In “Time to Get Tough on Tehran,” Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, and Ray Takeyh discuss the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and its impact on the United States’ future Iran policy. After strikingly denouncing the JCPOA for its recognition of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, its potential to make Iran’s rivals in its region to go nuclear, and its allowance of advanced centrifuges, the authors propose a new, more cohesive Iran policy for the United States that they contend will help squeeze Iran into making concessions on amendments to the JCPOA, and eventually, a new nuclear deal. Strategies included in the proposed policy include reducing chaos in the middle east by fighting ISIS through the use of small ethnic groups as proxies and …show more content…
One of the biggest issues that seems to offend Iran greatly is American involvement in the Middle East. For many years, the United States has been helping regional allies to enhance their national security through {arms trade and military bases}. Iran, however, feels threatened by the American presence in the region. The Iranian goals of spreading Iranian-Islamic culture and increasing relations with neighboring countries are undoubtedly hindered by the United States’ close relationship with several countries in the region. Cohen, Edelman, and Takeyh argue that “the United States should help the Gulf state not only as they battle Iranian proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, but also as they deal with...protecting themselves against Iran’s efforts to undermine their internal security, defending their economic infrastructure, and preventing Iran from interdicting their energy exports along key transit routes.” {Increasing the scope of the relationship with regional allies is likely to threaten Iran even further, leading them back to their initial motivations for their nuclear program and decreasing their likelihood to negotiate.} By engaging further with Iran, Iranian leaders will feel even more threatened, not submissive, because they want to ensure their national security before engaging with the
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
Abrahamian, Ervand. The Coup: 1953, the CIA, and the Roots of Modern US-Iranian Relations. The New Press, 2013.
“CIA-funded coup against the secular, democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Muhammed Mossadeq, that anger and disillusionment with the U.S. spread across the region” (68). The “CIA-funded,” (68) raises red flags towards the government and the decisions they have made. The involvement in this situation caused the tension. Later Hasan exclaimed, “I condemn the actions of the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, without attacking my American friends in Houston, LA, or New York” (69). The previous quote explains how the U.S.’s involvement over seas has been set as priority by the government. Hasan points out in the second half of the quote that the government should also be looking at the conflict brewing at home. “America is not the American government. Nor is the U.S. border patrol” (69). This last quote puts everything the other argued in context. Hasan’s purpose was to merely show that the U.S. government has started the conflict with other countries and that the foreign policies should be changed instead of being unlawful. Mentioning that the government the citizens are a separate entity only reassures to the readers than Hasan is not insulting or degrading America as a
The relations between the U.S and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S greed over oil in Iran. The second, the coup in Iran organized and funded by the CIA. The U.S dependence on foreign oil is another cause of the problems. Lastly, should the U.S stop moving into other countries sovereign lands and trying to “Prevent the evil of communism”, the nation would not have so many problems around the world. This worry was even shown in Iran (Kinzer, 10). While often blamed on radicals, the strained relations between the U.S and the Middle East are a direct result of a poor US foreign policy.
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.
With his charismatic nature that allowed him to connect with all the groups of the opposition, Khomeini led the revolution and overthrew the Shah. For the religious and traditional masses of Iranians, he represented authentic Shi’a Iranian culture. For the idealistic students who were the leaders of the revolution, he represented unconventional defiance against the Shah’s regime. Khomeini understood the pain and alienation of all of his followers, who felt separated from their own Islamic culture as a result of the Shah’s westernization, and his charisma allowed him to unify the opposition against the Shah. With mass demonstrations all throughout Iran that immobilized the country, the Shah had no choice but to abdicate his position as monarch
His assessment of Pahlavi leads him to conclude that the world was not so black and white as Axis, Allies, and Third World considerations. Finally, in his assessment and hope for the future of American/Iranian relations, Alvandi states, “Iranian and American leaders must share a common set of ideas about the nature of the global order, as Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah did some 40 years ago” (180). This statement certainly leads the reader to believe that Alvandi holds the Cold War-era U.S./Iran relationship in high regard. It is evident to the reader that Alvandi, as an Iranian, admires Shah Pahlavi as an intelligent and patriotic leader, a man who wanted something better for his people. Though I believe that Alvandi did a good job illustrating his thesis, I found the book to be unengaging.
