In July 1952, the Egyptian government, headed by King Farouk, was overthrown in a bloodless coup led by the Free Officers, soon to be known as the Egyptian Revolutionary Command Council (RCC). The revolution was ostensibly led by Muhammad Naguib but it was clear that he was a mere figurehead and in a little over two years, Gamal Abdel Nasser would assume the Presidency. Although the goals of the RCC were somewhat unclear at the start, Nasser would embark on a policy of creating an independent Egypt free from internal and external domination. It was the latter goal that would set Nasser on a collision course with the West, initially Great Britain and to a lesser extent France, but eventually the United States. As such, Nasser’s commitment to autonomy would make him a hero to many in the Arab World and a villain to the West. Accordingly, for the next sixteen years Nasser and the United States would forge a strained relationship that at times bordered on mutual hostility and on other occasions, would stop just short of friendship based on pragmatic considerations by each side. As such, a detailed study is in order of the relationship between the RCC and the United States beginning with the Egyptian Revolution and ending with Nasser’s death in 1970. Ultimately, one can conclude that each side sought to exploit the other based upon outside considerations pertaining to Arab public opinion and a fear of communism.
After their seizure of power, the RCC needed to determine its outlook toward the West in general and the United States in particular. This was due in large part to past circumstances related to Egypt’s pressing need to eliminate past vestiges of imperial domination, thus making a constructive relationship with Great Britain v...
... middle of paper ...
...his actions. To Nasser, the superpowers were simply used and discarded when circumstances dictated such an approach. By the end of 1958, however, this approach appeared to backfire as Iraq became the Soviets favored ally and seemed to challenge Nasser’s hegemony in the Middle East. As such, Nasser’s subsequent repression of local communists brought him in conflict with the Soviet Union and caused a shift in the policies of the United States. The United States, in turn, approached Egypt in a similar vein as evidenced in its shifting policies as circumstances changed. It is therefore not surprising that by the end of 1958, the US adopted a policy of maintaining its alliances with its regional allies and also abandoning its confrontational policy with Nasser. Not surprisingly, the relationship would continue to fluctuate into the 1960’s until Nasser’s death in 1970.
In the novel All The Shah’s Men we are introduced to Iran, and the many struggles and hardships associated with the history of this troubled country. The Iranian coup is discussed in depth throughout the novel, and whether the Untied States made the right decision to enter into Iran and provide assistance with the British. If I were to travel back to 1952 and take a position in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) for the sole purpose of examining the American Foreign Intelligence, I would have to conclude that the United States should have examined their options more thoroughly, and decided not to intervene with Iran and Mossadegh. I have taken this position after great analysis, which is something that Eisenhower and his staff never did. By discussing the history of Iran, the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and Document NSC-68 I will try to prove once and for all that going through with the coup in Iran was a terrible mistake made by the United States.
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
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 United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
If there was one thing Rome and America had most in common, it would have been their fundamentals for foreign policy which was attained through the same sort of origins. For example, as Rome gained power, they had established ...
At the beginning of the Suez Canal crisis many individuals felt hostility towards each other and the main concern was the ownership of the Suez Canal and to who exactly would gain the authority to run it on their own accord. In 1954 Gamal Abdul Nasser came to power in Egypt, he was once formally known as an Egyptian army officer, before becoming a politician. After the attack of the Israelis in Gaza, Egypt to protect Israel from hostility the Egyptians had been putting forward against them; many Egyptians felt hatred for the Egyptian king, this led to a democratic system being built and that was how Nasser came to power in a democratic society in which he was able to play on the hearts of Arab Nationalism. When the cold war began to surface Britain asked Egypt to join an anti-soviet alliance with them in times of need, for Egyptian Suez Canal was in the authority of Britain making Egypt an ally of the United Kingdom. Nasser refused saying t...
Hayes, W. C. ?Egypt: Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amemophis III,?
