It focuses on responses to hostage situations, the use of force against terrorism, and the long-term campaign against terrorism. Among the issues the Government must consider in formulating antiterrorist policy are trends in hostage situations, the interaction between policy for dealing with hostage incidents and overall policy on terrorism, the advantages and risks of countering terrorist action with force, and the future threat of terrorism. The seizure of the U.S. embassy in Teheran, Iran, dramatically demonstrated the fact that the United States is the primary target of terrorist activities. The Iranian episode also raised a number of issues regarding the U.S. response to individual incidents and to terrorism in general. Trend analysis reveals that seizing embassies and kidnapping diplomats have thus far proved to be reasonably effective and not necessarily perilous terrorist tactics. Governments should balance competing objectives in dealing with a hostage situation. They may want to appear in control, make no concessions, end the situation swiftly, save the hostages, apprehend the terrorists, minimize political damage, and avoid appearing callous and inhumane. During the course of an episode, these objectives may shift, making it difficult to maintain a single policy line. The United States has three basic policy alternatives for dealing with hostage situations: flexible response, safe release, and no concessions. A flexible policy does not rule out the use of force. Present trends indicate that terrorism will persist as a mode of political expression, that the Soviet bloc will continue to support terrorist groups, and that the United States will remain the prime target of such activities. The strongest recommendations concern the need for international agreements with regard to terrorism. Footnotes and 12 references are provided. (Author summary modified)