Raised During the Book Review Session:

Complete Harmony Between Narrator and Author; the Defining Hallmark of “Beyond the Wall”

Maryam Asadi Jafary
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2025-11-19

According to the Oral History website, the book-review workshop for Beyond the Wall: The Occupation of the U.S. Embassy as Recounted by Habibollah Bitafar, written by Mohammad Mahbubi, was held on the afternoon of Monday, 12 Aban 1404, with the presence of Hamid Qazvini, Hassan Beheshtipour, and Hujjat al-Islam Saeed Fakhrzadeh as critics. The session was organized by the Islamic Revolution Narrative Club and convened in the late Tahereh Saffarzadeh Hall at the Art Center (Hozeh-ye Honari).

At the outset, Habibollah Bitafar, the narrator of Beyond the Wall, described the process of compiling his memoirs:
“For several years, friends who had been involved in the occupation of the U.S. Embassy by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line urged me to commit my recollections to writing, insisting it would prove beneficial for future generations. Thus, in 2007 and 2008, I revisited the available documents, and Mr. Fakhrzadeh—through the Oral History Unit of the Resistance Studies Center—conducted interviews with me. In several sessions, Mr. Beheshtipour was also present. After the recordings were completed, it was decided that the material would be transformed into categorized research notes to be used as informational sources for scholars and researchers. I made sure everything was handed over intact; all the documents, photographs, tapes, and CDs in my possession were delivered to them. One copy of the entire collection was also given to me. The archive contains valuable documents related to the historical documentation of the embassy takeover, which were later retrieved and written by Mr. Mohammad Mahbubi.

Regarding the movement of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, only a limited number of books have been published. In contrast, books and films produced abroad—generally from their own standpoint, often a distorted one—have been released and disseminated worldwide. Therefore, greater effort is required in this domain. This book is among the first attempts to publish such firsthand recollections, and this work must continue. More than forty years have passed since these events, and people’s memories have inevitably faded; many recollections no longer remain vivid in their minds. Although Beyond the Wall includes accounts, reports, and documents predating the embassy takeover, the book primarily focuses on the developments that followed—and many readers are undoubtedly eager to learn the details of those events. The narrative begins with my early background, continues through the student mobilizations, the revolutionary movement, and the efforts of students to consolidate the Islamic Revolution. It recounts the establishment of the Office for Strengthening Unity, its objectives and activities, and then proceeds to the occupation of the U.S. Embassy and the eventual release of the hostages.”

Subsequently, Hassan Beheshtipour proceeded to critique Beyond the Wall, stating:
“As a researcher who dedicated eight years of my life to this subject, I must say that the number of works published on the significant phenomenon of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Iran barely exceeds the fingers of one hand. By this I mean books that can genuinely be regarded as authoritative narratives of the Islamic Republic—serious works one can rely upon. Mr. Mahbubi’s Roosevelt Street Station is one such substantial work; I read it several times and found it commendable. However, the distinction between that book and Beyond the Wall lies in the fact that the latter draws upon someone who was directly involved and a central actor. In some narrative accounts, we are merely observers—we watch events unfold and report them to you. For instance, in my youth, I participated in the demonstrations outside the embassy and can recount those memories to you. But Mr. Bitafar, in Beyond the Wall, has produced a historical document; because he himself was a planner and organizer, he has provided us with thoroughly documented material. From this perspective, the book is profoundly valuable and constitutes a turning point. In my view, this work deserves rigorous discussion, critique, and analysis within the historiography of the Islamic Revolution.

In Western literature, the episode of the embassy occupation is repeatedly framed as the ‘Hostage Crisis,’ and it has been narrated through fiction, docudramas, hostage memoirs, and films. By contrast, our own efforts have been minimal, and this book can serve as a small contribution to the vast body of work that ought to exist.

