On the morning of November 4, 1979, revolutionary Muslim students overtook security at the United States embassy in Tehran, Iran and occupied the building, taking everyone inside hostage. For the next 444 days the United States stood paralyzed with fear and anger as the diplomats were held as prisoners. Immediately after the capture of the sixty-five Americans public pressure began to mount on the government to bring the captured citizens back home. President Jimmy Carter responded by slapping sanctions on Iran and negotiating for the return of the hostages. At the same time he faced a reelection battle in 1980 that certainly affected his response to the crisis, especially standing next to Ronald Reagan, who favored shows of force to Carter’s preferred diplomacy. The crisis dominated headlines in the media with nightly updates and analysis of the situation in Iran. Famous CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite famously ended every newscast with an update on the number of days the hostages had been kept captive. Driving the swift Presidential response as well as the intense media scrutiny was the angry reaction of the American people. Patriotism rose during the crisis as Americans took to the streets to voice their displeasure with Iran and the official American response. The intense anger by the American people and media scrutiny had a negative impact on Jimmy Carter’s attempts at diplomacy, and the perception of him as weak during the crisis cost him the election and left him permanently branded as a weak president. However, he is also to blame for his unpopularity for acting indecisive and granting concessions to the Iranians. While he may be unfairly blamed for the extent of the crisis and had to deal with the intense reaction from th...
... middle of paper ...
...tensely scrutinizing the issue and making the hostages nationally known due to its personal interest stories that dominated the coverage. The American people were angry and the media coverage only exacerbated their emotions. However, despite media scrutiny, falling approval ratings and public protests, Carter should not have given into popular demand and stayed the diplomatic course. If he decided to be aggressive from the start maybe it would have worked or maybe it would have escalated into a large-scale conflict. However, since he decided to take the diplomatic approach, Carter should not have begun using force, as this is antithetical to diplomatic strategy. Jimmy Carter ultimately has no one to blame for the mishandling of the Iran Hostage Crisis and his landslide loss to Reagan in the 1980 election can be greatly attributed to his poor handling of the affair.
The 1980s saw great political and military action throughout the world. However, one particular event that took place began in the early 1980s which was the Iran-Contra Affair. The Iran-Contra scandal is said to be the result of President Ronald Reagan’s attempt to accomplish two things. The first being his desire to see that the Americans which were being held as hostages by Iran, to be freed and the second was that he wanted to provide assistance to the contras in Nicaragua by going around congress. As obvious and as famous as the previously mentioned appears to be, the key states or countries involved are a matter of investigation. The heavy hitters in the Iran-Contra scandal aside from the United States, were Nicaragua, Iran, and Israel, which possess the question; how did several countries from various places around the world become so entangled in one of the world’s most memorable, multinational, scandals of all time?
It was always a balance between negotiations and hard power. Underneath Carter, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance believed that negotiations were going to be more beneficial while his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advocated for a more hawk-like strategy. In order to persuade the Iranians to release the hostages and to come up with a more diplomatic solution, the U.S. stopped buying oil from Iran and froze all Iranian assets. After that failed, Carter sought out Brzezinski for a military method, Operation Eagle Claw. Unfortunately, this mission was a catastrophe. The helicopters the rescuers used malfunctioned and eight Americans were killed in the process.
In the novel All The Shah’s Men we are introduced to Iran, and the many struggles and hardships associated with the history of this troubled country. The Iranian coup is discussed in depth throughout the novel, and whether the Untied States made the right decision to enter into Iran and provide assistance with the British. If I were to travel back to 1952 and take a position in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) for the sole purpose of examining the American Foreign Intelligence, I would have to conclude that the United States should have examined their options more thoroughly, and decided not to intervene with Iran and Mossadegh. I have taken this position after great analysis, which is something that Eisenhower and his staff never did. By discussing the history of Iran, the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and Document NSC-68 I will try to prove once and for all that going through with the coup in Iran was a terrible mistake made by the United States.
One of the most important aspects of Reagan’s time in office was his domestic policy. He knew to have a successful presidency and create a strong, the people of the United States needed to be cared for. His first goal was to turn the economy around from the stagflation it encounter in the Carter era. Stagflation is very similar to inflation. The main difference is that inflation is the result of a quick economic growth while causes the value of money to decrease with now economic growth. To accomplish the turn around, Reagan introduce his economic policy which became known as Reaganomics. Reaganomics was based in supply side economics. This economic theory says that lowering taxes through tax cuts increases revenue by allowing more money
The 1970's was a difficult time period in American history filled with chaos, domestic and international crises, and very poor presidential leadership. Richard Nixon was president during the early years of the seventies and he was far from popular in the eyes of the American people. With inflation rapidly rising, Nixon soon became unfavorable, and with the controversy surrounding his actions concerning the Watergate Crisis, he was impeached and forced to resign. His Vice President, Gerald R. Ford, soon took his place in the White House. However, Ford was unable to handle the crippling events taking place in the United States; his approval dropped drastically within months, and like Nixon he lost support of the American people. When the 1976 presidential election came around, the American people needed a new hero whom they could trust and who could pull the nation out of its current state of misery. To fill this position, American chose to elect James Earl Carter, Jr., Governor from Georgia. Jimmy Carter began his presidency in the bright glow of public support built on his promise of bringing honesty and morality back to politics; but unable to successfully deal with conflicts beyond his control concerning domestic and foreign affairs, his term as President ended behind a dark cloud of public disapproval.
