| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "U S POLICY IRAN IRAQ": |
|
|
U.S. Foreign Policy on Iran, 2002.
An overview of the background of U.S.-Iranian relations and the rationale of U.S. interests in Iran.
4,025 words (approx. 16.1 pages), 13 sources, $ 147.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will take a critical look at U.S. Foreign Policy towards Iran to make sense of the situation. First, brief background of US-Iranian relations will be provided, followed by an outlining of the rationale of US interest in Iran. The primary thrust of the paper will look at US policy towards Iran in the post Gulf War era. Specifically, the fundamental question that will be addressed is, how has the Clinton administration viewed Iran, and has the US's 'containment' stance towards Iran been an example of sound foreign policy?
| |
|
U.S. Policy Toward Iran & Iraq, 1989-1997, 1999.
A analysis and comparison of the Bush and Clinton policies including background (Iran-Iraq War, conflict with Israel), objectives, effectiveness, economic, political, military & diplomatic aspects, Persian Gulf War, oil, human rights and terrorism.
6,075 words (approx. 24.3 pages), 25 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"United States Foreign Policy Toward Iran & Iraq, 1989-1997
Introduction
United States foreign policy toward Iran and Iraq during the 1989-1997 period is described, analyzed, and assessed in this research. The period of investigation, 1989-1997, corresponds to the tenures of the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration (through the time this research was performed in April 1997). Thus, the primary objective of this research was to compare, contrast, and evaluate the foreign policies of the Bush and Clinton administrations toward Iran and Iraq.
The thesis of this research is that the foreign policies of the Bush Administration toward Iran and Iraq were more effective in protecting the interests of the United States than the..."
| |
|
U.S. Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
This paper compares two books which discuss current U.S. policy in the Middle East.
1,200 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Ali Ansari in "Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Next Great Conflict in the Middle East" paints the current crisis with Iran as a lesson in mutually antagonistic behavior that is demonstrated by the inability of United States presidents, from Carter to Bush, to formulate an effective policy for dealing with this country. The author points out that Dennis Ross in "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Peace in the Middle East" commends the U.S re-involvement in the Israel-Palestinian problem, introduced in President Bush's historic 2002 speech, which outlined a strategy for peace calling for a two state solution. The paper relates that both Ansari and Ross are strong believers in the power of communication because, as long as all sides to these political clashes are still talking, there is hope for peaceful solutions and cooperation rather than chaos.
From the Paper
"Ansari does not take a particularly optimistic tone about the chances of these changes happening. He is very adamant that they must happen or the resulting conflict will "make Iraq look like the cakewalk it was prophesied to be." . Ansari presents his argument in a very matter-of-fact manner, taking the struggle between Iran and the United States step by step from their first official contact in 1856 all the way into the present day. A very realistic, pragmatic tone is taken that, while not entirely hopeful, does suggest that differences can be bridged."
| |
|
Reagan's Policy in Iran-Iraq War, 1996.
Analyzes U.S. tilt toward Iraq in 1980-1988. Background, overall Middle East policy, secret talks, aid, arms for hostages deal with Iran, aftermath.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This research paper summarizes and evaluates the policies pursued by the Reagan Administration during the war between Iran and Iraq (1980-1988). The basic policy of the United States during that period was to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East which after 1982 resulted in a decided tilt of the United States to support of Iraq. That policy served American interests well during the war, except for one glaring inconsistency, the administration's abortive attempts to arrange arms for hostages deals with Iran which backfired and led to the Irangate controversy. The continuation of an accommodating policy toward Iraq after the end of the war is more controversial and led to the Gulf War, but President George Bush not President Ronald Reagan, must bear responsibility for not adapting policy..."
| |
|
U.S.-Iraq Foreign Policy, 2003.
An examination of the international relationship between the U.S. and Iraq over the past two decades.
2,802 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the United States foreign policy toward the Middle East has been greatly tested, challenged and even questioned. From the Iran-contra scandal that plagued the Reagan administration even down to the current foreign policy concerning anti-terrorism, it looks at how the nation has been forced to constantly evaluate how much its foreign policy measures up to its ideals of freedom and liberty. It analyzes the relationship with Iraq and how the United States is justified in its current ideologies as it concerns Iraq. It evaluates how its application of that policy not only contradicts the United Nations'(UN) policy, but it also defeats itself, for its application deviates far from its theoretical principles.
Outline
Iraqi History and Foreign Policy
Historical View of U.S. Foreign Policy
Current U.S. Foreign Policy and Its Problems
From the Paper
"The United States also claims that the Iraqi government is still manufacturing and mass-producing weapons of mass destruction; and therefore, it is the United States? duty to stop Iraq from producing such weapons. The problem with this argument is that the conflict regarding Iraq?s alleged production of mass destruction has always been a conflict between the Iraqi government and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. Additionally, before the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was withdrawn from Iraq, it documented the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, forty-eight missiles, six missile launchers, thirty missile warheads, and hundreds of materials that were equipped with the ability to produce chemical weapons (Zunes 2). While early UNSCOM inspections revealed evidence of Iraq producing large amounts of biological agents (to include anthrax), it quickly set up highly technological devices to detect chemical and biological weapons, even after they were dismantled after the December 1998 bombing raids from the Clinton administration. And even if the Iraqi government were to be bold enough to continue to engage in mass production of biological and/or chemical weapons, these weapons would almost certainly be detected by the satellite system put in place by UNSCOM and later destroyed in tactical air strikes."
| |
|
The U.S. and Iran: 1953-1980, 2003.
