Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cause and effects of the Iranian hostage crisis
Iran-contra affair
Iran-contra affair
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cause and effects of the Iranian hostage crisis
A. Plan of Investigation
This investigation assesses the Reagan Administration and its inconsistent foreign policy in regards to Iran. The Iran-Contra Affair was a controversial crisis for the fortieth president. It involved two parts: the selling of weapons to Iran and then the siphoning of that money to Nicaragua. However, in this investigation, the situation with Iran will be more prominently discussed, rather than the Nicaraguan situation. The foreign policy pertaining to the Middle East will be analyzed for its confusion and complexity. The two sources used in this essay, The Long Road to Baghdad: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy from the 1970s to the Present by Lloyd C. Gardner and The Reagan Diaries by Ronald Reagan and edited by Douglas Brinkley will be evaluated for their origin, value, purpose, and limitations.
B. Summary of Evidence
Beginning with the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979, in the midst of Jimmy Carter’s second term, our relationship with Iran has been anything but healthy. Iran, at the time of the crisis, was under the radical influence of Ayatollah Khomeini. He had overrun and exiled the previous Shah who the United States had better relations with. After learning of the Shah’s fight with cancer, influential Americans convinced President Carter to permit the Shah to travel to the country to receive prominent medical care. This did not go over well in Iran and Khomeini then called for the students working at the U.S. embassy in Tehran to act on behalf of the country in response. On November 4, these “Iranian extremists” captured fifty-two American hostages.1 Carter attempted negotiations ranging from diplomacy to helicopter invasions, but nothing was accomplished. The relationship between the two countries...
... middle of paper ...
...nesh. Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. New York: Touchstone. 1997.
Gardner, Lloyd C. The Long Road to Baghdad: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy from the 1970s to the Present. New York: The New Press. 2008.
Lapham, Lewis H. “Learning to Live Without a Soviet Threat,” Harper’s Magazine. (1987).
Ray, Locker. “For U.S. Presidents, a Familiar Problem,” USA Today. (July 1, 2009).
Reagan, Ronald. Ed. Douglas Brinkley. The Reagan Diaries. New York: HarperCollins Publisher. 2007.
Rich, Alex K. “Tehran,” Our World: Iran. (2010).
Taylor, Michael. “Iran-Contra Scandal Tarnished Credibility/ But Americans Forgave President After He Admitted Judgment Errors,” San Francisco Chronicle. (June 6, 2004).
Walsh, Kenneth T. “Damage Control: Reagan’s Iran Contra Strategy Offers Lessons,” U.S. News & World Report .(2005).
As we move into the reelection year, the authors accuse Nancy of ensuring that Reagan hasn’t campaigned for eight months, following a “Rose Garden strategy.” But Reagan has no credible opponent for the 1984 nomination, and Walter Mondale, who will be his Democratic opponent in the general election, has not yet been nominated. So there is no need for a strategy, Rose Garden or otherwise. Of course we get the full chapter and verse on Reagan’s poor performance in his first debate with Mondale; at least we also get the report on the second debate. From there the narrative jumps to the Iran-Contra affair. A few high points — like the Berlin Wall speech in 1987 — are indeed included, but without any perspective on Reagan’s strategy, perseverance with the Soviets on arms control, or success in revitalizing the U.S. economy. Nothing is said about Reagan’s four second-term summits with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Except for a few comments that Reagan deplored Communism, this is a policy-free book, and a book
Taken Hostage by David Farber is book about the Iranian hostage crisis that occurred 1979-1981. Farber looks into the causes of the hostage crisis, both at home and abroad, relations between Iran and the United States, and what attempts were made in order to rescue the hostages. Farber wrote the book in order to give insight into an issue that is considered to be a huge blemish and embarrassment on America’s history. He looked at it from all perspectives and gave an objective overview of the conflict.
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.
Before the revolution when Dumas and her family first moved to Whittier, California, a mother and her daughter kindly helped Firoozeh and her mother find their way home, inattentive to the fact they were Iranian. “This kind stranger agreed to take us back to our house” (Dumas, 7). On the other hand, after eradicating the Shah, Iranian terrorists had a substantial motive to capture American hostages, and the country began to develop hostility towards all Iranians. Dumas recalls, “During our stay in Newport Beach, the Iranian Revolution took place and a group of Americans were taken hostage in the American embassy in Tehran. Overnight, Iranians living in America became, to say the least, very unpopular. For some reason, many Americans began to think that all Iranians, despite outward appearances to the contrary, could at any given moment get angry and take prisoners” (Dumas, ). Ignorance and xenophobia became the prime factors that led to this intense discrimination. The author describes the injustice her father experienced while searching for a job, “At the sight of the Iranian passport, the lawyer turned pale, ‘I am so sorry, but the government of Saudi Arabia does not accept Iranians at this time.’” (Dumas, 120). Contradicting with what Dumas’s father assumed America would provide for him, a job, he was turned down by many of them by the
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.
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
The Tangled Relationship. New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1971. Flaherty, Tom. A. “What We Learned from the Bay of Pigs.” Reader’s Digest July 1963: 92-94.
Commentators whipped both Carter's arrangements to give up control of the Panama Canal and his reaction to Soviet animosity in Afghanistan by hauling out of the Olympics and completion the offer of wheat to the Russians. His acknowledgment of socialist China, which developed Nixon's China approach, and his arrangement of new arms control concurrences with the Soviets, were both condemned by moderates in the Republican Party. Yet, the most genuine emergency of Carter's administration included Iran. At the point when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power there, the U.S. offered haven to the sickly Shah, irritated the new Iranian government, which then urged understudy aggressors to storm the American consulate and assume control fifty Americans prisoner. Carter's inadequate treatment of the tremendously broadcast prisoner emergency, and the shocking fizzled endeavor to protect them in 1980, destined his administration, despite the fact that he arranged their discharge instantly before leaving office.
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...
“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
I have decided to write my research paper on the topic of Ronald Reagan's Domestic and Foreign Affairs. The reason that I choose this topic was because I have always been personally interested in Ronald Reagan's time in office and the national crisis he had to deal with. Reagan was awesome when it came to foreign policy because he knew how to negotiate with foreign leaders and their countries to get what he wanted. There were several instances during his time in office that he had the chance to use his ability to get the country out of danger. Domestic Affairs is another part of Reagan's presidency that was very important. He was able to take the country, which seemed to be in an economic slump and turn their economic status around. The economic growth of the United States is still holding true today. There is only one question that I wanted to answer with this paper. Was Ronald Reagan an effective leader when it came to domestic and foreign affairs?
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.
Watson, Stephanie. "Iranian Hostage Crisis." Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2004. 158-60. U.S. History in Context. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
Per this writer, at the beginning of his government Jimmy Carter had been governor of a southern state with no national or international involvement. Nevertheless, while having his own foreign policy goals. Carter believed in the rule of law in international affairs and in the principle of self-determination for all people. Furthermore, he wanted the United States to take the lead in encouraging universal human rights. Carter believed that American power should be exercised carefully and that the United States should avoid military interventions as much as possible. Thus, he wanted that American relations with the Soviet Union would continue to expand, and that the two nations could come to economic and arms control agreements that would diminish Cold War tensions. Carter's