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/jimmy_carter.html, Revised 2/22/2011 by Steven H. Hochman, © 2011 The Carter Center. All Rights Reserved, accessed May 23, 2011
Transformational leadership theory emphasizes on how a leader can acquire the ability to affect and motivate his followers to succeed beyond expectations. A transformational leader is one, whose vision for the future motivates and excites his followers. For this reason, a transformational leader is judged according to what he achieves as opposed to his character. Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was the least charismatic leader of all the American presidents. However, his use of transformational leadership to develop his agenda and vision was unprecedented. Furthermore, a transformational leader is more likely to be effective in a chaotic environment. Carter was faced with a stagnant economy, double-digit inflation, and oil and gas shortages.
Contextual analysis is made up of three basic components; intended audience, setting and most importantly purpose. Authors often times consider and work each contextual piece into the construction of their given argument. An argument is not powerful if audience preference is not a main concern, if the setting isn’t taken into consideration, or if the purpose is not relevant to the current situation. On January 28th, 1986 the shuttle challenger exploded 73 seconds into its take off. President Ronald Reagan wrote a critical speech to address the tragedy that had struck our nation that day. It is highly evident in his address that kept audience, setting, and purpose in mind. He comforts a worried public using calm tone and simple yet effective diction to convince the American nation that it’s necessary to go on and continue the space program and ultimately the scientific revolution.
...w the United States’ close ally Shah. Countless modernizers were persecuted, arrested and executed. In November 52 United States diplomats were held hostage by student revolutionaries who’d seized the American embassy in Tehran. America took immediate action and seized all Iranian assets. The United States attempted to negotiate. The negotiation, to the dismay of the American people dragged on for 444 days. There was a large push for President Carter to use military forces as means of negotiations; he however opted for peaceful means, which proved to be unsuccessful. Finally in April 1980 the President sanctioned a rescue mission. The attempt failed due to technical difficulties, eight men died; as a result the nation became extremely unnerved. Carter's dialogue with Iran continued throughout 1980. This was yet another failure on Carter’s part to rectify an issue.
This investigation evaluates the Carter Doctrine and the impact it had on 9/11. In order to successfully investigate the Carter Doctrine and its impact, one would have to evaluate its role in events leading to the tragedy of 9/11. The Carter Doctrine will be analyzed from the different perspectives such as different countries in the Middle East specifically the countries the terrorists of 9/11 were from. Those terrorists and those they worked will be analyzed for their philosophies on the US’s participation in the Persian Gulf. However, this particular investigation will not investigate the different forms of government of the Persian Gulf and the US.
The years leading up to the 1972 election were filled with new political tactics. Going into the election year, President Nixon seemed like he could never lose the second term election after successfully negotiating with Vietnam, Beijing, and Russia to improve international relations (Emery 4). Raising international toughness made Nixon seem like the most worthy person to stay president. Fred Emery analyses in his novel Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon, the president was also setting up the first summit meeting in history with Soviet Union Presidents (3). There seemed to be nothing capable of holding the seemingly responsible man back. However, this assurance came with massive consequences. The absolute certainty that Nixon would be reelected fueled the lies and abuse of power by the Nixon government (Emery 195). As the outlook of landslide winnings took over the White House, the moral reasoning, “the end justifies the means” became more prevalent. Nixon was obsessed with winning and being successful. Under his command his staff did whatever possible to ...
In 1987 Kuwait asked for Soviet and U.S. aid during the Iran-Iraq war in the Persian Gulf. The last two years of Reagan's presidency were marred by a political scandal, which badly damaged his reputation as an honest person and committed to principle. The scandal was that the U.S. had secretly sold weapons to Iran and had diverted the profits from the sale to help the contras. Reagan denied the allegations. There was also said to be a law saying that the U.S. couldn't aid the contras. This revealed to be true and Reagan lost his image.
Watts, Tim. "Iran hostage crisis." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 28 July 2011.
President Reagan, at the time in the beginnings of his second term, had successfully maintained overall a high approval rating with the American people. He had won their trust and respect by being quite relatable to the average citizen (Cannon). He had planned that evening to give his State of the Union address, but instead postponed it. The tragedy that had unfolded just hours earlier demanded his complete attention (Eidenmuller 29).
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.