Egypt appealed to Great Britain for several reasons and was imperialized in 1882. Egypt was rich in ivory, gold, and spices (Berard). Great Britain was in...
--But all this cost $, borrowed mostly from England or France. Egypt = soon in financial trouble, temporarily relieved by selling Canal shares to England. Khedive = abdicated, replaced by a Western puppet. Nationalists rebelled, and in a pattern repe ated throughout colonial world, opposed both foreigners and government, the government for aiding foreign interest. Resistance = defeated by British, who stayed there until after WWII. Egypt = thus a British protectorate. Khedive = protected by the Britis h, who helped the Egyptian economy.
Failure of the Détente Between the Superpowers The French word ‘détente’, which the Oxford English Dictionary describes as “the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation” (www.oed.com), first appeared in this context when a German newspaper used it to describe the visit of a British monarch at the beginning of the 20th century (Froman, 1991). In this essay, I will attempt to explain the cold war détente between the superpowers of the USA and the USSR in the 1970’s, concentrating first on its positive developments between 1971 and 1973 and then on the events that lead to its ultimate failure, symbolised by the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The first real steps of relaxation of tensions were taken with the Moscow summit and the signing of the SALT 1 (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) agreement in May 1972. The SALT agreement was a staring point for attempts to control nuclear arms, to restrict the impact and spread of nuclear weapons and to secure a balance due to ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (the notion that a nuclear attack from one side would lead to a retaliation from the other and therefore both sides would be greatly damaged) between the two superpowers and were to be followed up by further arms limitations talks within the next five years (Kent and Young, 2004). Also, agreements were reached on lowering the risk of accidental confrontation and on cooperation in science, health and environmental issues.
In the year 1965, American government announced, with public support, that America is going to win the guerilla war and defeat the “global communist conspiracy”. It also promised to build free institutions in South-East Asia. Two years later, in the year 1967, the same affair was considered not only as unsuccessful, but also as a gruesome action of the politicians.
In the past 30 years Egypt has received over a billion dollars in aid. With the current regime constantly not stable enough to keep their leader in power and government trust at an all time-low we are forced to look at what this aid is actually providing. Throughout this essay I will guide you through the logistics of distributing such large aid packages, the impact, and why this practice is hurting, not helping the U.S. Egyptian citizens neither profits, nor wants the U.S in their everyday life. We have no business in their country and they have no business in our pockets; when this tie is severed both parties will be better off.
The Soviet Union had hoped that his increased popularity would facilitate the spread of communism to other Arab nations, who were dominated by European powers prior to World War II. The underlying strategy in these excerpts is that neither side was letting on to the fact that the Middle East was a region of interest for both superpowers; rather, they hid their ambitions behind a pursuit of stability in the region.
‘Return of the Pharaoh’ is the English version of the prison memoir of Zainab al-Ghazali. The book aims to expose to the world the cruelties and savagery she had to suffer at the hands of the Nasir regime. Zainab al-Ghazali was one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and the founder of the Muslim Ladies Group. While the Brotherhood held a pan-Islamic view and worked towards incorporating Islam as a way of life rather than a religion, the Muslim Ladies Group trained women for the same purpose and also participated in welfare and relief activities. The title of the book is extremely interesting; it reflects the utter contempt the author holds Nasir in, and vice versa. Her hatred is so strong that she calls him a “Pharaoh”, an ancient Egyptian king who declared he was God and persecuted people who believed otherwise. The title is not only attractive and intriguing, but also appropriate, for the book demonstrates many of Nasir’s qualities that bring him on par with Pharaoh himself. For instance, instead of swearing by Allah’s name as most Muslims do, Nasir’s associates swear “by (the might of) Nasir”, as if HE were their god. Nasir also believes in eliminating all opposition just like Pharaoh did. He imprisons, persecutes and eventually kills many Brotherhood members and their sympathizers. Although Muslim by name, Nasir was opposed to all those who carry the message of Islam and seek to establish it in their lives. The title could not be more appropriate, as the reader gradually finds out.