Iraq War Between Iran And Iraq

Iraq War Between Iran And Iraq
While both Iran and Iraq, the two most powerful states in the Persian Gulf, had boarder disputes
dating back to 1501, Iraq has always had a long history of conflicts with its neighboring countries
but none more conspicuously than Iran. Historians believe that the forty battles of the Iran– Iraq war
were fought because of territorial and government disputes. After eight long years, the Iran– Iraq
war was adequately more than people had every imagined it to be. The bitter war devastated both
countries and left many with unanswered questions. The Iran Iraq War of 1980 was between Iran
and Ba 'athist Iraq beginning on September 22, 1980, continuing for eight years, and ending on July
20, 1988. "This war set the stage for many of the current ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
In fact, Iran and Iraq had completely different forms of government. The Iran empire is heir of the
Persian empire, and Iraq is the heir of the Babylonian Empire; meaning the Iranians identify
themselves as Persians, while the Iraqis identify themselves as Arabs. Because of this difference in
government,
From the Iran perspective, the Shatt al Arab was a natural boarder to decipher the two counties
however, because the tribes on both sides of the river were Arab Iraq claimed they had control over
the entire area of the Shatt al Arab. However, Iran completely disagreed. Tension continued to build
between Iraq and Iran when president Hussien publicized his his aspirations to "expand his countries
power, prestige, and influence hoping to become the leading nation in the Middle East." He believed
the only way to accomplish his goal is to declare war on Iran. Many believed that the war would not
actually go through, but in the early morning of September 22, 1980, Iraq attacked Iran and the Iran
Iraq War of 1980 began. The fighting of the war commenced along the southwest boarder of the two
countries. That morning, Iraq led the surprise invasion by air strikes on the Iranian air fields in
attempt to destroy the Iranian Air Force. After the attack failed, Iraq then launched a ground
invasion in attempt to cut off the Shatt al Arab from the rest of Iran. This began what has been
described as "the 20th Century's longest conventional war." Following the initial
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Iran-Contra Scandal Essay
The Iran–contra scandal of the 1980's, first brought to light in November 1986, is a complicated
mess of scandal, arms dealings, hostage deals, and illegal acts ("Iran–Contra Affair"
Infoplease.com). The original purpose of the arms sales was to improve United States–Iran relations
(Sanders SNU.edu). However, when American hostages were taken throughout the 1980's, members
of President Reagan's staff negotiated implicit deals with Iranian groups, which resulted in the U.S.
selling arms in return for the release of hostages (Wolf PBS.org). Later, the deal was modified so
that the U.S. sold arms directly to Iran at a high markup, with no guarantee of hostages being
released, and the markup funding the contras in Nicaragua ("The ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
in 1985 that the U.S. might sell arms to Iran through Israel with the goal of releasing American
hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian groups ("The Iran–Contra Report" Presidency.UCSB.edu). The
arms would be used to aid Iran in their ongoing war against Iraq ("The Iran–Contra Report"
Presidency.UCSB.edu). Robert McFarlane, a national security advisor who brought the suggestion
to President Reagan, believed that the deal would improve U.S.–Iran relations, in addition to
Lebanese relations, thus giving the U.S. needed influence in the Middle East (Wolf PBS.org).
However, several advisors to Reagan questioned the legality of such an act, as both U.S. policy,
prohibiting straight arms–for–hostage swaps, and the embargo on arms to Iran, the Arms Export
Control Act, condemned that course of action. ("The Iran–Contra Report" Presidency.UCSB.edu).
Though his advisors Caspar Weinberger (Secretary of Defense) and George Shultz (Secretary of
State) opposed the sales, President Reagan listened to McFarlane (National Security Advisor) and
William Casey (CIA director) and went through with the plan, but Reagan never actually signed the
plan or reported it to Congress, as required by law ("The Iran–Contra Report"
Presidency.UCSB.edu). Thus, Reagan could later claim that he had no knowledge of the arms sales,
as it was never formalized. Control of this operation was given to the National Security Council,
which was also conducting aid operations to the contras ("The Iran–Contra

