Political Issues Between The United States And The Soviet Union

The tension between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War allowed for both nations to exhibit questionable actions around the globe. The Iran-Contra Affair was one event that occurred under Reagan’s Administration that exemplified the trans-national impacts the Cold War was having around the world. The Affair is a combination of the United States’ actions within the countries of Nicaragua and Iran. However, the United States’ involvements were both ethically questionable as well as the motives of the Cold War. Although the actions in Nicaragua and Iran were separate actions, they showed how the government was involved in questionable activity around the globe while in the full-swing of the Cold War. The Iran Contra

Despite the unsuccessful past during the Cold War years between the United States and the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan and his counterpart the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev during the 1980s should have focused on bright future by reducing the nuclear arms, because having a partnership, friendship and the common goal will move two nations toward success. On 1985, in an effort to improve the international situation, the United States and the Soviet Union have decided to hold a meeting in Switzerland, Geneva. It was a first official meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, to discuss reductions in nuclear weapons and talk about future partnerships. Geneva Summit led on to four further meetings in 1986 Reykjavik, in 1987 in Washington, Moscow in 1988, and the last one in New York Harbour in 1988.

In October, 1956 Israeli armed forces pushed into Egypt toward the Suez Canal, causing the Suez Crisis. They were then joined by French and British forces, creating a serious Cold War problem in the Middle East. Egypt was supported by Soviet arms and money, and also furious with the United States for reneging on a promise to provide funds for a promise construction of the Aswan Dam on the Nile River, Nasser ordered the Suez Canal seized and nationalized, forbidding passage of British and French goods. On October 14, Nasser said “ I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel’s intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in

When it comes to international conflicts, countries choose a side to fight with, creating alliances between nations. A variety of factors such as the advantages they will be able to receive from each other are always put into consideration. The 1956 Suez Crisis was fought over the control of the Suez Canal, and brought together the alliance of three influential and dominant countries; Britain, France, and Israel (Pearce 215). These nations hoped to gain numerous benefits such as western domination, being able to remove Nasser, Egypt’s president from power, a stronger military force, security, and control over the Suez Canal for their country by being allies during the Suez Crisis.

Eisenhower’s view that the way to prevent the spread of communism to the Middle East was by promoting stability in the region between both the Western powers and the Arab powers went on to guide his policy towards the Middle East. Eisenhower’s goals for US involvement in the Middle East “reflected the president’s own cold war ideology and included promoting regional stability, guaranteeing the free flow of Middle Eastern oil to Western Europe, supporting Arab nationalism and Israeli independence, improving relationships with the Arab states, hastening the decline of European empires, maintaining the solidarity of the Western alliance, and avoiding an arms race between Israel and its Arab neighbors, with the United States and Russia the principal arms suppliers” (Ambrose 328-329). The President’s commitment to these goals of maintaining relationships and containing communism accounts for many of the trends that would characterize Eisenhower’s conduct in the Middle East. Among these trends were: Eisenhower’s reliance on frequent-but-informal consultations with a small number of appointees; his tendency to try and delay the inevitable for as long as possible as to allow for planning; his hesitation towards nearly any action, whether it be to take action or to cease taking action; his encouragement for vagueness and secrecy pertaining to the Crisis; and finally, his ability to firmly and effectively communicate his full executive power. Eisenhower’s

Nasser himself was concerned about his own military and even though Eisenhower was the President, John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles appeared to have more power in the government. Interestingly enough, the Suez Crisis was not just between Britain and Egypt, as both France and Israel were involved, as were other nations. There was an issue between Iraq and Egypt, France and Algeria, Israel and Jordan. Although the United States was not involved initially, it did become a major player along with the United Nations. Even Canada, through Lester B. Pearson became involved in policing the ceasefire and bringing in the Emergency

The crisis of 1957 served to expedite the split of the Middle East into separate Soviet and American camps, a process that had been relatively blurry immediately following World War II. Following his victory against the Tripartite aggression, Nasser began to forge a path towards a broader

Throughout the Cold War, the United States aimed to contain communism all over the globe. The Middle East was a strategic location, considering that it contained a huge percentage of Earth’s oil, which was a vital resource, while the Suez Canal was a key feature, due to its geographical location. By diminishing the influence of communism in the Middle East, the United States achieved its objective of spreading its political and economic ideals. American actions in the Middle East predominantly were aligned with U.S. value of capitalism. Despite the fact that, some of these actions in this region such as Operation Ajax and the Suez Crisis, contradicted the value

