He argues that we went into Iran and used the humanitarian effort by the containment of communism to distract the people why we were truly there. Kinzer’s position on the topic is a much more warhawk, neoconseravtive approach and using the containment policy as the foundational reason for going into Iran , while Abrahamain is arguing as economical reasons as the foundational reason for going into Iran. One of the ideologies that Mr. Kinzer focused on in “All the Shah’s Men” was the ideology of benevolent assimilation. Like in the Phillipines under the McKinley Administration, this is what Steven Kinzer implies was the main reason for going into Iran. In the book, he emphasizes two ... ... middle of paper ... ...to Agreement with the Anglo- Iranian are similar because the both provide insights to similar historical events.
Firstly, US strategic interests in the Middle East are challenged by Iranian ambitions to dominate the region. Iran is hardly involved in interventions of the domestic affairs of other Arab states, through establishing or supporting some Shiite groups, in terms of promoting the regional policies of Iran. Furthermore, despite geopolitical and economic prev... ... middle of paper ... ...ty of Iran and the Iranian people, and support the reforming movements such as (Green movement). • Keep a pressure for human rights reforms and use it as a pressure card. It should be clear to Iran that pursuing to a final deal in its nuclear program does not mean disregarding human rights violation inside the country.
The book has rich information covering the history of Iran. Mottahedeh managed to develop an impressive book that satisfies the curiosity of a reader wanting to understand the history, culture and political atmosphere of Iran through the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century. Roy Parviz Mottahedeh and Ali Hashemi represent two views of Islamic learning and Iranian history and culture. While Ali Hashemi represents a religious view of Islamic learning and history of Iran, Parviz represents a secular view of Islamic learning and ambiguity of culture in Iran. The two views help to bring out the ways in which Islamic religion and culture influenced political atmosphere, in Iran especially at a time when politics in Iran was shaped by religion.
Centuries of hierarchical government may have made people apathetic ... ... middle of paper ... ... due to its extreme stance on equality and freedom, is but a step away from either anarchy or tyranny. It seems to have worked in America, but there were several factors leading to its success. The state was founded on the premise of equality and its citizens had a strong desire to prevent the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, ensuring their active participation in government. The balance of power was also ensured by the ingenuity of the nation’s founders, who were away of the dangers of democracy and established a vast, complex system to prevent its abuse. While Tocqueville lauds the American experiment, even he acknowledges that it may not be repeated verbatim in other countries.
Power politics are not only used in matters of war and defense. The general definition of power can be seen as a state’s ability to get its way, making other states do things that are in the interest of the first state. In realpolitik, states use militaristic, economic, and diplomatic strengths to influence other actors from whom they desire something. The ge... ... middle of paper ... ...ely analyze a modern issue is the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. When Iraq invaded Kuwait within the last decade, it was in the national interest of the United States to get involved due to the location of the conflict.
Author argues that the democracy is the highest form of freedom. But this freedom along with itself also carries the gauge of discipline and humility. He rightly argued that democracy is the greatest institution in the world so there is a high chance of being greatly abus... ... middle of paper ... ...et. On the cause of communalism i.e Hindu Muslim conflict Gandhi observed that there can’t be any issue which is more important and more pressing than this, cause it blocks all progress. His observation on the importance of finding a solution to the conflict for India’s future integrity and wellbeing continues to be valid , although he might not have appreciated that what appears to be perennial conflict between India’s two largest communities is not about religion.
The causes of the war are deeply rooted in the ideology and ambitions of the leaders of the countries to gain and maintain control over internal and regional politics, as well as by concerns over internal security, which was tied with notions of nationalism and territorial boundaries. The personal ambitions of the leaders concerned the issues of consolidation of their political power at home and projecting an image of strength in the region that would assure dominance over neighboring countries. Saddam Hussein, during the mid-1970s, had formally secured his position as leader of Iraq. His regime was fundamentally secular, though he did sometimes try to appeal to the religious sentiments of all the Iraqis. Saddam envisioned himself as a great leader and modernizer who would make Iraq into the leading state in the Middle East.
The Islamic Republic of Iran controlled a rapidly-growing military force, and although the US had no reason to try to squelch this power, the Iraqi invasion served as the perfect opportunity to exercise a tactic which would be later titled "dual containment". The strategy of dual containment entails siding with one of two opponents to prolong a conflict they have with each other, of which the home country is not a main part of. This keeps both sides occupied with each other, and at the end of the conflict, both nations would be substantially weaker, leaving the home country, in this case the US, much at ease. The war ended in 1988, with Ir... ... middle of paper ... ...e killing the nation (The Economist 6). There is no reason for such an expense of life, as there is in Iraq.
This first act against the Shah kicked off the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and proved to the people that they could do something about the Shah and the monarchy that lead Iran at the time. Khomeini was immensely popular with his people because he represented the polar opposite of the Shah. While the Shah had embraced the Western culture and brought it into Iran allowing new cultures and ideas to come in with it. While Khomeini dispiesed the western culture and essentially blocked it from coming into Iran. During the Iranian Revolution along with openly protesting the Shah he dedicate himself to teaching the young and old alike of Iran, religious leaders began seeing him as Marja-e Taqlid (a person... ... middle of paper ... ...hey never did which allowed Khomeini to develop a non secular government and further build Iran back up.
The need for the foreign oil led to a complacent feeling of rights to the oil owned by the sovereign nation and decided to meddle with the politics in that nation to ge... ... middle of paper ... ...eak foreign policy is the root cause of the United States’ problems, as shown in Iran, in the Middle East, not radicals in the area. Works Cited Amanpour, Christiane. "1979 Hostage Crisis Still Casts Pall on U.S.-Iran Relations." CNN. Cable News Network, 04 Nov. 2009.