Documentary Pathology of the US Embassy Documents

The Necessity of Scientific Rereading and Content Analysis of Documents

Hassan Beheshtipour
Machine Translation Edited by Mandana Karimi

2026-8-11

Introduction:

More than four decades have passed since the publication of the first collections of documents from the US Embassy in Tehran. However, despite the relatively easy access to this treasure trove of documents, systematic research exploitation of it has not been adequate. We still do not have a “comprehensive picture” of the content of these 11,000 documents. What has been done to date has mainly been either selective exploitation or a general overview without a specific methodological framework. Therefore, the need to carry out a “comprehensive document research plan” that is based on scientific methods of content and discourse analysis and proceeds with the approach of “antagonism based on insight and not slogans” has become a full-fledged national need.

1.Understanding the Nature of Documents; Values ​​and Limitations

Since they are considered “primary sources,” the documents of the US embassy are of unparalleled value for studying the history of Iran-US relations, understanding the process of seeking dominance, and the mechanisms of influence in Iran. However, before making any judgment, it must be accepted that these documents are not “the whole truth”; rather, they reflect the views of American diplomats and intelligence officials who have sent their assessments to decision-making centers in Washington. On the other hand, in some cases, the documents reflect the views of American officials at their embassy in Tehran. Therefore, what we read in these documents is “part of the decision-making process” in the US, not “all” of it. More precisely, these documents should be considered “raw material” for research, not the final historical product. The mission of the Iranian researcher is to “explain” this raw material to society and discover its hidden layers.

2. Quantitative and qualitative introduction of the collection (statistics and publication)

Based on official reports, about 11,000 documents have been obtained from the US Embassy. These documents date mainly from 1961 to the day the embassy was captured on November 4, 1979. The process of publishing these documents has been carried out in three stages:

However, some of the documents – especially encrypted documents or incomplete pages – have not yet been reread or published.

3. The vital importance of document translation and interpretation

One of the most important and at the same time most neglected issues in studies related to these documents is the issue of translation and transfer of specialized concepts from English to Persian. Iranian scholars, especially non-English speakers, often refer to published Persian translations (especially the 11-volume collection of the Institute for Political Studies and Research). Here a fundamental question arises: what exactly are we analyzing when we read a historical document in another language? The original text? The translation? Alternatively, the translator’s interpretation of the text? For this reason, the need for a careful analysis of the translation process is doubly urgent, since many of our historical and political judgments are formed not on the basis of the original text, but on the basis of the “reinterpretation” that has occurred within the translation itself.

From the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics – especially in the thoughts of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur – translation is not simply the transfer of words, but the “reproduction of meaning” in a different cultural horizon. Every translation changes, limits, or reconstructs part of the semantic load of the original text. This issue is doubly important in embassy documents, because we are dealing with specialized diplomatic, intelligence, security, and military terms that do not have precise, established equivalents in Persian. A knowledgeable researcher views documents as “raw material” that requires “discovering the hidden meaning” between the lines.

4. The Pathology of Content Understanding; From Translation to Interpretation

In the following, we will examine, as an example, some objective challenges in the translation and interpretation of these documents that were observed in referring to the existing versions.

4-1. The word “Officer” (military officer or political expert?)

In Persian, “officer” generally connotes a military position. Terms such as “Political Officer,” “Economic Officer,” and “Administrative Officer” in literal translation may connote a military position for the Iranian reader; however, in the US State Department structure, these individuals are mainly "professional diplomats." A more accurate translation would be “political expert”, “economic department manager” or “administrative diplomat”.

4-2. The word “Secretary”

This word is often translated in Persian as “Monshi” or “Dabir”. However, in the diplomatic structure, Secretary of State means, “Minister of Foreign Affairs” and First / Second Secretary means a senior diplomatic rank, not a simple administrative secretary. The confusion of these concepts distorts the real position of individuals in the decision-making structure.

4-3. The difference between “Contact” and “Agent” (interviewer or intelligence agent?)

In American intelligence literature, “Contact” simply means “contact person”, “unofficial source” or “acquaintance”; while “Agent” or “Intelligence Agent” usually means “intelligence or operational officer”. Therefore, simply mentioning a person's name as a "Contact" is in no way evidence of their espionage or intelligence cooperation.