The book comprises nine chapters, beginning with an excellent introduction to the narrator so the reader knows precisely whose perspective they are encountering. In the face of the widespread distortions that have circulated, this book presents an eyewitness who speaks with candor. This honesty permeates the entire text, and even opponents of the embassy occupation, were they to read it, would be influenced by the clarity of expression and the coherent structure of the material.

The symbolic title, Beyond the Wall, is drawn from a statement attributed to Haj Ahmad Khomeini in the book, and it encapsulates both the conceptual key to the title and the underlying motivation of the students’ actions. The notion of ‘crossing America’s wall,’ as a metaphor for severing ties with a hegemonic order, was the primary catalyst for the students. The book vividly demonstrates that the event was more than a student operation—it was a major political spectacle and an overt declaration of confrontation with a superpower in the realm of symbolism.

Chapters 5 and 6 are remarkably impactful. The narrator elucidates the daily interactions, the reemployment of the embassy’s Pakistani cook, the health issues, and the hostages’ attempts to escape. He explains how the students tended to the Americans—guided by an Islamic-humanitarian ethic—demonstrating the care with which they treated them. I genuinely regret not having read the book before its publication; I would certainly have advised Mr. Mahbubi to include several foreign quotations. Doing so would have, first, demonstrated that the American perspective had also been represented, and second, shown that Mr. Bitafar’s accounts directly address the accusations made against the students. Mr. Mahbubi, in collaboration with Mr. Bitafar, has appended valuable documentation to the end of the book, raising the work above the level of a mere oral account and providing a set of supplementary archival sources.”

“The language and stylistic register of the work have also been chosen with precision. Unlike a conventional oral-history report, the book has neither devolved into mere storytelling nor confined itself to a dry historical chronicle; rather, it has emerged as an elegant synthesis of the two. In my view, this quality stems from the narrator’s role as a supplementary narrator, and the final product reflects a complete harmony between narrator and author.”

Beheshtipour continued:
“The very nature of Beyond the Wall rests on the voice of a single individual. That is to say, a vast and multi-dimensional event has been distilled into the narrative framework of one person. Even if that individual is a highly informed, influential, and fully competent narrator, one still cannot encapsulate the full magnitude of the subject within a single account—this is a limitation that must eventually be addressed. A second volume ought to be written or additional interviews conducted, because the episode of the U.S. Embassy takeover must be explained more fully for the younger generation.

One of the crucial aspects that deserved more attention in this book is the international dimension and the global repercussions of the embassy seizure. Since Mr. Mahbubi devoted extensive attention to this issue in his previous book, he perhaps found no necessity to revisit it here. However, I believe it would have been worthwhile to allocate several pages for readers who have not read Roosevelt Street Station.

Another important matter concerns the footnotes. In my opinion, footnotes in oral-history works should follow a clear criterion: they must contribute meaningfully to the development of the book’s central theme and help the reader better grasp the subject at hand. Oral history must be clarified and contextualized—even though some scholars disagree with this approach. But such clarification should be restricted to points that illuminate the core topic of the book. In Beyond the Wall, the footnotes are extensive, yet many pertain to individuals who bear no direct relevance to the main narrative. Meanwhile, certain points that Mr. Bitafar mentions only briefly would have benefited from accompanying documents or archival evidence inserted into the footnotes.

Ultimately, after reading this book, one must resolve the question for oneself: Was the hostage-taking justified or unjustified? In this work, the narrator and author present the matter with subtlety, gentleness, and intelligence—portraying the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy as a security response. There was a feeling that the United States was orchestrating plots inside the country and that such actions needed to be thwarted. Both narrator and author defend the initiative with considerable firmness, offering collective reasoning throughout the book and addressing the majority of the questions that arise.

Read the full text of Hassan Beheshtipour’s critique here.”

