The Collapse Of The Soviet Union

Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is

Ronald Reagan is now one of the most controversial presidents of the past fifty years. Although all have their defenders and detractors, Reagan, though not necessarily a polarizing figure, was engaged in some behavior that has caused questions as people examine his decisions. He is probably best known for his ability to communicate his conservative ideals to the public, and had an innate ability to get people to follow him. Some would say though that his strong arm tactics began the alienation of the United States from the rest of the world, and has led to this moment in time in which the US is reviled by many countries. His chief objective seemed to be to stop the Cold War and end communism as it had stood for the better seven decades, and he did accomplish his task. However, he lacked the delicate diplomatic touch that many wished he would have used. But, he was strong in his convictions ad was not afraid to voice them to any country or individual leader he believed needed to be told how to act properly. This paper looks at the situation with Libya in 1986, examines Reagan's diplomatic doctrine as it applies to this situation, and then determines the immediate and eventual impact of Reagan-led US actions.

This investigation determines to what extent American foreign policy, within the years 1953-1982, caused the Iranian embassy siege. Furthermore, it questions the role that the Carter and Kennedy administrations had in furthering the American agenda within Iran. In order to assess the role American influence played, this investigation evaluates the relations between the Carter administration and Mohammed Raza Pahlevi during his tenure as Shah. Carter’s Middle-Eastern foreign policy is examined to gain further insight into the influence that the United States had over Pahlevi. Also, the role that the televised address from

This investigation assesses the Reagan Administration and its inconsistent foreign policy in regards to Iran. The Iran-Contra Affair was a controversial crisis for the fortieth president. It involved two parts: the selling of weapons to Iran and then the siphoning of that money to Nicaragua. However, in this investigation, the situation with Iran will be more prominently discussed, rather than the Nicaraguan situation. The foreign policy pertaining to the Middle East will be analyzed for its confusion and complexity. The two sources used in this essay, The Long Road to Baghdad: A History of U.S. Foreign Policy from the 1970s to the Present by Lloyd C. Gardner and The Reagan Diaries by Ronald Reagan and edited by

American-Iranian tensions have permeated the media for the past several years. Iran, a strategically positioned remnant of the Persian-Empire, a country with rampant anti-western ideology that is held by its’ highest echelons of authority will launch its own atomic program in the second half of 2015. The origin of American-Iranian tensions are often shrouded but modern relations directly stem from the 1953 Coup d'état, also known as TPAJAX. In its infancy, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the primary planning agency for TPAJAX, would set the stage for American foreign policy throughout the second half of the 20th century and the remainder of the Cold War. The question is: was TPAJAX successful?

From Theodore Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal, presidential power over foreign matters has grown substantially, loosening its grip on the United States’ long standing policy of isolationism; officially abandoning it in the 1940s, when Frederick D. Roosevelt and the United States involved themselves in the infamous World War II. Today, the president of the United States works closely with the National Security Council (NSC), an agency of the Executive Office of the President, to council and advises him on all international, domestic and militaristic matters (American Gov’t, 420). Although the Constitution does not explicitly touch on all areas of foreign policy, it is up to Congress and the federal government to set Constitutional precedents. Over the years, the presidents that have been in office must consult the NSC and all other executive office agencies in order to be well informed on matters and in the process make rational decisions as the biggest world power in the world. In order to fully understand, whether or not an increase in presidential powers is justified when it comes to foreign affairs, it is imperative to assess the works of different presidents since the World War II era onward and the effects it has had on its people, the world, and the country. An increase in presidential power is not justified when it comes to foreign affairs and policy because although they are the representation of the United States when travelling abroad or taking a stance

The United States has engaged in numerous international interventions in the Middle East. The two major events that have shaped the politics of U.S. foreign policy, Israel, and the Arab states are the Suez Crisis of 1956 and the Six Day War of 1967. President Eisenhower and President Johnson each took different approaches while confronting these crises. The personalities, motives and predispositions of the Presidents and their circle of closest advisors explain how they shaped their policies and how they responded to the events. The decisions these Presidents made have had a long-lasting effect on the region. Over the course of this paper, I will compare Eisenhower’s policies in the 1956 Suez Crisis and Johnson’s policies in the 1967 Six

This paper will begin by providing background information on the Iranian Hostage Crises, then shifts to the different viewpoints taken by the divisions of the executive branch. This will provide the different policy options and supporting actors. The final part of the paper will focus on the foreign policy outcome.