Effects of Iranian Hostage Crisis
How Has the Iranian Hostage Crisis Affected the United States?
For most Americans, the story begins in 1979 with the Iranian Hostage Crisis, when a group of
revolutionary university students took over the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran, and held 52
American diplomats, intelligence officers and Marines hostage for 444 days. But for most Iranians,
and to fully understand the repercussions of this aforementioned event, the story begins almost three
decades prior, in 1953. This was the year that the United States overthrew the recently established
democracy in Iran, led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. He had become very popular in
the country for having the ambition to finally take advantage of the wealth that Iran needed to grow
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, at that time to the American people the crisis invoked a feeling of national inferiority; for
one of the first times, the US had been manipulated by a foreign country and could do nothing about
it. However, the Iranian Hostage Crisis proved to be more than just an embarrassment for the
country. It's evident 33 years later that the Iranian Hostage Crisis had other significant effects on the
political environment of the United States, including the negative influence on the 1980 presidential
election, complete destruction of diplomatic US– Iran relations, and the establishment of a precedent
for foreign, anti–American terrorism as an effective strategy against the US. It's debatable whether
President Jimmy Carter would have won the election of 1980 if the Iranian Hostage Crisis never
happened. However, even the most profound of historians know that the conflict with Iran did
indeed spark the beginning of the Ronald Reagan era and put Jimmy Carter in company with only a
select number of presidents to not be re–elected to a second term. President Carter's inability to
resolve the problem made him look like a weak and ineffectual leader. Perhaps the most
demonstrative example of the president's inadequacy was an ill–advised executive decision that he
made in April of 1980, the same year of the election. With lagging and inauspicious diplomacy talks
ongoing with Iran, Carter grew frustrated. Not backed by his most important advisors, the president
made the call to

President Jimmy Carter And The Iran Hostage Crisis
Mere minutes after President Jimmy Carter was out of office, the Iran Hostage Crisis, for which his
presidency is most remembered, was over. Behind him was a disjointed foreign and confused
domestic policy. When he left office, Carter's approval rating was 34 percent, and his disapproval
rating nearly twice that (Roper Center). Today, it seems that he is a better ex–President than he was a
president, as evidenced in his founding of the Carter Center, his cultivation of his presidential
library, his contributions to Habitat for Humanity, and his numerous other humanitarian efforts.
During his term, he had a poor relationship with Congress, a low approval rating with the American
people, and a lack of cohesive international or domestic policy. I believe his two greatest failures are
also the two which marked his entire presidency and caused the drop in his approval ratings: the
confused and faltering domestic and international policies which lasted throughout his presidency
and the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Jimmy Carter was a one–term president who won on a campaign of being "not Washington" and
"not Gerald Ford" (Hargrove, 1988). Shortly after entering office, his refusal to trade political favors
with members of Congress, unwillingness to learn the rules of Washington politics and play by
them, and the general lack of communication between his administration and Congress stalled any
possible working relationship. This cannot be seen as a failure on the part of Congress, who

The Collapse Of The Soviet Union
The collapse of the Soviet Union ended one era of American Security Concerns, but it gave rise to
another more extensive era. This era would be marked by concern over the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction throughout former Soviet countries and other unstable nations. Every president
from George H.W. Bush to Obama would mark this issue as a key threat to the nation's security. The
true question is what would each of these presidents do about the threat. Since World War II the
United States has filled the role of the "global police" opposing injustices and neutralizing threats
throughout the world, and the threat of devastatingly powerful weapons falling into unstable hands
could be treated no differently. With this in mind ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On one side are those who favored using the military option in lieu of diplomatic relations; this
group includes Vice President Chenney, members of Congress and the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee. Their opponents favored using diplomatic outreach, sanctions, and other non–
military means to bring about change in Iran. This side consisted of the Department of State, the
Department of Defense, and the U.S. Intelligence Community. The author believes that the efforts of
the aforementioned group persuaded both administration to pursue a non–militaristic approach in
their dealings with Iran.Mr. Oren's believes that the collective works of the State Department,
Defense Department and the U.S. Intelligence community were able to silence the voices of war and
provide a better alternative.
Any political decision in the United States eventually enters the oval office and it was here that Mr.
Oren presents his first piece of evidence. Mr. Oren states that the showdown between ideologies
began between Vice–President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who disagreed as to
what the proper response in Iran should be. Cheney had always maintained a hard line stance in
foreign affairs and Iran was no different. Secretary Rice favored the use of diplomacy to achieve a
resolution in Iran. Mr. Oren states that, "Cheney's influence on policy, which was