A Simple, Cohesive, and Fluid Prose in “Beyond the Wall”

Continuing the discussion at the review session for Beyond the Wall, Mohammad Mahbubi, the author of the work, expressed his gratitude to all those involved and stated:
“Beyond the Wall is not the product of one or two individuals; it is the result of the initial interviews conducted nearly twenty years ago by Mr. Fakhrzadeh and Mr. Beheshtipour. The American side published its first books as early as 1981, the earliest of which—444 Days by Tim Wells—is an important and detail-rich work. The author interviewed thirty or forty of the hostages and reported the events moment by moment as they unfolded. This book was published only a year or two after the incident, when memories were still vivid and minds alert. In effect, this book shaped the ‘first narrative,’ leaving the Iranian side perpetually in a defensive position. Although we began documenting our account decades later, it remains essential to continue this path.

I fully agree with the shortcomings Mr. Beheshtipour mentioned—namely, that an event of such magnitude cannot be confined to the narrative of a single individual. There were 400 students involved in the occupation of the U.S. Embassy, and at the very least we must have the accounts of 200 of them. The American side, out of 66 hostages, has recorded the memoirs of 30—approximately 50 percent. In Iran, only four or five memoir-based books have been published, which is a very small proportion. Others must recount the event from their own perspectives, like pieces of a puzzle that, when assembled, convey a coherent and comprehensive picture.

This book fills the existing gap regarding the students’ narrative—both the account of the students following the Imam’s line and the broader history of the student movement. Oral histories of Iran’s student movement do exist, but they are very limited.

Regarding the footnotes—the point raised by Mr. Beheshtipour is technically correct. However, my reasoning was that, given the lack of literature about the students who followed the Imam’s line, including such footnotes would help introduce these individuals. Perhaps only ten to fifteen of the four hundred students present in the embassy are widely known by name; the names of many others have rarely been mentioned anywhere. My intention in including these footnotes was to show that these four hundred individuals were not imaginary figures—they were real students who later served the Islamic Republic in technical, medical, and other professional fields.

The book’s title is taken from a statement by Imam Khomeini, cited on the back cover. In one of the meetings between the representatives of the Office for Strengthening Unity and a five-member committee convened to clarify the concept of the Imam’s line, Haj Ahmad Agha explained it this way:
‘Haj Ahmad Agha clarified that, in the Imam’s view, all the misfortunes and afflictions of Iran and the Third World stem from America. He said that the Provisional Government was still stuck behind the wall of America and that even the Revolutionary Council had not taken a firm position against the United States—while the Imam had crossed over that wall years earlier.’”

Hamid Ghazvini, the next critic, praised Beyond the Wall and commented:
“The text of the book is simple, cohesive, and fluent. This alone shows that the narrator is not prone to exaggeration; he avoids dramatization and excitement in recounting the events and offers his narrative with fairness. The author, being a researcher and having already written Roosevelt Street Station, possesses strong command of the subject, which enables the narrator and author to mesh seamlessly and advance the work together. The author delivered his work punctually and maintained constructive communication with the team. Whenever we provided feedback or criticism, he accepted it with composure and followed through. The narrator supplied his personal archive and cooperated fully throughout the writing process. All these positive elements contributed significantly to shaping and elevating the final work. The book contains no redundancies or superfluous sections; it expresses precisely what was in Mr. Bitafar’s mind.”

“I defend the inclusion of the footnotes—precisely because this book is not solely about the U.S. Embassy takeover. It also constitutes a segment of the history of the student movement. A few decades from now, many of these individuals will no longer be identifiable. If this work is intended to endure as a historical document, then any effort that renders it more explicit, more richly sourced, and more thoroughly documented is both necessary and auspicious.
The tone and idiom of the narrator have been remarkably preserved in the text; when reading the book, one feels as though one can literally hear Mr. Bitafar’s voice and perceive his presence. Unfortunately, in some works, the written text fails to reflect the personality of the narrator. If the intention is to produce a credible historical record, this fidelity must be maintained.

