Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
United states expansionism policy
Us expansionist policies
Us expansionist policies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: United states expansionism policy
Three Kings The rise of an American Empire in the Middle East after World War II by Lloyd C. Gardner details American polices procedures and post-World War II. This includes the Monroe doctrine, the Iran Oil Crisis and the six day war, as well as the interpretation and scare tactics of communism. The Three Kings are not often referred to in the book, however the term refers to the three major powers in the Middle East, President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, of the United States, England and the Soviet Union respectively. Gardner writes about the American maneuvers to take over as the leading power in the Middle East to replace England after they are forced out.
The main theme in the book was the influence of American foreign
…show more content…
The Iran Oil Crisis was identified as significant due to the political ramifications, Gardener speculates that Iran was played by the United States, this was speculated to be the reason behind the Islamic revolution of 1979. The influence of the Ba’athists also proved to be a scare tactic utilized in the American influence in the Middle East resulting in Iranian occupation. Gardner states the notion of communism was a driving factor in American military intervention in the Middle East specifically Iran, this intrigues me as I think there is more to that then fear of different ideologies. I feel it is likely more to do with resources available and domination of other powers in the area, in route to become the one true power in not only the Middle East but the …show more content…
Gardner provided an in depth account of the American involvement and foreign policy as it relates to post World War II Middle Eastern relations. I thoroughly enjoyed the comparisons to previous occupations of Middle Eastern countries by Russia and England that had previously gone poorly, and the perspective provided by Gardner that tied in directly to our class, involving the Arab Israeli war. Everything discussed on the war by Gardner was backed up by our discussions in class, therefore I believe he is certainly qualified to write about Middle Eastern politics and foreign relations. The American influence in the Middle East was not all negative witch is refreshing based on current relations with countries in the Middle East and the public perception on our involvement. Even with the positives discussed in this book I hope we can take the advice of Gardner and take care of our own relations before we try to “help others” I do not believe we are currently in a position to do so therefore we no longer have the luxury to stay. In closing remarks Gardner discusses the game of chess between super powers or as they are discussed in the text “the Three Kings” for domination of the world. I view this as an irresponsible habit that needs to end immediately, this can only result in a negative way, as history has shown unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs results in a
Kinzer tells us that the Iranians celebrated their nationalism in taking control of their oil, but their success was a shock to the British multinational companies in Iran. They did not like the idea of Iran nationalization, so they plan a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister Mossadegh. But this plan failed and the British were disarmed and sent back to their country closing down their embassy in Iran. The British tried to present their case to the United State in a way that the United State would intervene. So they presented a case that Mossaghe is not only nationalizing the Iranians oil, he is also leading Iran into communism. This case stirred the American action and they feared if they assassinate Mossaghe, his seat will be open and communist ...
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.
In the novel War and Peace In the Middle East, author Avi Shlaim argues that Arab nations have been unable to escape the post-Ottoman syndrome. In particular he describes how the various powers inside and outside the region have failed to produce peace. While some of Shlaim's arguments hinder the message, I agree with his overall thesis that the Middle East problems were caused and prolonged by the failure of both powers and superpowers to take into account the regional interests of the local states.
When President Jimmy Carter said, “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” to be “repelled by any means necessary,” his intention was to caution the Kremlin against any thoughts about declaring Soviet territory over the world’s energy heartland.
The book begins as the Soviet Union’s ability to provide their own oil is cut off by a terrorist attack. Right away it is noted that two very frightening events have just happened. Terrorism, for one, is a major scare tactic that can and does strike fear into millions. This was demonstrated by two suspected attacks in the U.S. recently (Bombing of Flight 800 and the Olympic Park bombing). Secondly, the threat of losing petroleum resources is enough to drive governments to drastic measures. This fact is evident in the world’s participation in the 1991 Gulf War. The leaders of the Soviet Union decided that the only way to prevent the total collapse of their economy and country was to seize the oil rich Middle East.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political aspirations . Also, when evaluating foreign policy, there are two methods of analysis: one is to concentrate on the output and documents produced by working backwards, deducing the intents of the various leaders from the end result; the other method is to focus on the politics of decisionmaking, viewing foreign policy as a result of individual political aims. The first approach focuses on the primary sources, while the other concentrates on the parties themselves. In this paper, I will give a comprehensive background of Israel-Egypt relations, and utilize the two forms of analyses to deduce what the goals of each party were at the time the treaty was signed, and use the lens of hindsight to evaluate whether their goals were met.
“One Arab nation from Gulf to the Ocean,” gives meaning to the term “Pan-Arabism” in the Middle East. A notion where Arab nations transcend their state boundaries to form political mergers with other states and achieve an ‘Arab unity.’ The existence of Arab states had been tumultuous throughout the decline of the Muslim order, the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian defeat, Six Day War and Arab-Israeli war in 1973. This essay will critically examine Foud Ajami’s case for a raison d’état in the Middle East and his claim that there were six broad trends leading to the alteration of the balance of power away from Pan-Arabism and towards the state. It will be argued that Pan-Arabism was a romantic ideology that Arab states found convenient to support, all in advancement of their nationalistic state agendas. It was never a realistic endeavor that was physically undertaken by the Arab states and was thus never alive in a tangible sense. However, Pan-Arabism as an ideology had a place in the Middle East and was thus alive in an ideological sense.
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 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.
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.
The author exposes how the American and Arabs cultures met and interacted. It is clear that the Arab people did not comprehend the changes they would face. Furthermore, the Americans had to adapt but somehow still overcome religion and tradition. Consequently, the beginning of the oil era brought financial wealth but for the greater part brought painful changes to Arab societies. It is difficult to understand how oil wealth did not completely modernize the Middle East for a greater good. Instead we know about the real situation in both the novel and the real Arab culture and how oil money paired with retroactive empires, old religious beliefs and self-absorbed Western governments took over.
The Arab world has been one of the most confusing areas known to the western world. Because of this confusion, the people of the Middle East have been made to suffer, not only at the hands of the west, but also by their own. Even though Arab and western world relations have been stabalizing, they are still long way off from achieving a lasting peace.
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.
Many argue that Realism or Neorealism explains the war most efficiently, however Constructivists claim that Realism’s disregard of the missing link between nation and state, identity and sovereignty, and statesmen and the international system shows that Realism is incapable of explaining the causes of the Six Day War (Wendt). Although both Realism and Constructivism explain most of the causes of Middle Eastern conflict, I argue that studying the Six Day War from a Neoclassical Realist viewpoint provides a more thorough working analysis because it clarifies aspects of the conflict included in all three levels of analysis to explain the motives, rationale, and behavior of the states and individuals involved. Neoclassical Realism provides the most thorough explanation of the conflict through its inclusion of relative power, state capacity and intentions, domestic politics, and, most importantly, the ability of state leaders to perceive the capabilities, intentions, and relative power of states in an effort to explain foreign policy