The Suez Canal Crisis

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

faced from the Soviets in the mid to late 1940’s as that logically drives the foreign policy process. This is best captured in American Orientalism by Douglas Little and the chapter on U.S. policy towards Egypt (1949-1956) by Peter Hahn in The Middle East and the United States. The U.S. was faced with the possibility of an expansionist and dangerous Soviet Russia that stood to challenge the West in the Middle East, a serious threat to the access to Persian Gulf oil, which among other things, would hurt the European and Japanese recovery efforts. This claim against the Soviets seemed reasonable enough through the eyes of U.S. policymakers since the Soviets were already in Iran and continually positioning for control of the Dardanelles from Turkey. Furthermore, any strategic thought experiment could easily conclude that the Soviets would gain a huge advantage in an actual war if they could gain control over the Persian Gulf area; therefor they would most likely try to attempt it militarily, diplomatically, or both. After adding in additional crisis going on such as the Greek civil war earlier and the Korean War later, it is clear to see the line of thought leading to Truman’s doctrine of U.S. national security relying on the containment of the Soviet Union in the Middle East.

Even though the United States emerged as a clear victor of World War I, many Americans after the war felt that their involvement in the conflict had been a mistake (Markus Schoof, “The American Experience During World War II,” slide 3). This belief, however, did not deter the country from engaging in many other international affairs in the future, most importantly the WWII and the Cold War. Right from the Manifest Destiny, which led to expand its empire at home and abroad, to the World War I, the country had come a long way from being somewhat a lonely-land to a global superpower of the 20th century. Its influence in the international arena grew unprecedently after its commitment to the World War II, and like they say, the rest is history. If the WWII was a resounding success to the American legacy, what followed, the Cold War, put many implications on the American diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and to the world. Although the rising Fascism in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor drove the U.S. to enter the WWII, historians over the years have laid equal blames on both nations for starting the Cold War. These two events helped in shaping up many domestic and foreign policies for the U.S.

There are people who suggest that President Eisenhower was “cautious in . . . international affairs.” Assess the validity of this statement in regard to policies toward Korea, Vietnam, the Suez Crisis, Iran, Israel, and the Soviet Union.

The 1970s was a rough time for Americans. The economy was struggling and gas prices were doublings, sometimes gas stations even ran out of gas. While all this was going on, the media caught the attention of the American people on the story of the sixty six hostages that were captured in Tehran. Soon that became the center of attention. Both in Iran and America, people focused on what would happen and especially how President Jimmy Carter would respond. In his book, Taken Hostage, David Farber closely examines the events that led up to the hostage crisis. He informs us of America’s first encounter with radical Islam and what had caused the conflict between them. For four hundred and forty-four days, President Carter tried to put effort into resolving the issues but he failed on releasing the hostages. Since the American people paid close attention to this issue, they were highly disappointed with President Carter and his processes. From our class lectures and throughout the tensions illustrated in Farber’s book, we learn of how the role of Cold War policy had fueled the crisis between the United States and “Radical Islam”, the Cold War policy shaping the response of the U.S. to the crisis, and also understanding the present War on Terror.

Hiram Maxim created Machine Gun and in 1883, he created the first multi bullet-firing weapon. This lead to wider development of automatic weapons which were later used in war. (Note: the 1862 Gatling gun which was ran by hand cranking.)

“The Middle East, which has been converted by Russia ,Would today be prized more than ever by international communism.” Thesis: While all Cold War presidents wanted to stop communism,they all had different ideas on how to accomplish that issue.President truman used economic aid. President Eisenhower focused on military aid.President Kennedy used military use.

After Egypt seized the Suez Canal, and with military assistance to protestors when Cuba became communist, American interfered with negotiation. America felt assured enough to use the military to help South Vietnam in the fight against both the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, after the reasonable achievement in resolving a disaster in Cuba with the Soviet Union. This war became a war of terrible magnitudes and a mortifying incident in American history. In order to resolve struggles between Egypt, Syria and Israel, America became engaged with the Middle East, using negotiation and military materials The United States also tried to fix two problems by trying to resolve struggles with Libya, South Africa and Iran while simultaneously having problem with the Russians in the Cold War.

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.

On the other extreme is Jimmy Carter, president from 1977 to 1981. Ranked last for both his foreign affairs and his overall presidency, Carter left the Oval Office a very unpopular man. Carter’s sole accolade came from the Camp David Accords of 1978-9. Carter invited Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian prime minister Anwar Sadat to Camp David, the presidential retreat, to work out an agreement. Carter played a major role in the negotiations, mediating a dispute that resulted in a peace treaty, that is still intact to this day. Not only did this agreement lay down a long-held peace between two neighboring countries, but it also solidified U.S. ties in the Middle-East. Carter’s other policies and actions are very different, such as the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. These treaties between Panama and the U.S. granted Panama control over the Canal as of 1999 for almost nothing in response. The conservatives of Americans felt as though Carter had “given away” the Canal without receiving anything in return, and this made them believe that our nation was becoming weak under his power. The people’s “Crisis of Confidence” clearly and accurately portrays the conservative’s opinions during Carter’s presidency.

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

With this book, a major element of American history was analyzed. The Cold War is rampant with American foreign policy and influential in shaping the modern world. Strategies of Containment outlines American policy from the end of World War II until present day. Gaddis outlines the policies of presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, including policies influenced by others such as George Kennan, John Dulles, and Henry Kissinger. The author, John Lewis Gaddis has written many books on the Cold War and is an avid researcher in the field. Some of his other works include: The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War

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

The Suez War or Crisis of 1956 was a geopolitical conflict between Egypt with Israel, Great Britain, and France. Just War theory will be used to assess the “just” qualities of the British’s involvement in the war. Great Britain’s role in the war does not fit within any of the categories of being a just war in either “jus ad bellum” or in “jus in bello.” A “just war” can be justified if it brings peace to a region however; in this case, the Suez War was fought to retain the British’s colonial powers among other reasons.

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.