Threat Of Terror

Peace, a wish every nation struggles to gain, with war taking over our history and the present day. But when speaking of peace two countries that could be looked at a little longer are Israel and Palestine, these states have struggled with war and violence for years. It seems they have been stuck in an ongoing war for years, not only with other nations but also each other. The Middle East as a whole, has been stuck in a dark shadow, because of extremism and terror which are stopping progress and killing innocents. In Bush’s speech “Israel-Palestine Two-State Solution” his overall purpose is to bring peace within these two states and to lower the rates of violence along with war. Which both are two major key elements when speaking of these states, the having been engulfed by war for years and seem to be completely surrounded by it.Bush’s speech is directed to Israelis and palestinians, he delivers a solution to help violence within their states, which is a comprehensive plan. He makes himself appear truthful by making direct eye contact with various

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

While the aftermath of World War II is often referred to as one of the primary creators of deep rooted turmoil in the Middle East region, the effects of the Cold War and the United States often over-zealous battle against communism is just as much a contributor if not more. The Arab world and the Middle East region were clearly going through quite an extraordinary period throughout World War II and its conclusion, primarily with the creation of most of the states we recognize today and struggling with the continuation of colonialism. These factors set the stage for the emergence of strong nationalist sentiments and Pan-Arab movements across the Middle East. Unfortunately, and much to the detriment of the region, the leaders of these young

Looking back to 1953, the nation was at a much different place. However, the decisions that were made in 1953 greatly impacted the nation’s involvement in terrorism today. Stephen Kinzer, author of All The Shah’s Men, addresses how the United States’ role in the 1953 CIA coup in Iran leads up to modern terrorism that can be seen in society currently. Additionally, Kinzer is a very credible source considering he has worked in more than fifty countries and is an award-winning foreign journalist. Furthermore, Kinzer has been the New York Times bureau chief in multiple different countries; some being Berlin, Managua, Nicaragua, and Istanbul. With that being said, Kinzer has a vast amount of knowledge regarding the nation’s role in foreign affairs. According to Kinzer, the 1953 CIA coup in Iran politically destabilized the nation, led to the rise of modern terrorism, and immensely affected the CIA’s reputation. This paper examines Kinzer’s arguments with the assessment that the nation involving itself in foreign affairs undeniably leads to unintended consequences.

The complexity of America’s relationship with Iran increased steadily beginning in 1908, when Iran struck oil. The Shah, the king or emperor of Iran, after taking the place of his young predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi with the help of the CIA, led Iran into a period of extreme wealth and prosperity, the likes of which the Iranian people had never experienced. However, with the growth of wealth in Iran came the growth of Iranian resentment towards the West, specifically the United States. The Iranian’s resented the uneven distribution of wealth that they felt existed and the United State’s influence in “westernizing” their society. In 1963, this growing hatred led to a conflict with the Islamic clergy. The conflict was quickly settled by the Shah, but he was unaware that this dispute was the beginning

“ The Islamic Revolution of 1979: The Downfall of American- Iranian Relations” analyzes American- Iranian diplomacy from 1953- 1979. It is an explanation of the causes and developments of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and

The US's interference in the Middle East was seen by many Americans as a charitable endeavor, with the US as a benevolent nation willing to swoop in and save the Middle East from itself. However, many Middle-Easterners didn't agree with this view, especially as Westernization was often a prerequisite for acceptance by US citizens, both within and outside of US borders. History had already taught us this lesson – in the Filipino revolt against the US troops who attempted to occupy their country and save them by shaping and imposing a government upon them. The quote 'resentment against American policy was still evident a century later' (Judis) goes to show how interference in other country's government processes could understandably breed pervasive anger within a country for years after. However, this anger sometimes appeared unjustified and arrogant to Americans who were far removed from the situation. The result of a nation rejecting what many American citizens saw as a selfless offer of help was often discrimination and

In June of 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went up to 600 people at the American University in Cairo and delivered a very powerful speech on the advancement of democracy in the Middle East. “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," she declared, “Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.” Her speech was seen as an attack on the Egyptian government. She addressed how they intimidated and incarcerated the opposition and also claimed for President Hosni Mubarak to carry our free and fair elections. Since Egypt is of strategic importance to the U.S., it sets the ground of American foreign policy in the Middle East. This essay will address U.S.-Egyptian relations as well as alternatives to U.S. policies in order to achieve democracy and stability in the region.

