Rhetorical Analysis
Since entering office, President Donald Trump has taken a hostile stance towards Iran, and now threatens to end the era of rapprochement that prevailed during the Obama Administration. This would be a significant mistake that would bode ill for both the United States and Iran. While detractors of President Obama’s policy towards Iran argue that it strengthens the oppressive regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the opposite is actually true. Friendly relations between the United States and Iran undermine the fear mongering rhetoric of Khamenei and his hardliner allies and strengthen the arguments of the reformist coalition in Iran. The success of this more moderate faction of Iranians serves United States’ interests in that it eliminates an …show more content…
Unlike the harsh rhetoric espoused by his predecessors that were more closely aligned with Khamenei's hardline conservative faction, Khatami offered a much different vision that resonated with the Iranian people. Once in office, Khatami introduced the proposal of a “Dialogue Among Civilizations”, which sought to create a peaceful coexistence between Iran and the West where the two sides could reconcile their differences through constructive dialogue rather than saber rattling. Clinton responded by sending Secretary of State Madeleine Albright over to Iran in 2000, where she apologized for the United States’ meddling in Iranian politics during the shah’s reign and their misguided support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War (CNN). For the first time since the Islamic Revolution, the United States was making concrete steps towards rapprochement with Iran. Supreme Leader Khamenei attempted to undercut this effort in his response to Albright’s trip stating that, “The Iranian nation and its authorities consider the United States to be their enemy because America's past behavior is full of acts of hostility and treason” (BBC World News). However, with public support backing him, Khatami persisted, initiating meetings with French and German leaders as well, while he and Clinton continued to signal public statements of support to each
Summary Of Taken Hostage By David Farber
635 Words | 3 Pagesembassy in Tehran and seized control of the embassy. Farber provides both an international and domestic viewpoint on the crisis, which offers the reader more of an outlook on the situation. Farber’s international viewpoint provides the reader with the look into the origins of the situation and the policies the United States had put in place in Iran. These policies include the part in ousting Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh by the United States, the United States backing of the Shah and the inclination of policy makers to turn their backs to the problem of authoritarianism in Iran, which was causing suffering for the people in the country. These problems began when the United States took interest in the Middle East in the 1970’s because of its oil rich ground.
How Did Faulty Foreign Policy Lead To Jimmy Carter Downfall
2363 Words | 10 PagesJimmy Carter and his advisers believed that many of the traditional rationales that had guided U.S. foreign policy for over a generation were now outmoded and inappropriate to altered world realities.[footnoteRef:10] His most famous mistake and something that is remembered in his legacy was how he handled the Iranian hostage crisis (4th November 1979 to 20th January 1981. It was this crisis that many considered to be the final nail on Carter’s coffin. The crisis initially started due to a Western and Iranian dispute over oil. When Iran elected their new Prime Minister; Muhammad Mossadegh, in 1951, he nationalised the countries oil trade which would alter British and American control over Iran’s investment.
Who Was Jimmy Carter In The Iranian Hostage Crisis
1451 Words | 6 PagesBefore the crisis, the Shah, Iran’s leader fled Iran. Iranians did not like the Shah, and dislikes the way of his ruling. Iran declined military treaties with the United States. Iran did not side with anyone during this 3 year period. Jimmy Carter tried to make relations better with Iran, but Iran did not acknowledge it.
Summary Of When Religion Becomes Lethal By Charles Kimball
548 Words | 3 PagesIn the opening chapter, Kimball begins his discussion by describing his encounter with the then Ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini, in Qom, Iran on Christmas Day. He described the Ayatollah as being very charismatic and grandfatherly, as well as being an extraordinarily influential religious and political leader (Kimball, p. 1). The two discussed a number of important issues like the Iranian revolution, Christian-Muslim relations, Jesus, and the U.S. hostages (Kimball, p.
The Secret To America's Foreign Policy Failure Summary
568 Words | 3 PagesHowever, when U.S. foreign policy officials establish realistic goals and assumes a degree of compromise we can achieve the greater good. On the other hand, when hard lines are drawn and instruments of power, such as sanctions are put in place, relationships do not progress and often the country’s people suffer. There is a large number of U.S. foreign policy officials and general public that believe compromising with other states shows weakness in our ability to achieve the desired
The Iran-Contra Affair By The Reagan Administration
1641 Words | 7 PagesDuring a meeting on December 7th, 1985 a closed group of Presidential officials and cabinet members met with President Reagan to discuss the shipment of arms to Iran. Caspar Weinberger witnessed this as he wrote multiple notes that would be released to the National Security Archive. In these notes, Weinberger writes that “President Reagan would like to free the hostages and thinks the arms would help the moderate Iranian Army and could possibly overthrow the theocracy in Iran” ( Handwritten notes of meeting in White House Family Quarters, December 7, 1985). In the discussion, The President, George Shultz, Weinberger, and other top aides discussed the legality of selling arms to Iran via Israel. Schultz and Weinberger were against the operation of trading hostages for arms and saw it as illegal since the United States declared Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.
Jimmy Carter Essay
1174 Words | 5 PagesThe United States we know today is the product of many different events and ideologies. From war to peace, and from isolation to internationalism, 44 different presidents with many altered circumstances participate in shaping the United States we know today. Scholars have subsequently discussed the way US Presidents manage foreign affairs, and they are still debating the successes and failures, or which among them deserve the most credit. In this research paper, I discuss the foreign policy of president Jimmy Carter and I examine the basic principals he stood on. Carter had many actions coming from a human rights approach.
