The Middle East Peace Process

The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were

To start, Carter says outright what his vision for America was: “...but America does want to be the world's peacemaker.” Furthermore, Carter continues with his vision for America’s peace-seeking foreign policy. He does this by talking about SALT, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: “The purpose of SALT, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.” By speaking about the importance of the SALT, Carter effectively laid out what his plan was to secure peace amongst nuclear-armed nations. However, at the same time, President Carter made sure to lay out what America wanted to achieve in the immediate short-term regarding foreign policy: “Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East.” As written before, it was strategically important to the United States that they maintain the sovereignty of Israel. Specifically, after failing to intervene in China during the uprising of the KMT, it

Since his presidency did not begin with Israel becoming a state, his focus was greatly adjusted and at first there was a noticeable decline in aid and care for Israel’s wellbeing. Israel was also rather vulnerable during this time, due to the fact that there more Jewish refugees entering Israel from surrounding Arab states. President Eisenhower convincingly proved that America had the ability to influence Israel in a good way, although his presidency ended with the Middle East still in a state of war. During Eisenhower’s administration, there were two successful incidents of U.S. management of Israel and in both circumstances, Eisenhower avoided the political compulsions of America’s attachment to Israel and instead forced the Israelis to act upon principle. Unfortunately, his presidency was the last to give Israel undivided focus, for the ones to follow were absorbed in other affairs and did not provide the same constructive support.

• President Carter arranged the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt. (In the Middle East, America favored the country of Israel. The Soviet Union favored Israel’s Arab neighbors.)

The United States history during 1977 to 1989 went through two presidencies and whirlwind of events happened. When President Jimmy Carter became president he wanted to lower the inflation rates to make life easier for the people of the United States. While that was his goal it got completely derailed. Near the end of Jimmy Carters presidency, a group of Iranian students took over the U.S Embassy in Tehran and took people hostage. Over the course of the 444 days the hostages where held captive while the people of the United States voted for a new president to help lead them into a new direction. The people voted for Ronald Reagan. While he was president things didn’t go as he planned as well. The issues with Iran did not calm down and escalated to something bigger. After the Iran hostage crisis, the US had another issues with Iran and it was the Iran- Contra affair. During this essay I will be talking about the book called “Taken Hostage” by David Farber and the information in the book. The book is about the time frame of Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the issues with Iran and the hostage crisis. The second half of my essay is towards President Ronald Reagan’s and the issues about the Iran- Contra affair and the lasting issues between Iran and the United states.

The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the most dramatic events in a series of problems that took place during President Jimmy Carter’s term. The crisis, beginning in November of 1979, received the most coverage of any major event since World War II. It was one of many problems faced in light of the United State’s complex relationship with Iran. The effects on both the US and Iran were astronomical, especially politically as well as economically and socially. It took a heavy toll on American relations with the Middle East and changed the way we engage in foreign affairs. In light of this crisis, Iran started an international war that we are still fighting thirty-two years later.

It’s debatable whether President Jimmy Carter would have won the election of 1980 if the Iranian Hostage Crisis never happened. However, even the most profound of historians know that the conflict with Iran did indeed spark the beginning of the Ronald Reagan era and put Jimmy Carter in company with only a select number of presidents to not be re-elected to a second term. President Carter’s inability to resolve the problem made him look like a weak and ineffectual leader. Perhaps the most demonstrative example of the president’s inadequacy was an ill-advised executive decision that he made in April of 1980, the same year of the election. With lagging and inauspicious diplomacy talks ongoing with Iran, Carter grew frustrated. Not backed by his most important advisors, the president made the call to

Baxter, K. and Akbarzadeh, Shahram, _US foreign policy in the Middle East_, Routledge, London, 2008.

Former President Jimmy Carter is frequently referred to as a champion of human rights. While his presidency is deemed mostly unsuccessful in handling domestic affairs, such as unemployment and a sharp increase of inflation, Carter is well respected for his attempts to negotiate peace across the world. One of his better-known attempts is the Camp David Accords, in which Carter brought Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat together to discuss peace between the two nations. While most Americans see the Camp David Accords as progress toward peace, Arab leaders felt the opposite.

The Camp David Accords were signed on September 17, 1978 at the presidential retreat Camp David. It was a peace treaty between the two warring nations Israel and Egypt and was paired with a shuffle in territory. U.S. president Jimmy Carter accompanied Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian leader Anwar El Sadat for the negotiations. These events led to more interaction with Egypt and Israel, paved the way for future diplomatic meetings, and contributed to a psychological shift in Israel.

Background: In the midst of the Cold War and the Arab-Israeli conflict, conflict arose over Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was of particular concern due to Nasser’s increased connection with the Soviet Union, through the Czech Arms agreement and the Aswan Dam. Following Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt. In facing this crisis, the U.S. had to consider Cold War politics with the Soviet Union, relations with Arab and Israeli nations, and relations with the invading powers

There will never be peace in the Middle East. The idea of peace in a certain region is a silly notion. What region has truly ever known peace? Allow me to rephrase my thesis: There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as western powers intervene into Arab affairs. It is common knowledge that throughout history western powers have colonized, occupied, and exploited indigenous people in the name of national interest, national security, and manifest destiny. The Middle East is not exempt. It started with British intervention into Egyptian affairs, controlling the Suez Canal in the name of national interest, then the deposing of an elected government in Iran to stop the western-controlled oil companies

By 1978 the thirty-year war that had been fought between Egypt and Israel had come to a point where there was a chance for peace. The area that had been at the center of the turmoil was the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip. The problem was that both countries believed that they had the rights to this land: Israel, biblically and Egypt, politically. So an invitation by President Jimmy Carter to President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel was extended. The invitation was for a meeting in the Catoctin Mountains of Maryland at the presidential retreat, Camp David. The meeting was so that the framework of a peace agreement, known as the Camp David

Is peace possible in the Middle East? This question weighs heavy on the minds of many individuals and international players. Turmoil and conflict in the Middle East not only affects the people inhabiting this region, but also has global consequences. To answer this question, one must analyze the sources of conflict in the Middle East, historically, currently, and in the future. The limited amount of natural resources in this region has arguably served as the most major source of conflict in the Middle East. Other contributing factors to conflict are the leadership styles of the key players in positions of power, and religious strife. History is often the best indicator for the future. Unfortunately, the Middle East has had a history of

Many disagreements would arise in the negotiation process of the Camp David Summit that would lead it to be unsuccessful. Disagreements such as the division of territory, the dispute over Jerusalem, Security and Refugee arrangements arose in the negotiations. However, most of the criticism for the failure at Camp David Summit was not pressed on toward the disagreement, it was pressed on Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. In this paper, it will mention about blaming Arafat, disagreement on the “right of return”, Disagreement on Land swap, and disagreement on the proposed map as the reason for the failure at Camp David Summit.