Within the US the major players are President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers. John Foster Dulles was the secretary of state and his brother, Allen Dulles, was head of the newly established Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While Eisenhower was in the hospital following his medical emergencies, these two, for all intents and purposes, controlled foreign affairs. John Foster Dulles was in the middle of a major health crisis, but aside from his hospitalization, its effects on his decision making are rarely mentioned. In 1956 Sir Anthony Eden led the British as prime minister. He also experienced severe health complications, but Nichols hardly mentions them either, leaving the reader with a very negative perception of Eden and his leadership. Prime Minister Guy Mollet led France during the Suez Crisis, but the author provides even less information about him than he does regarding Eden. Israel at this time was commanded by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, a hawkish diplomat with a burning desire to see the fall of Nasser and his anti-Israeli regime. The USSR’s leader, Premier Nikolia Bulganin, is typically portrayed as a reasonable man, aside from his brutal repression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Neither he, nor President Eisenhower wanted to be the cause of the next major global conflict. The final main character is President Gamal Abd al-Nasser. Nichols does an excellent job of painting Nasser to be a prudent, approachable, and non-violent leader. Despite his dislike of Israel, he was willing to cooperate with pro-Israeli nations in order to achieve peace. Throughout the book, the author gives great attention to the personal interactions between these key players, adding a level of detail and intimacy with the characters unseen in many accounts of this same

At the time, The Middle East were starting to like the United States, the states that started liking us were Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others because of us helping them fight against the Soviets.”

Britain viewed Nasser as a reckless dictator who had potential to massively threaten western power in the Middle East, the power of Britain and ultimately tip the balance in the cold war.

The revolutionary regime in Egypt appeared to fulfill US aspirations in the Middle East in a sense that it was sufficiently opposed to communism and at the same time appeared to have generated popular sympathy. When in the fall of 1954 Nasser stated his willingness to align with the west while seeing the USSR as the only real threat to Egypt’s independence, the United States responded by providing propaganda for Nasser’s regime in Egypt and the Arab world. The appearance of solidarity, however, was soon to be tested.

This paper will argue that rather than being a hindrance to U.S. security interests, Egypt has the potential to be one of its greatest allies. To do this, it will first look at the overall importance of Egypt in the National Security’s objectives of the United States. It will then review the history of US-Egyptian Relations, Egypt’s military involvement with the United States, and the recent political changes that are shaping Egypt’s future. Then finally this paper will take a moment to exam the leadership of Egypt’s newest President, Abdel Fatteh el-Sisi. In doing so we will be able to see how Egypt is poised to be a key player, in accomplishing the U.S. security objectives, and gain a better understanding of why the U.S. must make it a priority to support Egypt’s newly established leadership.

The Middle East is a region to which the superpowers attached great significance and in which they evidenced great attention. The United States and the Soviet Union became the main external powers of significance in the Middle East in the period since the end of World War II but mostly since the mid-1950s and the withdrawal of British and French influence from the region. The superpowers had conflicting and similar interests and their policies often clashed, but they avoided direct conflict while their respective clients were occupied in war. The Arab League, an organisation that represented all of the Arab countries, promised its support for Nasser and Arab enmity towards Israel amplified still further. There were also key changes in other parts of the Middle East, which had conventionally supported the West. The pro-western system in Iraq was overthrown in 1958 and Syria and Libya both began to look to the Soviet Union for military aid. In 1958 Syria and Egypt created the United Arab Republic, this lasted for three years until a revolution in Syria in 1961. Nasser had hoped that this would be the foundation for the Pan-Arab movement that he dreamed of. In 1964 Nasser supported the starting up of the Palestine Liberation organisation. A few incidents, such as the Suez Crisis led to Superpower involvement in the Middle East on a large scale. From being a Middle Eastern concern, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors became a potential global crisis point. To try to

The Suez war began in 1956 when the President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Due to the canal’s great importance to the British and they colluded with Israel and France to regain control of the canal. The Suez Canal was especially important to the British because it connected the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea. (Milner) This strategic location allowed them to trade and move across the world giving them control of their colonies. However, on July 26, 1956 President Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal due to his anger at the British for withdrawing their loan offer to Egypt. (Milner) Consequently, the nationalization of the canal was a strategic move to lessen the British’s economic and political control of Egypt, which had lasted since 1882. Many Egyptians were unhappy with British’s occupation of their country so Nasser’s policies were popular in the Middle East. This was because the “expression of national