This paper goes over the main events that shaped U.S. policy towards Iran from the overthrow of the Mossadiq to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
1,718 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Using Michael Hunt's book "Crises in U.S. Foreign Policy" as a referral, this paper explains in detail why the U.S. involved itself in Iran's politics and what they hoped to achieve by involving themselves. The paper explains the rise of a highly powerful Iran that neglected its people and that would eventually fall, which completely undermined what the U.S. had thought they had accomplished.
From the Paper
"Until the revolution of 1979, the United States saw Iran as the pivotal country for maintaining stability in a precarious Middle East. Iran provided a secure source of oil for the U.S. and its western European allies, as well as a way for the U.S. to contain the Soviet Union throughout the region. The U.S.?s plan to forcefully create a westernized state by use of an oppressive regime backfired with the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In effect, the U.S.?s efforts to establish direct political control in the Middle East resulted in the exact opposite of what it was hoping to achieve."
| |
|
U.S. Policy Toward Iran and Iran, 1999.
Examines the evolution from the 1960s-90s. Discusses leadership, Cold War and the Balance of Power ideologies, the Iran-Iraq War, terrorism, the Persian Gulf War, dual containment and economic issues.
4,500 words (approx. 18.0 pages), 26 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This research discusses the evolution of American foreign policy toward Iraq and Iran in recent decades. In the 1970s, the United States relied chiefly on Iran, which it supported with economic and military aid to maintain its interests in the region.
From the Paper
"AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD IRAQ AND IRAN
Introduction
This research discusses the evolution of American foreign policy toward Iraq and Iran in recent decades. In the 1970s, the United States relied chiefly on Iran, which it supported with economic and military aid to maintain its interests in the region. After the Khomeini Revolution of 1979 and during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, it played Iraq and Iran against each other but, as time went by, shifted most of its support to Iraq. During the Persian Gulf War, the United States marshalled a powerful coalition war effort against the Iraqis but stopped short of marching on Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein for fear of shifting the power balance in the central Middle East to Iran. Since 1993, the Clinton administration has pursued a policy of ..."
| |
|
International Conflict between Iran and the U.S, 2005.
An analysis of the international conflict between Iran and the U.S., focussing on Iran's nuclear proliferation and the ideological differences between the two nations.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the conflict that has been brewing between the United States and Iran, which has revolved ostensibly around Iran's possible violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The paper shows that the conflict between Iran and the U.S. has been evident in the international policies of both nations. Iran has engaged in a series of political and economic actions that are directed squarely at undermining the U.S.'s international authority. The U.S., in turn, has tried to rally international support, largely through the United Nations Security Council, to control Iran's actions.
| |
|
U.S. and Iran Relations in Nuclear Proliferation, 2005.
This paper explores in detail the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear weapons while examining America's methods of sustaining its hegemonic presence in the world.
2,159 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines both sides of the nuclear issue by stating Iran has concerns regarding the attainment of nuclear technology but wishes to appear to the world as an advanced and well-developed nation. With nuclear weapons, Iran's influence in the Middle East could be increased which could entail an alliance with Iraq that would promote anti-U.S. sentiment resulting in undermining U.S. efforts in the Middle East in general. The writer of this paper focuses on the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran on the matter of nuclear non-proliferation and explains in-depth how the U.S. is using a web of approaches to maintain its world wide hegemonic presence.
From the Paper
"The behavior of the United States towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear non-proliferation could be viewed through a number of theories, but the most proficient analysis of this situation is achieved through regime theory. Foremost, we must understand the issues surrounding why the U.S. wants to halt Iran's desire for nuclear technology. Since Iran does not currently have nuclear capabilities, it would be nearly impossible for them to launch a trans-Atlantic attack for a period of 5-10 years. Although that possibility seems unlikely, the U.S. is promoting the prevention of such a future assault. Another possibility is that if Iran was able to hone nuclear technology, other Arab states such as Egypt and Syria would feel threatened by this considering the negative relations of Iran and Israel, and would not want to be caught in the middle."
| |
|
U.S. Relations with Iraq Prior to the Invasion of Kuwait, 2002.
A discussion of the economic, military, and political aspects of Iraq-U.S. relationship during the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
2,600 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper begins with a brief historical background of Iraqi government and policies. The development of U.S. policy supporting Iraq over Iran, including issues of economic and military aid, policies on the exportation of technology to Iraq and political relations are outlined. Iraq's role in the Arab-Israeli peace process is also discussed as it relates to US policy.