Ap Us Foreign Policy Dbq Essay
1094 Words | 5 PagesIn the aftermath of WWII, the US stood as one of the few powers relatively unharmed, as well as the sole nation in possession of nuclear weapons. This afforded the US a great degree of power and leadership in the world. However the USSR was another great power that managed to avoid much destruction from the war, and besides being ideologically opposed, matters were complicated after the USSR developed nuclear weapons for itself. This prompted the formulation of a new foreign policy. Document 7 states that the US “must organize and enlist the energies and resources of the free world in a positive program for peace which will frustrate the Kremlin design for world domination.”
Reagan's Challenges
1251 Words | 6 Pagesthe Reagan years were extremely complex, in part, because of great confusion in the National Security Council and the State Department and in part, because there were many unique challenges to American hegemony. In his first year, President Reagan had to deal with a number of festering problems: a) the consolidation of Khomeini’s Islamic government in Iran; b) the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979; c) warfare between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988; d) the cross-border raids of Israeli and Palestinian forces in Lebanon, 1980-82 and their aftermath with the occupation by Israel of Southern Lebanon. Furthermore, the marked rise of terrorism added a new dimension, especially because many states, including Israel, Libya and Iran, appeared
Rhetorical Analysis
1122 Words | 5 PagesPast leaders such as Andrew Jackson, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Marc Antony are evidence that society does not reward morality and good character in leadership. Society is drawn to leaders that have good rhetoric, propaganda, and charismatic personalities, and society supports them despite their immorality. Society is concerned about stability more than the morality of their leaders and will support immoral leaders in times of crisis to provide stability. In history there have been multiple leaders that have used rhetoric, propaganda and charismatic personalities to gain power, despite their morals.
How Did Bush Use Foreign Policy To Gain National Interest?
1556 Words | 7 PagesFor instance, in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush invaded before discussing other options with any nation. He had the United States take the lead on these invasions before collaborating with other nations. For instance, Bush led a coalition to bombing Baghdad, starting the war in Iraq (Singal). This unilateral, preemptive approach Bush took destabilized many of the United States’ alliances. The opposition to the wars was widespread throughout Europe, reflecting opposition through “anti-Bush” and anti-war sentiments.
Operation Ajax Essay
1224 Words | 5 PagesThe social context was also shaped by the Cold War and the geopolitical interests of the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States saw Iran as an important ally in the region and feared that if Iran fell under Soviet influence, it could threaten US interests in the Middle East. At the same time, the Soviet Union recognised a chance to broaden its influence and establish a presence in the
End Of The Cold War Analysis
1294 Words | 6 PagesMilitary action used under the banner of democratic expansion was supported by Europe which was in moral agreement with the United States. Also, as John Holmes states, Europe was able to benefit from being allied with the world’s most powerful state, as Europe was still fearful of the east. The US needed Europe, with US foreign policy needing justification on the international stage to maintain prestige and the reputation as a truly democratic and peaceful state. Aligning itself with the United States also meant that Europe had the most powerful state onside for its own economic and foreign policy objectives. The US’ position
Personal Narrative: My First President To Office
842 Words | 4 PagesThey told me that they examined my plans, and would like to extend on the “Relations with Foreign Countries: Section 42”. They thought that it was a great idea to chat relations with France to start off, because of The Red Band invasion of the Rhone River. So after taking my breath and placing my final belongings, I headed toward The United States Foreign Bureau to talk and discuss the plans with my fellows administers. “To let The Red Band go and continue these incongruous actions is to let France fall into ashes, therefore I request a petition to the president to directly eradicate and remove The Red Band from the Rhone River and from France by military force before this turns out to a worldwide problem.”, said Chief of The Army John L. Stanford. “If we proceed with this acts and petitions, however, can possibly destroy relations with France
Security Issues In Iran
871 Words | 4 PagesThe first challenge is the concept of "interconnected security." After the concept of the ideological war against terrorism and security interconnected entered the national strategy for the security of the United States, and the issue of nuclear terrorism has become connected in the Security interconnected world, the United States and the Middle East, and highlight Iran's nuclear energy program in a major threat to this security. On the other hand, linking these two concepts with global security and the United States authorizes Washington to explain the large-scale use of force, and therefore pre-emptive strikes against other countries. The second challenge is the formation of a global US-led coalition and the goals of domination behind the leadership of Washington. From the Iranian point of view, and the formation of a coalition in the framework of nuclear conferences constitute constraints and challenges against Iran in its quest towards achieving a peaceful nuclear program.
More about Rhetorical Analysis
Summary Of Taken Hostage By David Farber
635 Words | 3 PagesHow Did Faulty Foreign Policy Lead To Jimmy Carter Downfall
2363 Words | 10 PagesWho Was Jimmy Carter In The Iranian Hostage Crisis
1451 Words | 6 PagesSummary Of When Religion Becomes Lethal By Charles Kimball
548 Words | 3 PagesThe Secret To America's Foreign Policy Failure Summary
568 Words | 3 PagesThe Iran-Contra Affair By The Reagan Administration
1641 Words | 7 PagesJimmy Carter Essay
1174 Words | 5 PagesAp Us Foreign Policy Dbq Essay
1094 Words | 5 PagesReagan's Challenges
1251 Words | 6 PagesRhetorical Analysis
1122 Words | 5 PagesHow Did Bush Use Foreign Policy To Gain National Interest?
1556 Words | 7 PagesOperation Ajax Essay
1224 Words | 5 PagesEnd Of The Cold War Analysis
1294 Words | 6 PagesPersonal Narrative: My First President To Office
842 Words | 4 PagesSecurity Issues In Iran
871 Words | 4 Pages