The United States of America (USA) and Iran always had quite an ambivalent relationship. For over 100 years, both the USA and Iran would go have different views on everything from political government to building up military forces and enhancing nuclear capabilities. This would put the USA and Iran on a collision of war and sanctions. The effects of these sanctions left Iran in financial distress. This forced Iran to deal with the USA in order to ease some of the hardships. This article will discuss relationship between USA and Iran through military, economic, and political variables. Iran and the USA were two powers that fought to stop the spread of communist in Iran. In 1951 when Iran democratically elected Premier Mohammed …show more content…
was motivated mainly by Mossadeq's desire for personal power; was governed by irresponsible policies based on emotion; had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army to a dangerous degree; and had cooperated closely with the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Iran. In view of these factors, it was estimated that Iran was in real danger of falling behind the Iron Curtain; if that happened it would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War and a major setback for the West in the Middle East. No remedial action other than the covert action plan set forth below could be found to improve the existing state of …show more content…
On 4 November 1979, Iran held more than 50 American diplomats for over 440 days. The hostage crisis began when a group of Islamic fundamentalist successfully revolted against the American Shah of Iran (“A Short History of the Department of State: The Iranian Hostage Crisis”). This forced President Jimmy Carter, on behalf of the USA, to take necessary actions against the Iranian government and the fundamentalist in the form of sanctions. The sanctions aimed to block the interest for property in Iran. It also placed economic sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. This froze Iran’s monetary assets for many decades but later released by President Barack Obama’s Administration. At the time of the sanctions, the USA believed that the crises in Iran would cause a major threat to foreign policy and the economy. This caused President Carter to shift views on the relationship between the USA and Iran leading to the only Embassy to close down in Tehran (“A Short History of the Department of State: The Iranian Hostage Crisis”). This was the last Embassy placed in Iran. Now the USA and Iran both use protecting powers to carry our contracts. The USA uses the Swiss Embassy in Tehran and Iran uses the Pakistani Embassy in Washington D.C. to conduct political discussions (“A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776:
In 1980, the Shah died and the militants wanted the hostage deal of Shah standing trial and taking the punishment for his crimes in exchange for the release of the hostages. So now with the Shah passing it was impossible for the Shah to stand trial and be convicted for the said crimes. Leaving the hostages useless to the militants. So its time for a new deal to be made. In exchange for the hostages, the United States would unfreeze the accounts of the Iranian
The purpose of Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio writing this book was to inform people of what happened in Tehran after the American embassy was seized.
To fulfill their selfish goals, the United States initiated Operation Ajax in 1953. Operation Ajax was a plan created by the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to overthrow Mohammad Mosaddiq, a popular Iranian prime minister at the time. The plan was for an American general to take his place after the Shah (Mohammad Rezi Pahlavi) signed a royal decree which would rid him of Mosaddiq and appoint the American general. This change in leadership would allow the United States to be able to have greater influence in Iran and have greater access to Iranian oil. However, Mosaddiq publicly announced that there was a coup and had the American general arrested.
After the deal was made and Iran got the weapons, the hostages were released. Quickly after this release, more hostages were captured instead. There was a paper written in 1983 about the secret trade between Iran and President Reagan, this paper was the cause of Congress getting involved in the situation. The report was confirmed and an investigation
The first was the Iran hostage situation in 1979. The United States had long supported Shah Reza Pahlavi as the leader in Iran. However, an internal revolution by Islamic fundamentalists dethroned Pahlavi; eventually he sought asylum in the United States. That refuge came with a price, as several revolutionary Iranians claimed 66 American hostages at the United States embassy in Teheran. The Iranians demanded Pahlavi in return for the hostages.
Taken Hostage tells the story of the Iran hostage crisis lasting from November of 1979 to the day Reagan’s inauguration. During this period of time, sixty six Americans were held in captivity by Students Following the Line of Imam after the United States allowed the Shah to undergo medical treatment amidst the Iranian revolution. Americans, after a tough decade of inflation, gas shortages, lack of trust in the government, and the defeat in Vietnam were yet again brought into a situation in which required their complete faith that the Carter administration would save the captives. The hostage crisis was a complete shock to the American people in addition to the heightened tensions because of economic decline, government mistrust, and energy
And tragically the Iran Hostage Crisis is what ended it for President Carter his lack of leadership and knowledge during this time ended up costing the United States valuable members of its international team, and Jimmy Carters re-election. As Americans look back today our nation stands better off, but most people do look at these situations and ask what if some of this stuff would have been done differently. That is a question we will never have an answer too, but for right now we just have to keep moving
President Carter’s diplomacy was not succeeding, the crisis was lasting much longer than anyone thought and the former president even considered the prospect of using force. The government was unwilling to return the Shah to the Iranian people and was determined to regain control and restart the money flow once more. To do
The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal that rocked the United States in the late 1980s. It involved a secret and illegal scheme by the Reagan administration to sell weapons to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, and use the proceeds to fund the Contras, a rebel group fighting against the socialist government of Nicaragua. The affair exposed the abuse of power and the deception of the executive branch, and raised serious questions about the role of Congress and the public in overseeing foreign policy. The background of the affair can be traced back to two major events in the early 1980s:
This event was an obvious symbol of the United States’ “inability to control its own fate, maintain its dignity, and pursue independent course.” Fueled by the social, economic, and political turmoil, Americans during this time were in a constant uproar about the Iran Hostage Crisis due to the negatively changing status of a once prosperous and undefeatable United States. II.
While this is happening, none of the people in Iran are fully aware of how to react because the country didn’t have a leader at the time. Marjane had to experience this imperialism during her teenage years and it played a large role in her perspective. To demonstrate this in the book, it says, “‘God did not choose the king. ’[said Marjane’s father] ‘He did so!
Iran-Contra Affair In 1985, American diplomats secretly arranged arms sales to the embattled Iranians in return for Iranian aid in obtaining the release of American hostages held by Middle Eastern terrorists. At least one hostage was eventually set free. Meanwhile, money from the payment for the arms was diverted to the contras. Iran-Contra affair was important, because it cast a dark shadow over the Reagan record in foreign policy.
the 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
Carter and the government took a big hit for not rescuing the hostages in the embassy. Carter also took a lot of criticism for not improving the economy in the United States. The country was going through a period of high unemployment, rising inflation, and the impact of having not enough energy when Carter took office. Carter was able to give 8 million people jobs, but that was not enough for the people and they still blamed the president for their problems.
Further, Dershowitz argues that the Iranians would not feel bound to honor its provision regarding centrifuges, inspections, and other constraints. In conclusion, the Iran Nuclear Deal predominantly is an effort by the United Nations to engage Iran into producing a peaceful nuclear program for advances in science and technology. Clearly President Obama wants his major foreign policy achievement to be: choosing peace over war with Iran. Globally, the nuclear deal is an approach based on diplomacy and opposing war, which provides the best hope for improving the human and civil rights for Iranian citizens. Supporters in Iran and other legitimate nation-states believe the nuclear deal is a fundamental way to achieve stability and peace domestically, in Iran, and the latter hopes of spreading peaceful negotiations throughout the Middle East.