4-4.The difference between "Source" and "Spy"

"Source" means "source of information" which can be a university professor, journalist or a government official who has met with members of the embassy. However, "Spy" is a spy who transmits classified or non-classified information as a hired agent. In some cases, these two concepts are mistakenly taken as equivalent.

4-5. The complexity of the word "Asset" (asset or operational agent?)

"Asset" is one of the most complex words in Western intelligence literature and has different meanings depending on the context of the sentence: for example, it can be translated as a source of a colleague, a trusted person, or an operational agent. As a result, its uniform translation as "agent" or "spy" can cause research or even judicial misunderstandings for the person who is mentioned.

4-6.The term “Reporting” (political or intelligence report?)

The use of this term in documents does not necessarily mean “Intelligence Reporting” and can refer to the preparation of a political, economic or cultural report for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4-7. The difference between “Assessment” and “Fact” (assessment or reality?)

A significant part of documents is the analysis and evaluation of American agents, not the recording of definitive facts. Separating the two from each other is the most important condition for entering into a correct historical analysis. That is, the researcher must determine based on the text of the document whether this document is a notification from the central government to implement a specific policy or a report by a diplomat or embassy intelligence security officer based on the perceptions and views of the reporting authority.

4-8. The issue of “value load of words”

Some English words common in political affairs also do not have an exact equivalent in the Persian language common in Iran and have acquired different semantic load in the two cultures. For example: “Moderate” is translated as “neither with the system nor against the system” in the common political understanding in Iran, while in America it refers to a person who distances himself from the extremism of his faction and compromises with the other side in order for the law to be implemented. Alternatively “Conservative” is translated as “a traditional person and opposed to change” in Iranian political literature, but in America it means a supporter of “tax reduction, small government and individual freedom in property”, which is fundamentally different from its Eastern meaning. This important point shows that understanding diplomatic, security documents requires expertise, and that a word in security, political, military and cultural customs can have a meaning beyond its colloquial meaning.

Therefore, understanding diplomatic and security documents and interpreting them requires expertise beyond general translation. A word in security practice has a meaning beyond its colloquial meaning.

5. The necessity of quantitative and qualitative content analysis as a first step

Since, to date, as far as the author has investigated, no researcher has systematically coded this entire collection; the first step in this plan is “quantitative and qualitative content analysis.” Before we can judge the “content of the documents,” we need to know:

What topics do the documents focus on? How frequent is each topic? Which individuals (Iranian and non-Iranian) are present and in what context are they mentioned? Which institutions (SAVAK, the army, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Oil.) Different parties (National Front, Tudeh Party, Freedom Movement), social strata (academics, Bazaaris (marketers), clerics, press and media) are most frequently mentioned?

Which countries and geographical regions (Soviet Union, Iraq, Persian Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) have attracted the most attention?

Which historical events of the revolutionary process (the demonstrations of January 9^th 1978 in Qom, February 18^th 1978 in Tabriz, September 8^th 1978 in Tehran, Tasua and Ashura in 1978, nationwide strikes) have received the most attention?

The answers to these questions, which are possible with the method of “content analysis”, will provide a roadmap for all future research. This analysis will be carried out both quantitatively (counting the frequency of words and topics) and qualitatively (examining the context and background of each reference).

6. Proposal for the Development of a “Content Atlas of Documents”

In order for this content analysis to move beyond a purely statistical mode and become a tool for researchers in the history of diplomacy, intelligence and security studies, and political science, it is proposed to develop a “Content Atlas of Documents.” This atlas is, in fact, an “advanced subject index” that allows for simultaneous searching and classification of multiple variables.

The main notable points of this atlas, for example, are:

7. Transition from content analysis to “Discourse Analysis”

After the coding is completed and the content atlas is created, it is time to ask more fundamental and theoretical questions. At this point, the question is no longer “how many times was the word used?” but rather:

How did Americans “see” and “analyze” Iran and Iranians in the documents?

“What relationship did the Iran narrated in these documents have with the real Iran of that time?”

“What “power” did these documents create for their authors (embassy officers) and how did they legitimize “decision-making” in Washington?”

What meaningful “discursive silences” are there in these documents? For example, why are some of the popular protests against the discrimination and tyranny that dominated Iranian society at that time or the widespread presence of religion and religious tendencies among the people not addressed?

