Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the Iranian hostage crisis
Iranian hostage crisis, demands
Effects of the Iranian hostage crisis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of the Iranian hostage crisis
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
... middle of paper ...
...Online by
Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=38274.
Sara Chimene-Weiss et al., “Iran: Background,” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs, accessed May 22, 2014,http://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/i-background.php.
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
David J. Scheffer, “U.S. Law and the Iran-Contra Affair”, The American Journal of International Law 81, no. 3 (July, 1987): 698, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2202027.
Stefan A. Riesenfeld, “The Powers of Congress and the President in International Relations: Revisited”, California Law Review 75, no. 1 (January, 1987): 405-14, accessed May 21, 2014, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3480586.
The 1980s saw great political and military action throughout the world. However, one particular event that took place began in the early 1980s which was the Iran-Contra Affair. The Iran-Contra scandal is said to be the result of President Ronald Reagan’s attempt to accomplish two things. The first being his desire to see that the Americans which were being held as hostages by Iran, to be freed and the second was that he wanted to provide assistance to the contras in Nicaragua by going around congress. As obvious and as famous as the previously mentioned appears to be, the key states or countries involved are a matter of investigation. The heavy hitters in the Iran-Contra scandal aside from the United States, were Nicaragua, Iran, and Israel, which possess the question; how did several countries from various places around the world become so entangled in one of the world’s most memorable, multinational, scandals of all time?
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. 18 May 2006. The Avalon Project. 18 MAY 2006. The War Powers Act of 1973.
Iran-Contra Affair With the 1960s and 1970s, came a growing need for change among the American people. A previously dominant liberal government was not taking a hard enough stance on the fight to end communism. All it took, was a final nudge to shift the vote from democratic to republican. For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders.
The Iran-Contra Affair involved the United States, Iran, and Lebanon. The affair coincided with the Iranian hostage crisis, which promoted the United States’ actions in sending weapons to Iran. The Reagan administration decided to trade arms for hostages in hopes of successfully retrieving American hostages from Iran. Iran was at the time under the power of Ayatollah Khomeini, who had put his full support behind the hostage crisis and believed there was nothing that the United States could do to Iran. America’s only chance of rescuing the hostages was to put their support behind Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, which involved the shipment of weapons to Iran f...
The main legal question was if congress unconstitutionally delegated its legislative power to the president. The court in a 7-1 decision said that there was no constitutional violation. The court argued that there was a fundamental difference between domestic and foreign affairs, and that the federal government has the constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs as it wants to. The most important part of the case for my purposes is Justice Sutherland’s statement “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.” What this means is that the President has the sole power to be the representative of the nation in foreign relations. The president alone has the power to recognize, and negotiate with foreign powers. Even if we ignore the other cases, this one alone sets a legal precedent that should apply well to the case of Mr.Calrissian. Combined with the other cases, especially Zivotofsky the legal precedent is clear, and the court should rule that section 547d is
Iran-contra affair is the name of a major United States foreign policy scandal in the 1980's. It involved two secret operations by the executive branch of the government. The operations were (1) the sale of military equipment to Iran, an enemy of the United States; and (2) the provision of military aid to contra rebels in Nicaragua, which Congress had banned. The two operations were connected by the use of profits from the Iranian arms sales to aid the rebels. Background.
The United States “hands have not always been clean” (Landau 1999, page 16). It seems that as time passes more and more of past United States foreign policy actions are discovered to have been a cause of corruption rather than security. Recently numbers of declassified documents show the fraud of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is apparent that Kissinger directly assisted General Augusto Pinochet into power in Chile and despite his knowledge of Pinochet’s human rights violations he deliberately ensured his stay in power (Landau 1999; page 16). Currently the legal action being taken against Henry Kissinger must be taken seriously to show current United States officials, the cruelty of our nations past and how we are guilty of initiating and helping a brutal dictatorship for sixteen years.
The. Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981. p. 7.
Eugene Hasenfus of Marinette, Wisconsin was captured when his cargo plane suffered damaging missile blows. Hasenfus’ outdated cargo plane was knocked from the sky as a result of Nicaraguan surface to air missiles. After notifying the office of the United States Vice-President, informants in both El Salvador and Costa Rica would scramble to assess and control a seemingly uncomplicated situation. While United States officials prepared to limit their damages, the Nicaraguan captors televised Hasenfus’ explanation of illegal actions by the United States and specifically the Reagan Administration in support of the rebel Contras.
The late 20th century was a very turbulent time in American history. In 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected to the presidency, and he had many goals to help better America. However, on November 4th, 1979, a group of radical students seized the United States’ embassy in Tehran, Iran. This completely altered the course of American history and relations with the Middle East. This crisis had many impacts on the United States. It caused the Energy Crisis which in turn caused the Recession of 1979. The Iran Hostage Crisis also had political consequences for President Carter. It was a major factor that contributed to him losing the election of 1980 to Ronald Reagan. Additionally, this crisis led to many instances of racial discrimination toward Iranian-Americans and Iranian immigrants. Even after the Hostage Crisis was resolved, the bad blood between the two countries continued; the United States helped Iraq in the war against Iran, and the Iranians backed a second hostage situation in Lebanon. The Iran Hostage Crisis was a very important event that impacted America in many ways and destroyed our relationship with Iran. The consequences of this event are still felt today and continue to our foreign policies toward Iran.
The Iran-Contra scandal was one of the few criticisms during the Reagan administrations time in the white house. President Ronald Reagan claimed to have no knowledge of the events that took place but key witnesses and evidence seem to have suggested otherwise. Members of the Reagan administration were violating two major American policies during the time of the scandal and the level at which the scandal took place makes it one of the more well-known government scandals. The United States was selling weapons to Iran in order to free hostages held in Lebanon and use the money to support the Contras in Nicaragua. The support for the Contras was against American policy instituted in three amendments between 1982 and1984.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Herman, E. & Sullivan, G. O.1989. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon.
Kenneth Anderson is professor of law at American University. He teaches and writes in the areas of business and finance, both domestic and international, law and economics, public international law, international organizations, human rights, and the laws of war. Matthew C. Waxman is a professor of law and the faculty chair of the Roger Hertog Program on Law and National Security. He is an expert in national security law and international law including issues related to executive power: international human rights and constitutional rights, military force and armed conflict, and terrorism. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter and Judge Joel M. Flaum of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The two asserts the premises that the
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.