A: Plan of Investigation
Research Question: To what extent was the goal of U.S. actions surrounding the Suez Crisis of 1956 to preserve neutrality to protect U.S. interests?
Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers
Scope: To complete this investigation, the effects of the Soviet funding of the Aswan Dam and Czech Arms Agreement on U.S. and Soviet with Egypt will be explored, as well as the rationale for the United States’ actions, including Soviet and American statements. By investigating both, the influence of the Soviet involvement and the national rationales for invasion, it will be possible to assess the extent to which Cold War politics of the United States influenced the Sinai War of 1956.
Method: Scholarly histories of the Suez Crisis and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Arab-Israeli Conflict as well as Eisenhower public statements and communications with Great Britain will be consulted.
[Word Count: 222]
B: Summary of Evidence
American Interests in the Middle East:
• “America was drawn into the Middle East by the containment theory, which required opposition to Soviet expansion in every region” (Kissinger 525)
• US National Security Report: “should the Soviets gain a Middle East position from wh...
... middle of paper ...
...1956." Office of the Historian. US Department of State, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. .
Eisenhower. Radio and Television Report to the American People on the Developments in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. 31 Oct. 1956. The American Presidency Project. University of California Santa Barbara, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. .
Hahn, Peter L. Caught in the Middle East: U.S. Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1945-1961. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. Print.
Rucker, Laurent. “The Soviet Union and the Suez Crisis.” The 1956 War: Collusion and Rivalry in the Middle East. Ed. David Tal. London: Frank Cass, 2001. Print.
Schulze, Kirsten E. The Arab-Israeli Conflict. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis, 2008. Print.
... middle of paper ... ... The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check by suspending the progression of the 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.
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...
I will examine just a few of President Eisenhower’s foreign policies and how they played in to the influencing the United States involvement in the Cold War and how the Cold War made its way to
Nichols, David A.. Eisenhower 1956: the president's year of crisis : Suez and the brink of war. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011. Print. (tags: none | edit tags)
Meyer, Bruce, Dr. "Suez Canal Crisis." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2013. .
Offner, Arnold. “‘Another Such Victory’: President Truman, American Foreign Policy, and the Cold War.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Controversial Issues in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras and James M. SoRelle. 14th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 291-301.
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.
Bourke, Dale Hanson. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Tough Questions, Direct Answers. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2013. N. pag. Print.
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.
Although the United Sates and Saudi Arabia present the United States and Saudi Arabia’s relationship as excellent, there are actually two nations who have bitter disagreements but who allies through oil. The only thing that has held this alliance together is the US dependence on Saudi oil. The United States has felt and still fells that it is a necessity to have bases present in the Middle East to protect oil, and silently to protect Israel. The relationship began in 1933 when Standard Oil of California signed an agreement with the Saudi government. In 1943 FDR affirmed that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and moved troops into the region. Future presidents would emulate this declaration and mobilization of troops to Saudi Arabia. Again in 1945 Abd al Aziz, the Saudi king, and FDR would cement this alliance, on a US warship in the Suez Canal. Soon after, airfields were constructed at Dhahran and other spots over Saudi Arabia; beginning a long tradition of US military facilities in Saudi Arabia. Abd al Aziz was the first of his line of successors to meet with US presidents. The relationship was only strengthened with the onset on the Cold war, as the US used the bases in Saudi Arabia as potential air force launch sites to the USSR and constructed more military facilities. In 1941 Harry S. Truman made another assertion of Americas protection and alliance with Saudi Arabia to Abd Al Aziz. Truman stated that “support for Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States.” (Countrystudies.com) Another stipulation of this pact was that the US established a permanent military training mission in the Saudi Arabia. That mission lasted until 1992. Soon after the pact between Truman and Aziz was agreed upon the US-Saudi relationship would endure its first major disagreement. On May 14th, 1948 Israel was declared an independent state in the former Arab dominated Palestine. Israel’s independence was backed the United States. Saudi Arabia refused to acknowledge the country of Israel and to engage in any relations with them. The Saudis concerns of the Israel-US relationship were reinforced in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the US sold arms to Israel, but refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. In some cases congressional leaders refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that Saudi Arabia might use them against Israel.
The Middle East has historically rebuked Western influence during their process of establishing independence. When Britain and France left the Middle East after World War II, the region saw an unprecedented opportunity to establish independent and self-sufficient states free from the Western influence they had felt for hundreds of years. In an attempt to promote nationalistic independence, the states of the region immediately formed the League of Arab States in 1945. The League recognized and promoted the autonomy of its members and collaborated in regional opposition against the West until 1948 when Israel declared independence. Israel represented then and now an intrusive Western presence in the Arab world. The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict typifies this cultural antagonism. The Cold War refocused attention to the Middle East as a site of economic and strategic importance for both sides, yet the two hegemons of the Cold War now needed to recognize the sovereignty of the Middle Eastern states. With their statehood and power cemented, the Middle Easte...
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.
Andersen, Roy, Robert F. Seibert, and Jon G. Wagner. Politics and change in the Middle East: sources of conflict and accommodation. 9th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982. Print.
Gerner, Deborah J., and Philip A. Schrodt. "Middle Eastern Politics." Understanding the contemporary Middle East. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 85 -136. Print.
The Suez Crisis began on 29 October 1956 when Israel invaded the Sinai-Peninsula of Egypt (“Timeline: The Suez Crisis). Tension had been building up between Egypt and Israel because Egypt’s president Nasser had taken control of the Suez Canal and blocked the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. This angered not only Israel, but also Britain and France because they needed access to the Suez Canal to trade and acquire Persian Gulf oil. As a result, these three countries united to invade Egypt and take down Nasser from power to let Britain and France gain control of the canal once again (Derek). Although the British and French army succeeded in completely occupying the Suez Canal area in merely ten days, pressure from the U.S. and Soviet Union through the U.N. forced them to withdraw from Egypt (“The Suez Crisis of 1956”). This marked the end of the war and Israel managed to achieve freedom of shipping through the Straits of Tiran. Although the Suez Canal was once again opened to trade, Britain and France mostly suffered from this war because they failed to fulfill their main goals: to remove Nasser from power and gain control of the canal. During this time, Great Britain experienced both domestic and international relations conflicts (Neely) which contributed to its already declining status as an imperial world power by proving to the world Britain’s lack of power over other nations.