U.S. enjoyed overwhelming economic and military power and security globally

Sample Solution

   

At a time when the U.S. enjoyed overwhelming economic and military power and security globally, this period still managed to become best known for its widespread fear bordering on panic regarding the rising “communist threat.”

Kinzer’s description and analysis of U.S. policy toward Iran:

Kinzer describes U.S. policy toward Iran during this period as being based on a number of factors, including:

• A fear of the spread of communism in the Middle East, which the U.S. saw as a vital strategic region.

Full Answer Section

   

• A desire to maintain access to Iran's oil reserves.
• A close relationship with the Shah of Iran, who was seen as a bulwark against communism in the region.

In order to achieve its goals in Iran, the U.S. engaged in a number of activities, including:

• Providing financial and military support to the Shah's regime.
• Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 in a coup d'état that was orchestrated by the CIA.
• Supporting the Shah's repressive policies against his political opponents.

What did U.S. policy in Iran accomplish toward Paul Nitze’s ends he describes in NSC-68? NSC-68 was a classified document that was written in 1950 by Paul Nitze, a senior U.S. government official. The document argued that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state that was committed to world domination. It also argued that the United States needed to take a more aggressive stance against the Soviet Union in order to prevent the spread of communism. U.S. policy in Iran can be seen as being in line with Nitze's vision for U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. was concerned about the spread of communism in the Middle East, and it saw the Shah of Iran as a bulwark against communism in the region. The U.S. also had economic interests in Iran, as it was a major oil producer. What was the role of the CIA and the Department of Defense? The CIA played a significant role in U.S. policy toward Iran. The CIA was responsible for carrying out the coup d'état that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The CIA also provided financial and military support to the Shah's regime. The Department of Defense also played a role in U.S. policy toward Iran. The Department of Defense provided military training and equipment to the Shah's armed forces. The Department of Defense also had a presence in Iran, with military personnel stationed in the country. Was U.S. foreign policy always simply “reacting” to Soviet aggression (or to Soviet “will” in Nitze’s words) on the world stage? No, U.S. foreign policy was not always simply “reacting” to Soviet aggression. The U.S. also had its own interests and goals in the world, and it was willing to use military force to achieve those goals. For example, the U.S. intervened in the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1954-1975) in order to prevent the spread of communism. What were some of the problems with using “anti-communism” as the central organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy? There were a number of problems with using “anti-communism” as the central organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy. One problem was that it led the U.S. to support repressive regimes, such as the Shah of Iran's regime, even if those regimes were not in the best interests of the United States. Another problem was that it led the U.S. to intervene militarily in other countries, which often resulted in death and destruction. What is U.S. “imperialism?” Imperialism is the policy or practice of extending the power and influence of a nation through direct or indirect means, often by establishing colonies, military bases, and protectorates. Does the end justify the means? Whether or not the end justifies the means is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers and theologians for centuries. There is no easy answer to this question. And why is there sometimes a dramatic disconnect between the publicly stated goals from U.S. foreign policy elites and the actual policies themselves? There are a number of reasons why there is sometimes a dramatic disconnect between the publicly stated goals from U.S. foreign policy elites and the actual policies themselves. One reason is that foreign policy elites may have hidden agendas or ulterior motives. Another reason is that foreign policy elites may be constrained by domestic or international factors. Finally, foreign policy elites may simply be mistaken about the best way to achieve their goals.