Important information regarding the student movement on the eve of the Revolution and in its aftermath—the activities of the Islamic Associations, the formation of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the details of the embassy takeover, and the ensuing developments—is presented in a simple, coherent, and fluid narrative. This book is an indigenous narrative, told from within the event itself; thus, anyone who seeks to chronicle the history of the embassy affair will inevitably have to consult it. Beyond the Wall can serve as a reliable scholarly source, especially since most works published in recent years have relied heavily on foreign accounts.

Beyond the Wall demonstrates that after the occupation of the U.S. Embassy, life continued within the compound; the hostages were not merely captives. Even when they were eventually released, emotional bonds had formed, and some had become friends. In other words, while the book vigorously defends the seizure of the embassy, it simultaneously emphasizes that the students had no personal animosity toward the hostages as human beings—and this duality constitutes one of the book’s compelling aspects.
Despite the passing of several decades since the incident, Mr. Bitafar still strives to portray a perspective consistent with the sentiments of that time. Whatever positions he may hold today, his narrative remains uncontaminated by later interpretations or contemporary ideological overlays. Should the book be translated, it would undoubtedly find a receptive readership abroad.

Hojjat al-Islam Saeed Fakhrzadeh then posed two questions:
Why is the embassy takeover—described as the “second revolution”—sometimes perceived as more consequential than the first? And once the Imam authorized the students to remain in the embassy, what measures did you take to formulate subsequent policies?

The narrator replied:
“After the phone call and the Imam’s statement—‘They have occupied a good place; let them remain there’—a turning point occurred in the students' movement. Before that, the plan had been for the operation and the taking of the embassy staff hostage to last no more than three days. Some even said the United States would capitulate within forty-eight hours, hand over the Shah, and then we could all return to our classes. But the dimensions of the affair reverberated so rapidly across the world that we suddenly realized the magnitude of the situation.

The Coordinating Council—established beforehand and of which I was a member—began deliberating on what to do next. Since the students were intellectuals, strategic thinkers, and individuals capable of planning, the issue of organization was raised. We needed to structure this body of 350 elite students within an organizational chart capable of realizing our intended objectives. From the very first days, the Council’s agenda centered on designing such a structure.

I suggested that we examine the organizational chart of the embassy itself; understanding the enemy’s capacities and administrative layout could help us devise an appropriate arrangement of our own—while preserving the distinctive qualities of the students. It was decided that the 350 students would be organized into committees…”

During the first and second days—after the Iranian staff had been removed—the number of hostages stood at sixty-six. There were also four non-American personnel, and it was decided that a group of students would deliver them to their respective embassies, obtain a written receipt, and submit it to the council. I personally escorted one Bangladeshi national to his embassy. The Imam instructed that women and African-Americans who were not engaged in espionage should also be released. There were thirteen individuals in this category, and it took us an entire week to evaluate them. Among them, several were identified as CIA operatives or members of security services, and we retained those individuals while releasing the rest. One person was ill, and after a medical council was convened, he too was released. Ultimately, fifty-two individuals remained inside the embassy.

These fifty-two Americans were, on the whole, highly trained, intellectually capable, and in some cases members of special units. We did not consider ourselves immune from their potential schemes or stratagems. We believed they might devise an elaborate escape plan that we would be unable to counter. Nevertheless, the Students Following the Line of the Imam possessed an intellectual capacity and analytical aptitude equal to theirs, and this confidence proved immensely helpful in managing the situation.

One committee was responsible for the custody and supervision of the hostages. The Hostage Affairs Committee oversaw matters related to the comfort, nutrition, and medical needs of the fifty-two individuals. The Services Committee handled the students’ logistical needs. These 350 students required meals and daily provisions, and this committee attended to those demands. The Public Relations Committee managed interactions with domestic and international media outlets. Another body, the Committee for Information and Propaganda, was tasked primarily with supplying the Coordination Council with continuous information and keeping us promptly informed of even the smallest developments in the world concerning the hostage situation. The Documents Committee and the Operations Committee were responsible for internal and external security of the compound, as well as coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

At the conclusion of the session, the speakers responded to questions posed by the attendees.