From the Paper
"The emergence of the United States as the foremost Western power and the heir to British imperialism after the Second World War had made it almost inevitable that it would play a major role in the oil-rich Middle East region. Since that time the United States and Iraq have had a tumultuous and complex history, played out in the backdrop of the strategic importance of the Middle East and its vast oil resources, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iran-Iraq dispute. For most Americans, however, the history of their country?s relationship with Iraq started with the Gulf War of 1991, UN sanctions, Saddam?s defiance, periodic bombings, and the recent description of Iraq as part of an ?Axis of Evil? by President Bush. The fact that the US-Iraq relations were not always so hostile-especially in the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990?therefore, comes as a surprise to many. Although a veil of secrecy was kept over these relations at the time, subsequent congressional and media inquiries after the Gulf War have shed considerable light on the nature of these relations - the scandal having come to be known as Iraqgate."
| |
|
Dependency Theory and Pre-Revolution Iran-U.S Relations, 1994.
An analysis of the theory and application to U.S. exploitation and control of Iran until 1979.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 14 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Pre Islamic Revolution (1979) Relationship Between Iran and
the United States: An Analysis Within the Context of Dependency Theory
Introduction
This research examines the pre Islamic Revolution relationship between Iran and the United States. The Islamic Revolution in Iran occurred in 1979. The relationship between the two countries is analyzed within the context of dependency theory.
Dependency Theory
Following the end of Second World War, the industrialized countries began to loosen their political control over those countries that were formerly their colonies..politically, economically, or in both contexts. Most economists..both..."
| |
|
U.S. and Mid-East Foreign Policy, 2003.
A discussion of why American foreign policy towards the Middle East is questionable.
3,200 words (approx. 12.8 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 92.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Outlines the events leading up to the September 11th attacks, covering the U.S.'s new dependency on oil after WWI, the creation of the Israeli state, U.S. involvement in Iran, U.S. involvement in Iraq during the 80s, and the devastating sanctions on Iraq.
From the Paper
"On September 11th 2001, terrorists attacked the United States. In the immediate aftermath so many Americans asked the same question??Why??, Why would anyone do something as horrific as that? I found myself asking the same question, and I immediately began looking for the answer through research. What I?ve found is that the only way to try to comprehend the hatred that many Americans have been forced to witness after years of being able to look the other way, is to look at how the roots of resentment in the Middle East sprouted into something uncontrollable. This development of hatred can be outlined through the history of the United States? foreign policy in the region, a history of the U.S. doing almost anything to protect its interests while ignoring the plight of the native citizens, the well being of other nations, and even going as far as ignoring the United States? own ideals."
| |
|
Soviet Foreign Policy in Iran 1945-1979, 2005.
A paper on the political and economic developments between Iran and the Soviet Union.
5,075 words (approx. 20.3 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 127.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This study examines earlier Soviet Union foreign policy towards Iran. The paper looks at how Soviet foreign policy grew and, at times, declined through economic cooperation with Iran from 1945-1979. Particular emphasis is shifted away from Cold War stances and upon nation to nation growth. An outline of the study is appended to the paper.
From the Paper
"James Harlon Williams characterizes Soviet foreign policy in the Persian Gulf region as a "product of historical experience." Historically, it followed a pattern or strategy of "expansion, consolidation, and preservation." As Imperial Russia expanded its borders during the course of the Great Game in Asia, it emerged as the most powerful Continental power in Central Asia. Quickly thereafter, Russia moved to consolidate and preserve that power through political shoving matches with Great Britain. While the Russians significantly pushed their borders southwards towards Iran, the British countered Russian influence in order to protect British India. The idea of Iran as a "buffer" state acted as the way the British used Iran to prevent Russian penetration towards the Persian Gulf. Since the British resisted a stronger Russian presence in the Gulf, Russia employed a series of proxy conflicts while averting war with Britain. Playing a game of power politics dominated Russian and British diplomacy. From the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries both sides asserted their political dominance in Iran. Their goal was to dominate the enemy as much as possible yet averting war at all costs. Engaging in a head to head war would not be beneficial to either Russia or Great Britain from an economic and military perspective. In doing so, the tsar abandoned hopes of obtaining a warm water port in the Gulf."
| |
|
The Politics of Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, 2001.
Describes the politics and governments of five middle eastern countries.
3,990 words (approx. 16.0 pages), 3 sources, $ 108.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper covers the politics and governments of Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Each section briefly describes the government structures of these countries. Then each section talks about Islamic influence in their political system, relations with the United States and the Soviet Union, and the effects of the politics of oil production. In the conclusions the paper compares these three factors for each country to each other. It explores these important factors in the political structure and the effects on Middle Eastern politics and foreign policy.
| |
|
The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988, 2003.
Examines causes of conflict between the two countries.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Discusses alternatives faced by each of the rival powers in the 1980 boundary crisis that led to war, Iraq's decision to resort to military force, the historical roots of Iran-Iraq conflicts, and the scope and nature of war.
From the Paper
"The Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 was the longest conventional war between sovereign states in the 20th century. As a war it was grimly retrograde, consisting for the most part of static, positional infantry warfare, not unlike the Western Front..."
|
|
|