In the year 2014, The United States and Iran are considering working together in order to put a stop to the threats posed by the militant group, Isis. This is a big step for the two countries since just in 2013, the United States threatened to use force against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even though, the two countries are facing a common enemy, Iraq; this does not reduce the tension that the U.S and Iran have towards each other. For 60 years, the U.S. had a tumultuous relationship with Iran. From the removal of Iran Prime Minister in 1953 to the most recent, Iran’s nuclear agenda, the United States have been involved. This raises the questions of how did the U.S. involvement in past history shape current Iran

Iran has posed a prominent threat against the United States for decades, and after their long strenuous ordeal, a controversial, yet tolerable agreement has been committed. To many, this compromise is anything but beneficial given its short timeframe, but others are greatly relieved with such an agreement altogether. This article is truly eye opening and personally helped me form a better perspective of an important ordeal in the world. Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, it is a read that keeps the reader informed and engrossed throughout every line. The author effectively connected emotionally to the audience, used diction, and listed many facts, that each were incorporated throughout the article in order to enhance the article’s persuasive

When asked today who controls the majority of the foreign policy of the United States, an American would probably answer, “The Executive Branch.” However, the legislative branch plays a role in foreign affairs as well. When President Obama traveled to Cuba, twenty members of congress accompanied him. In fact there once was a time, a small window in post World War II America, where the executive branch would not dare to make a decision without consulting the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations. Instead, President Truman committed himself to working with members of his own party as well as Republicans to foster a bipartisan, decisive congress. World War II had created a perfect storm for bipartisanship to flourish: Europe was in tatters,

In the late 20th century, the government of the United States was going through a difficult time. Having just came out of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States were in a state of political and military tension known as the Cold War. Little attention did the government of the United States give to the other issues at hand. While, in the Middle East there was a storm forming, the citizens of Iran were undergoing an evolution into a democratic government; breaking apart from it monarchical rule. During this extremely crucial phase for Iran, the U.S. and United Kingdom stepped in to overthrow this democratic development to strengthen their own agendas. In response to this corruption that caused oppression amongst the Iranian people, they rose up against the U.S. and held our citizen’s hostage. This was known as the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. In this essay we will discuss how the evolving decisions and events that built up to the Iranian Hostage Crisis were due to a shortsightedness and lack of the understanding of people.

Since the United States became the world’s sole superpower, the Middle East has been seen as the most troublesome region in the world by US politicians. This view emanates from all the conflicts going in the Middle East that have the potential to threaten numerous strategic interests for the united Stated such as oil, terrorist, and Israel. Yet Middle East has never seen as problematic as it is now due to the excessive flux of problems the Middle East is struggling with. This increasingly conflicting nature of the region demands the US policymakers to reevaluate American policy in the Middle East to secure US interests. Unfortunately, American policy in the past three decades toward the

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has been regarded as the biggest diplomatic failure in the United States history. While this seems to be an over sensationalized statement, analyzing the dispute system design, cross-cultural negotiation, and resistance points of the deal, may shed further insight on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and how the United States resolves conflict with Middle Eastern nations.

begins selective but direct diplomatic engagement with Iran. As Henry Kissinger stated, “the United States should be prepared to reach a geopolitical understanding with Iran on the basis of Westphalian principles of non-intervention and develop a compatible concept of region order.” # This does not mean the U.S. must abandon the ideals and values that we hold dear, but rather understand that every country does not and will not adhere to the same principles that we have come to cherish over the past 240 years. Additionally, this does not prevent the U.S. from actively engaging with a nation that is diametrically opposed to our governing principles.