The Iran Contra Scandal Was A Shocking And Nefarious...
The Iran–Contra Scandal was a shocking and nefarious governmental affair which occurred during
the executive administration of President Ronald Reagan. The affairs involved many people in the
United States government and their dealings with other nations, and the congressional hearings
which were held to expose the secrets and find the truth behind the scandal to determine who was
involved and who would be deemed guilty of atrocious crimes (Vile).
President Reagan arranged a deal with Iran, secretly selling weapons to the Iranians for their
ongoing war being fought against the nation of Iraq, in exchange for the American hostages who
were being held by the Iranians ("The Iran–Contra Affair"). The United States' relations with Iran
were ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It was later found that the United States government had not received all of the money Iran had paid
for the weapons which they had received ("The Iran–Contra Affair"). "While probing the question of
the arms–for–hostages deal, Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that only $12 million of the
$30 million the Iranians reportedly paid had reached government coffers" ("The Iran–Contra
Affair"). Lieutenant Colonel Oliver Laurence North of the United State's National Security Council
(NSC) had sent out a significantly large portion of the money from the Iranians to the Nicaraguan
Contras, under the presumption that the President had approved of this act but without actually
having received the direct approval of President Ronald Reagan (Fredriksen).
Prior to North sending money to the Nicaraguan Contras, Congress used one of their many
constitutional powers, the power to manage foreign affairs, which allowed them to have control over
the nation's relationship with the Nicaraguan Contras, so they had written the Boland Agreement of
1984, in order to restrict the United States in their support for these Contras (Fredriksen). "Congress

The Core Components Of An Authoritarian Regime
1. The core components of an authoritarian regime are the lack of accessibility for citizens to voice
their opinions, and more importantly, to participate in politics through formal channels (Mintz,
Close and Croci 256–258). Authoritarian regimes also share an absence of government
accountability for any or all decisions due to a wide range of power (Mintz, Close and Croci 256–
258). This is in stark contrast to democratic regimes where government accountability is held with
the utmost importance with the citizens in said democratic country will move into action when their
government does not align or hold true to what they may have previously put forth. Moreover, if a
country's leader holds most of the power over their citizens by the continuous use of coercive
measures or other oppressive tactics by default will only lead to a greater deal of problems.
Furthermore, by having the necessary power to proactively work part and parcel of a political
community, a country, thereby grows through the collective understanding of other citizens concerns
as well as from their allowed regular involvement in government discussions where the end decision
can affect the citizens under that regime. Effectively demonstrating the differences of an
authoritarian regime with a democratic one.
2. As described in the report the persistence of an authoritarian presence in the Arab world holds
steadfast by the lack of an independent middle class, which does not allow feelings of independence
to

The Iran Hostage Crisis And The United States
I. Introduction
"WELCOME BACK TO FREEDOM," a sign is held up as the remaining hostages climb out of the
plane on American soil. The Iran Hostage Crisis included Iranian students holding Americans
hostage. Fifty–two American hostages were held in the United States Embassy in Tehran for 444
days. The 444 day hostage crisis lasted from November 1979 to January 1981. There are different
reasons why the Iran Hostage Crisis could have happened. The actions and inactions of the United
States' government are to blame for the Iran Hostage Crisis because the United States allowed the
Shah to obtain medical treatment, President Carter's response to the crisis, and the U.S. involvement
with Iran before the crisis. The Shah's medical treatment in the United States created great hatred
from Iranians toward the Shah and the United States. Many of President Carter's decisions angered
Iranians and is a cause of the Iran Hostage Crisis. There were many problems before the Iran
Hostage Crisis between the United States and Iran. There was the Iran Revolution, the overthrowing
of the Shah, and the political right that were sent to the Shah.
II. Background
The Iran Hostage Crisis began on November 4, 1979, and ended on January 20 1981, a span of 444
days. A total of sixty–six hostages were taken in the American Embassy in Iran. After a short period
of time the Iranian students released fifteen hostages ("Iran Hostage Crisis" United). The hostages
were kept in the American Embassy located in