Conflict over energy resources—and the wealth and power they create—has become an increasingly prominent feature for geopolitics particularly in the Middle East . The discovery of oil in the late nineteenth century added a dimension to the region as major outside states powers employed military force to protect their newly acquired interests in the Middle East. The U.S.’s efforts to secure the flow of oil have led to ever increasing involvement in the Middle East region’s political affairs and ongoing power struggles. By the end of the twentieth century, safeguarding the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf had become one of the most important functions of the U.S. military establishment. The close relationship between the United States and the Saudi royal family was formed in the final months of World War II, when U.S. leaders sought to ensure preferential access to Saudi petroleum. The U.S. link with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region has demonstrated to be greatly beneficial to both parties, yet it has also led to ever deepening U.S. involvement in regional politics.

Martin Luther King once said, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only achieved by understanding”. King’s speech talks about a denial of the Nobel Prize until most of the conflict between races are abolished. In his speech, he describes violence is not a key to stop the segregation but to communicate and understand how to live in tranquility. In President Obama’s nobel speech, there is many indistinguishable claims that goes with King’s speech which Obama describes that war won't bring peace because it comes with sacrifices. Consequently, there is evidences that they both thought peace is precious to their own country and the rest of the

Due to their desire to gain economic assets and spread their ideals, the United States has obtained a reputation of forcefully administering their beliefs and attempting to mediate relations to their preference in other nations. Even if these endeavors were reasonable in the late 20th century, financial and international developments in the world and in the U.S. have made them increasingly unfavorable to undertake in recent years i.e.- they have led to a gradual withdrawal of national allies and universal beginnings of anti-Americanism. It is written in the Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection that “The U.S’ military has been severely stretched by its commitment in Iraq” and that “The U.S’ reputation in the world has been tarnished”(Iraq Wars).

The United States of America, since the end of the greatest war our world has gone through WWII, has believed itself to be a world "hegemony." However, at the turn of the millennium, that title seems to have outgrown its welcome. The United States, over the past fifty years, has placed her focus to those nations in need of a democratic government. However, while the United States may have had the best interests at heart, or even on the surface, this foreign policy needs to be revamped to meet the needs of the international community, if the United States is to continue playing the “World Police” card. In the "War on Terror" the United States begins a new round of missionary democracy across the Middle East, at least, in the invasive manner

The US has had relations with Iran ever since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. The United States real engagement with Iran dates only from World War 2. The relationship has been punctuated first by the involvement of the CIA in the coup of 1953. The US dealt with one ruler, Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who came to the throne in 1941 and continued to rule for almost four decades. In this period, the relationship was governed by a number of enduring and persistent features. On the American side, the interest in Iran was due in large part to the country’s strategic location, bordering, on the one side, the Persian, Gulf and on the outer, at least until the collapse of the Soviet Union, sharing a very

Even before the tragic day of September 11th, 2001 an important question lingered on the minds of political powers around the world. Will the Middle East (the perceived homeland of all that is civil and governmental unrest) ever experience peace within their own country? Will they ever be able to experience the sense of unity that comes with maintaining a collaborative relationship with the outside world? Or are they destined to remain a picturesque version of all that is wrong with the world, feeding their image with bloody attacks and a fanatical, violent, and obsessive religious movement? The path to peace has yet to be clearly identified, announced or plotted into action, but the possibility (although hard to imagine) of peace is quite

Throughout human history, people have migrated from place to place due to various factors such as economic factors, natural disasters, conflicts and sometimes, simply for a change of scenery. Historically, migration has had beneficial and adverse effects globally; it has also played a very significant role in the current state of affairs in the world today. Some advantageous effects include the sharing of ideas from diverse backgrounds, innovation, technological advancement, cultural diversity and the growth of many wealthy nations today. On the other hand some disadvantages include colonialism, enslavement, local populations having their land usurped; dispersal of fatal diseases due to lack of immunity against them, leading to whole