policy.
policy.
Throughout the course of the Cold War, several themes can be seen to surface repeatedly. However, two themes can be seen to come afloat above the rest. They are the Nuclear Arms Race, and the battle of spheres of influence; both of which turned out to be crucial factors in the start and development of the Cold War. The former is comprised of the military aspect, while the latter is made up by the political aspect of the Cold War…
Many presidents of the United States of America have constructed doctrines during their terms in office that have come to define their foreign policy aims, from James Monroe in 1823 right up until the very recent Bush Doctrine. This essay will focus on three of these doctrines, namely the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the Truman Doctrine of 1947 and the Reagan Doctrine of 1984. Although there are many other presidential doctrines in the history of American foreign policy, several of these, such as Polk’s doctrine in 1845 and the Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957, appear to simply be reiterations of previous presidential doctrines. We will see that, although rhetoric is used quite freely in the president’s announcements of their doctrines, it would be wide of the mark to argue that the doctrines themselves are merely rhetoric. Instead should become clear that the doctrines shaped American foreign policy not only during the doctrine’s author’s term in office, but also for many of his successors.…
For 60 years and counting, the United States and Iran have had a very turbulent relationship. From a coup d'état performed by the United States and Britain to an Iranian Revolution, this is a seesaw of tensions by frenemies America and Iran. Since the 1950s, both nations have had tricky issues revolving around Operation Ajax and the U.S Embassy Hostage Crisis.…
The U.S. and Iranian conflict started more than 60 years ago. It started when the U.S. and British intelligence agencies killed the Prime Minister of Iran. The U.S. then sought them for help almost 30 years later, by selling them weapons, but Iran had a plan of their own, America did not receive their help. In 2002, Bush declared Iran as an “axis of evil,” this angered Iran. That same year, it was revealed that Iran is developing nuclear facilities. During a phone call between the Presidents of the U.S. and Iran, the men expressed their desire to end the long running dispute between the two nations. They are still discussing ways on which to finish it.…
Ahmadinejad is cautious with the Obama proposal. He sees the move as a public relations move by America to absolve them of any fault. This is to the extent that if Iran does not agree to Obama 's terms, then, America is justified in issuing stricter sanctions (Nick, 2009)…
US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis, edited by David Patrick Houghton, Cambridge University Press, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=201802.…
Just recently, politicians in the United States praised the treaty with Iran, but the public found many issues with it. Such as, the twenty-four-hour warning on when they are to make "surprise visits" to the Iranian nuclear facilities (Brookhiser). Furthering the American and Iranian tension, Iran's greatest leaders are now struggling to approach how they are going to make a peace treaty with their great enemy. "We have announced that we will not negotiate with the Americans on any issue other than the nuclear case," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader said, "prepare for the continuation of the fight against America” (Erdbrink). Iran announces that it will only make deals with the United States on nuclear weapons in the hope of it leading to a friendlier relationship between Iran and other countries…
Houghton, David Patrick. US Foregin Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.…
Since 1908, the United States have repositioned their foreign interests towards the Middle East for the abundance of Petroleum within the region. Attracting the west, Britain and the United States have maintained a dominating role in Iran for their rich supply of oil. In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Iranian oil fields. The United States responded by implementing a coup d’état in Iran, overthrowing Mossadegh, and placing “Shah” Reza Pahlavi in power. With a steady flow of oil and luxuries being sold to the United States, the Shah brought prosperity to Iran. However, there was a growing resentment towards the Shah from the Shi’ite Muslims community for allowing western influence into Iran. This was the beginning of a turbulent relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments. Relations escalated to the point where radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah, who sought refuge to America in the 1979 Iranian revolution. The radicals then stormed the American embassy in Tehran, seizing more than 60 Americans hostages in what is now known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The hostage crisis was the most heated in a series of issues that arose during the last year of Carter’s presidency. Many Americans wondered if Jimmy Carter was at fault for the crisis. Gaddis Smith, an American historian, described the situation in the following quote: “President Carter inherited an impossible situation and he and his advisors made the worst of it” (PBS.org). Smith’s statement is an accurate summarization of Carter’s actions during the hostage crisis. Carters failed rescue mission known as Operation “Eagle Claw”, the emergence of the American media, and the rising gas prices due to the relations between the countries frustrated American people, as well as hurt Jimmy Carter’s image. When the presidential election of 1980 occurred, American people were anticipating a battle for…
