Since the inception of the Suez Canal by a former French consul to connect the Mediterranean and Red Seas in 1854, the Suez Canal has seen its share of controversy. However, none quite so devastating as the events in 1956 culminating in the so-called 100 Hours War. The Suez Crisis began with the British expulsion from the Canal Garrison, the denial of Israeli use of the Canal by Egypt as well as raids across the Israeli border by Egyptian Fedayeen, and the attack on French colonists in Algeria at the urging of Nasser, according to French allegations. The three nations, England, France, and Israel, combined forces, each intent on individual objectives within the Sinai Peninsula. This capstone paper discusses the Suez Canal Crisis from the …show more content…
The Soviet Union, desirous of gaining a foothold in the Middle East and supporting Arab nationalism, financed the construction of the Aswan Dam in Egypt, an endeavor previously promised by the United States. The Soviets employed the use of hard power, providing armaments to the Egyptians from Czechoslovakia as well as the threat of nuclear missiles to the region if British, French, and Israeli forces refused to withdraw. The United States, however, employed publicly the use of soft power, encouraging diplomacy, and economic sanctions to end the conflict. Also unlike the Soviet Union, who tended to react strongly and with threats rather than negotiation to conflict, the United States employed flexible deterrent options in the conflict, which provide escalation options during the initial stages of conflict (Pike, 2000 – 2016, para. 1). The United States employs flexible deterrent options for three principle purposes: to fortify affiliates, dissuade prospective antagonists, and expand influence. In the Suez Crisis, the United States dissuaded the Soviet Union from further involvement in the conflict; indicating nuclear assault provided irredeemable escalation and threatening economic and diplomatic sanctions on England, France, and Israel. France, with other conflicts brewing on their horizon and England unable to overcome the United States’ international power in the post-World War II era, backed down from the conflict. Two days later, Israel withdrew troops from Egypt, also unwilling to lose the United States as a political ally. Both hard and soft power as well as flexible deterrent options exhibit facets of instruments of national power, which utilize diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME) tools to achieve a desired result. In coexistence with the United Nations and the United States’ allies around the world, instruments of
The assault was a dual operation with British forces and was of great significance because of the Suez Canal. This assault aloud allied forces to move through the Western Front into North Africa for the Allied forces (Nieves, 36th Combat Engineers - 2826th, 2827th & 2828th Bns , 2015).
Desert Storm was a part of the Gulf War, Desert Storm was a codenamed Operation to get Iraq soldiers out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This was the first foreign crisis that the U.S. got involved in since the Cold war. It was because of saddam Hussein. Saddam ordered his Iraqi army to cross the border to Kuwait. This wasn’t some random attack by Iraq. but instead Iraq had been preparing for this for years, they knew what they were doing and were heavily equipped with weapons.
The crisis took place on the Suez-Canal in Egypt during the cold war years of the 1950’s. Gamal Abdel-Nasser was in charge of Egypt in 1954. He wanted to improve conditions in Egypt, and so he decided that he would build the Aswan Dam. In order to fund the construction of the dam he seized the Suez- canal, and charged each passage that sailed across it. The British, French, and the Israelis, who strongly opposed the idea, used this as a reason to attack Egypt.
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...
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
...ills and built bomb shelters in preparation for possible nuclear warfare. The U.S. also built up its army and its air force, just to be prepared. Overseas, the U.S. enforced the Eisenhower Doctrine, which was a threat warning communist countries not to attack the Middle East, lest they wanted to begin and all out war. The United States also engaged in an Arms Race with the Soviet Union to see who could build the most powerful and destructive weapons and technologies. Brinkmanship was effective in preventing war because neither the United States or the Soviet Union was really prepared to fight yet another war.
Over the course of the Spanish-American war , the obvious need for a canal came apparent.The canal would stregthen the navy, and it would make easier defense of the islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The problem of where to build the canal came into play. Congress rejected Nicaragua and Panama was an unwilling part of this project. The course of the building was shifted to Colu...
Meyer, Bruce, Dr. "Suez Canal Crisis." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2013. .
The 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the CIA’s first successful overthrow of a foreign government. It was seen as an action to stop a possible Iranian communist takeover led by Mohamed Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister at the time. But in actuality, the U.S. and Britain were more afraid of the imposing Soviet threat in the region. Because Britain and other western countries issued sanctions on Iran as a consequence to oil nationalization, the Britain and the U.S. feared that Mossadeq would turn to the Soviet Union in an effort to stabilize Iran’s economy. Fearing that Iran would soon be influenced by communism, the U.S. looked at the option of regime change as an answer to the ongoing crisis. In 1953, under the Eisenhower administration, a CIA coup to overthrow Mossadeq was authorized. After three days of CIA organized riots in Iran, Mossadeq surrendered, Fazlollah Zahedi, as chosen by the CIA, succeeded Mossadeq as prime minster of Iran. Now that Mossadeq, once a leader of the democratic movement in Iran, was no longer a political force, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came back to power, now with little political opposition and supported by the United States and Britain. The CIA coup was originally intended as a solution for the Iranian oil crisis, but its occurrence later caused undesirable results in future. Although the real reason for the CIA overthrow of the Iranian government was to protect geopolitical interests from the Soviet threat in the region, the United States, did not foresee the negative, long term effects of coup, some of which are still evident today.
The Middle East has since time immemorial been on the global scope because of its explosive disposition. The Arab Israeli conflict has not been an exception as it has stood out to be one of the major endless conflicts not only in the region but also in the world. Its impact continues to be felt all over the world while a satisfying solution still remains intangible. A lot has also been said and written on the conflict, both factual and fallacious with some allegations being obviously evocative. All these allegations offer an array of disparate views on the conflict. This essay presents an overview of some of the major literature on the controversial conflict by offering precise and clear insights into the cause, nature, evolution and future of the Israel Arab conflict.
What was the major strategy applied by the United States in these cases? How would the most powerful nation react, lead or response to the threats? As I pointed out before, there was no stringent course recognizable. America reacted in every case differently with no clear guidelines to use of force or national interest visible. To prove this statement, I will take a look at the lecture of each case and draw...
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.
During the late 19th and 20th century, the United States pursues an aggressive policy of expansionism, extending its political, military, and economic influence across the globe. The events during this ‘age of imperialism’ laid the foundation for America’s international power while simultaneously defining the use of the these powers. The policy that the United States implemented at this time is known as Big Stick Diplomacy which was to speak softly but carry a big stick. This meant that the United States would ask for something or take a stance on an issue and if another nation refused or went against the United States, then the military would be summoned to ‘resolve’ the issues. This domineering foreign policy defined the politics of American Imperialism that was especially prevalent from 1890-1913.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
June 5 1967, the day that brought high tensions between the territories in the Middle East that later on proceeded into war. This short but very influential war made its long lasting impacts on the lands of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, with an outcome of the Israeli nations gaining extensive land and wealth. The Six-Day war or the 1967 Arab- Israeli War was fought between Israel and the Arab states of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt’s military personnel from June 5 to June 10. The war is believed to be a result of high tensions that go back many years along with the surprised strikes launched by Israel against Egyptian airfields in response to the mobilization of Egyptian troops along the borders of Israel. Israel portrayed the war to be a pre-emptive military effort to counteract what the Israelis saw as a future attack by the Arab nations who surrounded Israel. These territories in the Middle East were and still are major influences on the contention in the Arab-Israeli conflict.