Introduction Stephen Kinzer's All the Shah ’s Men provides a compelling narrative of the 1953 coup in Iran, shedding light on a pivotal moment in history and its enduring ramifications. The coup, orchestrated by the United States and the United Kingdom, overthrew Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstated the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, highlighting the intricate interplay of geopolitics, ideology, and economic interests. This essay delves into the multifaceted nature of U.S. involvement in Iran, examining whether it can be categorized as a continuation of Western imperialism and its impact on democracy in the Middle East, while critically evaluating Kinzer's arguments.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
A revolution is a mass movement that intends to violently transform the old government into a new political system. The Iranian Revolution, which began in 1979 after years of climax, was an uprising against the Shah’s autocratic rule resulting in much religious and political change. Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi made efforts to remove Islamic values and create a secular rule and “westernize” Iran through his White Revolution. In addition, his tight dictatorial rule and attempts at military expansion felt threatening to the people, who desired a fairer governmental rule immensely influenced by Islam. Afterwards, governmental affairs became extremely influenced by Islamic traditions and law which created changes religiously and politically for years to come. Although the Iranian Revolution was both a political and religious movement in that it resulted in major shifts in government structure from an autocracy to a republic and that Islamic beliefs were fought to be preserved, it was more a religious movement in that the primary goal of the people was to preserve traditional ideology and in that the government became a theocracy intertwined with religious laws and desires of the people.
Iran was included in the territory of what was then the ancient Persian Empire. For centuries Iran (land of the Aryans) was also referred to as Persia, which was the official name until 1935. Fourteen years had passed before the Iranian government allowed the use of both names. Few groups of people today have significant history like the Iranians, descending from the ancient Persians, who possess one of the world’s richest and oldest cultures. Historically, a variety of other cultures and groups had once occupied the ancient Iranian plateau as early as 4,000 B.C.E, with little importance. Beginning by the third millennium, Persia was ruled by some of the greatest kings of all time, from Cyrus the Great to Darius the III, who turned the Persian Empire into one of the world’s greatest civilizations.
In February of 1979, Muhammad Reza Shah was in exile and Ayatollah Khomeini arrived as the triumphant leader of a revolution. Throughout the remainder of the year, the execution of former prime ministers, SAVAK agents, and high- ranking military officers took place. Muhammad Reza Shah’s regime was no longer in power and the Iranian Revolution was in full effect, but what caused this rapid shift of power? In the years leading up to the revolution, the Shah implemented the White Revolution in attempts to modernize Iran. The White Revolution was an attempt to turn Iran into an economic power, however; it went against many of the core beliefs of Islam. The White revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s caused the Iranian revolution because it marginalized
The Islamic Republic of Iran, formerly known as Iran or Persia, was crowded with a young generation looking for full freedom against the Shah. Persia, once as a powerful country with vast oil resources, soon became a vulnerable nation, ready to accept a new leader to guide them. The people were ready for change, but were the changes they got the changes they were looking for. The people wanted freedom against the shah, (For generations Iran was ruled by Kings) who allowed some freedoms, but it was somewhat limited. The people wanted freedom of speech, so that the press could freely publish their own opinions. They wanted to get rid of a law that made all eighteen-year-old males attend two years of military service unless they are accepted to a university, which would allow them attend the army later as a service worker. The shah was anti-religious, which was not ideal for many of the civilians in Iran. Savak (Secret organization of Iran) was accused of many anti – human rights actions, such as killing students who protested and immediately jailing press members for inappropriate conduct. A major problem was that the shah was a “puppet” of the United States many say, because the Shah would constantly confer with the U.S. of all of his decisions as ruler. The after affects of the revolution resulted in similar conditions, however. Human rights are horrible, the government limits all freedoms, the economy has suffered greatly, average salaries are hard to live with, most of the educated people in Iran fled to foreign countries, the quality of public schools is horrible, and the government still controls all television broadcasts and keeps a watchful eye on the newspapers. From bad to worse is what many people feel has become of Iran, but the people are ready for a real change.
The Iranian Revolution and its Impact on Women Marjane Satrapi’s experience growing up as a girl in Iran and being suppressed during the Iranian Revolution motivated her to create Persepolis. It includes scenes from her schooling and scenes with her mother, Taji, protesting; women’s rights in Iran are still suppressed today, as evidenced through what happened to Mahsa Amini. Ayatollah Khomeni was the driving force of the revolution, bringing back traditional ideas to the people of Iran. Ayatollah Khomeni was the leader of the Iranian Revolution, bringing traditional thinking back into Iran after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had faced backlash for the White Revolution. The White Revolution was “an aggressive modernization program that upended the wealth and influence of
The United States has steadily expanded its military presence in the Middle East. In ordering deployments, American officials have demonstrated the United States intentions: the US will not permit a hostile state to acquire the ability to obstruct the free flow of oil from the Gulf to major markets in the West.