To answer these questions, the theoretical framework of “critical discourse analysis” (especially the approaches of Foucault and Fairclough) can be used. This method allows us to reveal hidden layers of power, ideology, and intellectual colonialism in the text of the documents.

Examples of discursive questions that can be asked:

How does the “Security Discourse” dominate other discourses (such as economics or culture) in the documents? What is the relationship between “stability” and “democracy” in the American narrative?

How does the “Modernization Discourse” position Iran as a “subject under study” by the West and legitimize “legitimate interference” in Iran’s internal affairs?

How does Iran under the Shah in the documents relate to the “Soviet threat”? Is the image of Iran more of a “stage for the Cold War” than “Iran itself”?

How is the discourse of “revolutionary political Islam” redefined as a “threat” or an “opportunity” in pre- and post-revolutionary documents?

8. The necessity of a three-level distinction in any documentary research

Any researcher, who approaches these documents, in order to avoid hasty judgment, must make a clear distinction between three completely separate levels:

The first level: “the original document in English” – which is the raw material of the research and can only be understood by mastering specialized literature (diplomatic, security, military).

The second level: “the Persian translation of the document” – in which there is always the possibility of “error”, “conscious selection” and “reproduction of meaning”. This level is the product of a human and cultural medium.

The third level: “the researcher’s interpretation of the document” – which is inevitably tied to the “horizon of expectations” and “mental assumptions” of the researcher himself.

Ignoring any of these three levels leads the research towards “translation analysis” or even “analysis of the translator’s interpretation”, rather than an analysis of the document itself. This triad forms the methodological core of the proposed scheme.

9. Operational Implementation Proposal: Formation of Specialized Teams

Given the vastness of the collection (about 11,000 documents) and the diversity of topics, a single researcher will never complete this project. Therefore, it is proposed to form a national working group with the following composition:

Translation and Linguistic Review Group (English language experts with knowledge of the official literature of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the CIA, and the military)

History of Diplomacy and International Relations Group (to analyze the political context of each document)

Security and Intelligence Studies Group (to distinguish concepts such as Contact and Agent, Source and Spy, Asset, etc.)

Political Science and Discourse Analysis Group (for conceptual coding and uncovering hidden narratives)

Statistics and Data Processing Group (for quantitative analysis, drawing frequency charts, and designing advanced search software)

The output of this working group can be defined in three layers:

Output 1 – Data: Setting up a comprehensive database of all documents with simultaneous search capabilities based on word, person, institution, event, date, and location.

Output 2 – Analytical: Publishing several volumes of research reports on each of the extracted themes (e.g., “Security Discourse in Embassy Documents,” “Image of Clergy in Documents,” “Role of Oil in the American Narrative”).

Output 3 – Educational: Compiling a glossary (specialized dictionary) for translators and researchers who will refer to these documents in the future

10. Proposed Theoretical Framework; A Fusion of Hermeneutics, Discourse, and Critical Historiography

In order for the proposed project to go beyond a “mere cataloging project” and become a “fundamental theoretical-historical project,” it is essential to utilize three complementary theoretical traditions. These three frameworks allow the researcher to go beyond the “surface reading” of the document and reach the “underlying layers of meaning”:

A) Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics (Reciprocal Horizons)

According to Hans-Georg Gadamer, understanding a text always occurs in a “fusion of horizons”; in the sense that the mental horizon of the author (American diplomat) and the mental horizon of the reader (today’s Iranian researcher) merge with each other in the process of understanding. Therefore, the Iranian researcher cannot free himself from his historical, political, and cultural presuppositions; rather, it must clarify its relationship with these documents. [Gadamer, “Truth and Method”]

Practical application: Before beginning any analysis, the researcher must specify his “question” of the documents. Is he seeking to prove a “conspiracy”? Is he seeking to discover the “gap between report and reality”? On the other hand, is he seeking to understand the “American diplomatic mentality” in the face of revolution? Clarifying this assumption is the first step in hermeneutic understanding.

B) Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics and “Distancing”

Paul Ricoeur believes that there is always a “distance” between the author, the text, and the reader. After writing, the text is “released” from the author’s intention and enters the realm of “interpretation.” Therefore, the researcher should not consider himself a prisoner of the “original intention of the author of the document”; rather, he should pay attention to the “possible world” that the document opens up. [Ricoeur, “Theory of Interpretation”]

Operational application: Embassy documents are important not only for what they “say”, but also for what they “deny”, “silence” or “take for granted”. Recovery analysis allows us to reach the “unspoken world behind the document” from the text of the document. For example, the “silence” of the documents about the real role of some of the intelligence agencies themselves is a valuable “data”.

C) Foucauldian discourse analysis (the relationship between knowledge and power)

Michel Foucault showed that “Knowledge” and “Power” are always intertwined and that each discourse produces its own “Regime of Truth”. Embassy documents are a clear example of the “production of knowledge” in the service of “dominant power”. These documents not only "report", but also construct, classify, and make "Iran" appear "manageable". [Foucault, “The Archaeology of Knowledge” and “Privacy and Punishment”]

Operational Application: Foucaultian discourse analysis allows us to show how the Americans, through these documents, have narrated a “backward Iran”, “chaotic” and “in need of Western order”. It can also be shown how this narrative has legitimized “legitimate intervention” in Iranian affairs.

11. Final Conclusion; Three Levels, a Necessity, a Warning

11-1. The Main Achievement of the Article (Answer to Why They Have Been Neglected)

The present article shows that a significant part of the political and historical disputes surrounding the US embassy documents are rooted in three combined factors:

The inherent challenge of translation: Due to the lack of precise equivalents for specialized diplomatic, security and intelligence concepts, each translation inevitably leads to the reproduction of meaning in a different cultural horizon and may even distance itself from the original text. Misunderstandings due to incorrect translation of certain terms: Over the past four decades, some of these incomplete translations have become tools for internal factional challenges and have diminished their scientific capacity.

America’s own cryptic intelligence literature: Words such as “Asset,” “Source,” and “Contact” are used in the original texts in an ambiguous and multifaceted manner that is open to multiple interpretations even for a non-specialist American reader. This inherent ambiguity makes definitive translation impossible

11-2. The Triad of Methodological Necessity

Based on the findings of this article, any researcher who approaches documents must distinguish between the following three levels before making any political or historical judgments:

Ignoring these three levels results in the researcher, instead of studying the “original text,” actually studying the “translator’s interpretation of the text” (or, even worse, “their own interpretation of the translator’s interpretation”).This has been the great hermeneutic error of Iranian historical research in dealing with these documents.

Final note; Criticizing the translation does not mean justifying the embassy’s performance

It should be noted that criticizing the translation and examining the transfer of specialized concepts does not mean justifying the embassy’s performance or ignoring its intelligence and espionage activities. This article does not seek to “exonerate” or “condemn” the documents or individuals included in them in general. Rather, the goal is to “improve the methodological level of research” and “warn against the pitfalls of analysis based on incomplete translations.”

The diagnosis of the crime or intelligence activity of each individual should be based on the level of operational cooperation and complementary historical evidence, not solely based on the lexical label found in a translated document.

12. Final suggestion for the future horizon

1. Converting document images into English digital text (OCR) and creating a comprehensive database with advanced search capabilities, as the most important implementation priority.

2. Compiling a “Dictionary of Document Terms” by an interdisciplinary team, to serve as a guide for all future researchers.

3. Holding critical scientific meetings with the presence of original translators, historians, and political and information science experts, for a joint rereading of controversial examples.

4. Designing an “Oral History of the Document Translation Process” project; that is, interviewing translators of the 60th and 70th solar year collections, to understand why they made their lexical choices.

5. Encouraging young researchers to write case studies about a specific document, using the proposed “three-level separation” method and discourse analysis.

Concluding Remarks

The value of the US embassy documents is not only in “political revelations” or “confirmation of conspiracies”; their true value lies in the possibility of understanding the way the US diplomatic and intelligence apparatus thought, reported, and made decisions during the critical period before and after the revolution. These documents are a comprehensive mirror of the “Western hegemonic mentality” in the face of the “Islamic resistance”; but to see this comprehensive picture, we need a “precise methodological camera” and a “translation criticism lens.” The project proposed in this article, relying on a scientific, critical, and cross-partisan approach, can be one of the most important research achievements in contemporary Iranian history in the next decade; if it is freed from the fleeting political margins and is completed as a “national project” in reputable academic centers.