and the U.S’s overall negative attitude toward the lack of affirmative action from the government at the time. When the hostage crisis is described, it is done in a way that builds upon all of this political confusion, making it the culmination of American and Iranian frustrations in the 1970s and not simply as an influential event of the decade. The tone of Farber’s writing is laid back, occasionally managing to work in conversational and even dryly humorous statements into his historical perspective.

The book is a very breezy read, with Farber’s conversational style allowing for a very fast-paced and engaging recap of the political focuses of the 1970s. It’s an incredibly short book, just barely making it over the 200 page mark, and it’s especially short for a topic as complex as this. Because the book takes until the second to last chapter to get to the discussion of the actual hostage crisis, the subject doesn’t feel like it’s given as much attention as the title would suggest. The primary focus on the political tensions building up to the crisis is a very unique and interesting perspective, but it is disappointing when a book that advertises itself as being about the hostage crisis feels like it barely starts talking about it before summarizing the end of the event in the epilogue. This book could have easily added another one or two chapters to add more details about the hostage crisis as a whole or even changed the title to something else so that it emphasized the political struggles more than the hostage crisis. Even the cover of the book, a blindfolded hostage, suggests that the book will go more in-depth about the crisis than it actually does, and while the perspective it takes is unique, it feels like the actual hostage crisis itself isn’t given enough time to feel important in the body of work as a whole.

The argument this book presents is that ultimately, Carter’s refusal to act radically resulted in people from his own country and beyond taking radical movements into their own hands. This argument is supported by the explanation of Carter’s policies (shifting his entire cabinet around, emphasizing America’s overall lack of confidence, working to accommodate the Iranian shah into America as his government fell apart, etc.) and how they made the American people feel like they were being unnecessarily passive. This also demonstrates the attitude of American citizens that their government lacked stable footing to act in a decisive way. This book ultimately doesn’t attempt to argue for one side being more correct than the other, even emphasizing by the end that despite the existence of moral and societal precedents for certain decisions, every side has reasons to lash out in the way that they do -- Iran raising oil prices for America, Carter deciding to prioritize human rights in his presidential term, Iranian students taking members of the US embassy as hostages, among many others. While one could argue that some of these actions are morally unjust, every side had their reasons for making those decisions, and this book portrays that very well.

Ultimately, Taken Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis and America's First Encounter with Radical Islam is an enjoyable casual read that people unfamiliar with the historical context of the crisis will enjoy picking up and learning from. However, it emphasizes the structure of Carter’s presidential administration and the political confusions of the 1970s more so than the hostage crisis, which would be more engaging overall if it felt like the discussion of the crisis itself was given enough discussion to feel like it warranted a place in the title of the book. For those looking for introductory context, this is a really quick and engaging place to start, and for those looking for a perspective that focuses on Carter’s administration, this is a really digestible piece. However, for those looking for a groundbreaking perspective on the crisis itself, they’ll have to look elsewhere.