The United States and other western powers, as well as Israel, must carefully consider how to proceed with MEK relationships. The organization has shown a history of changing allies in order to advance its goals, making it predictable in the sense that they can be counted on to do whatever it takes to survive and take control of the Iranian government. To brush MEK aside may mean dealing with a nuclear armed Iran later, and to support MEK may mean dealing with a provoked Iran now. No matter the decision, each carries its own implications for U.S. foreign policy. Washington must ultimately decide between the lesser of two…
Imagine being held hostage for four hundred and forty four days. The thought alone is scary but this was reality for Fifty-three Americans when they was held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. This was a tough situation because America and Iran had bigger problems to deal with. Insurgency broke out and former King Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced into exile by the people of Iran. The United States backed the former King and when Pahlavi came to America looking for refuge this caused a serious situation. The United States learned that Pahlavi had cancer and made a choice to let him in for treatment. This angered the people of Iran and forced Iranian students to protest outside of the American embassy. On November 4th, 1979 the students decided to storm the Embassy creating the four hundred and forty-four day suffering. Pahlavi was forced into exile and the people of Iran welcomed Ayatollah Khomeini, a revolutionist who had been in exile. Although Khomeini did not take part in the overthrow, he indirectly supported the Iran Hostage Crisis with no intent to prevent or stop the crisis. One of the major reasons of the Iran Hostage Crisis was the fact that we were interest in oil.…
The Iranian Hostage Crisis was a horrific event in which many American were captured and held hostage in the Iranian American embassy. In America, this was met with shock; spurring newfound hatred of Iranians. In the book Funny in Farsi, the author and her family, Iranian immigrants living in Southern California, are subjected to the scrutiny and prejudice of the people around them for that reason.…
For Americans and many in the world, the Cold War dominated international relations from 1945-1991. Only the nuclear balance of terror prevented this uneasy peace from becoming all out war, and few if any events could be understood outside of the context of this bipolar rivalry. As the Cold War came to an end, some thought we had witnessed "an end to history."(1) Instead, we have witnessed a fundamental change in the logic of world politics. The United States has had difficulty developing a clear and coherent foreign policy in this new era. The New World Order of President Bush and the strategy of engagement and enlargement of President Clinton seem vague and ambiguous when compared to the clarity and simplicity of the American policy of containment during the Cold War. While this policy of containment rapidly gained a consensus both among the American foreign policy elite as well as the mass public after World War Il, it did represent a fundamental shift of relations with the Soviet Union from one of wartime cooperation. Explaining the origins of the Cold War has been one of the most common and contested topics in the study of American diplomatic history, and the end of the Cold War has changed how historians examine and interpret this period. Increasingly, scholars have gained access to documents, especially on the Soviet side, that have allowed them to go beyond past conjecture and utilize archival evidence. The end of the Cold War has removed much of the passion that surrounded writing Cold War history while scholars and states were still living it. This increased detachment has allowed historians to move from placing blame to recognizing the ideological conflict that was at the center of the Cold War's origins.…
This lens is how the analysis determines what is important, what assumptions can be made, and how government behavior can be categorized. The article uses the Cuban Missile Crisis as its data, in particular on how the crisis has been analyzed. The data in this case are the different conceptual models, such as the Rational Policy Model, the Organizational Process model, and a Bureaucratic Politics Model. The strong point for this model is that analyzing different models, and how they can be applied to future foreign policy is a valuable skill when analyzing a situation, as well as being aware of the biases in your own conceptual lens. However, this article relies entirely on qualitative data, and cannot produce the testable results that empirical data…
As technology advanced, countries struggled for power in an arms and space race throughout the Cold War in 1947. The United States was facing conflict with the Soviet Union, but still provided assistance to Iran and Iraq. America offered support by pressuring reform on Iran, which was suffering from a collapsing economy and a failing regime.1 According to Lisa Wolfe Iran did not fully embrace the support, “Misperception of US motives behind the move for internal change led many to ignore the fact that the US cared about Iran’s domestic politics only so far as they impacted the superpower’s own national interest.”1 The people of Iran believed the United States only had their own good intentions in mind. The United States did take the Iraqi side during the Iran-Iraq War, but China provided Iran with 22 percent of its arms.1 Iran was not at a complete disadvantage in the war, they had a form…