Ronald Reagan's Iran Contra Scandal
The Iran Contra Scandal, an undisclosed arrangement of illegal trading, that took place during the
1980's , during Ronald Reagan's presidency, involving people from the United States government,
Ronald Reagan's administration , and the United States military. The scandal was a covert action
never authorized by the United States Congress.
There were two countries involved with the United States in the scandal, Iran in the Middle East and
Nicaragua in Central America. Nicaragua is the sight of the Contras, a group that was against the
Nicaraguan government in the 80's, and were often looked at as human rights abusers. The
Nicaraguan government was seen by Americans as communists so in Regan's eyes the anti
government Contras were anti communists, and Reagan wanted to support them, and fund ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The biggest player was the President, the scandal exposed the abusiveness to his power in office,
and eventually hit the media exposing the President and his counterparts involved. "President
Reagan said today that he had not been in full control of his Administration's Iran policy, and the
White House said that as a consequence up to $30 million intended to pay for American arms had
been secretly diverted to rebel forces in Nicaragua" (Weinraub 1). The actions that had taken place
in the scandal and trades went completely behind congress and much of the United States
government. Although the President may deny any involvement in the arms deal and money trades,
he was in on all of it. "With the Administration already in turmoil over the earlier disclosure of
clandestine arms shipments to Iran, and with speculation rampant about a major overhaul of the
White House staff, the President's statement seemed to deepen a sense of disarray. By all accounts,
Mr. Reagan now faces the most serious crisis in his six–year Presidency" (Weinraub

Iran And The Iranian Hostage Crisis
In 1979, the Iranian hostage crisis would occur; this event would damage and sever ties between
Iran and the United States for years to come. Over the years, Iran would have hard–line leaders that
would only further isolate themselves from western powers and more specifically the US. It would
be another 30 plus years before Iran would seek out the US and have a conversation between the
two countries; leading to what might be a possible change in policy for a country that has been
isolated from the international stage.
Iran's presidential election in June 2013 was won by Hassan Rouhani and led to him taking over for
the hard–liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Rouhani has been known to cooperate with the
West, specifically when he was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the
international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead
to a nuclear stand–off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah's blessing, President
Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country's relations and assume a solution on the
nuclear issue. "For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy
is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists
within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous,
but Iran's new president, who has sometimes been dubbed "the sheikh of diplomacy," may just be
the right man at the right moment to walk it." (Maloney, 2013)
If President Rouhani can bring his country out of sanctions, resume oil exports and trade, they can
become a functioning country again. Although, there is a slim chance that Iran doesn't continue to
support terrorist organizations and continue nuclear enrichment in some capacity. As long as
President Rouhani remains president, it is expected that he will do as much as possible to continue
to further his country and bring them out of isolation with the world and specifically the west.
The following event

Iran Nuclear Deal Case Study
The Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was
formally adopted on October 18th, 2015 by Iran, Germany, and the UN Security Council–consisting
of Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States. It enabled Iran to peacefully pursue nuclear
program so long as it did not weaponize the program and it removed American sanctions and
European embargos. In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has made efforts to eliminate the
agreement or at least severely limit the program. To regulate the program, the international
agreement states that Iran must allow its facilities to be searched and monitored periodically by a
team of experts to verify that Iran is keeping within the stipulates of the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Even without nuclear weapons, Iran represents a threat to Americans. With the introduction of the
Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran has been emboldened and arrested several Americans under false pretenses.
A total of four Americans have been detained by the Iranian government since the JCPOA was
implemented (CNN). Others have been detained for having American ties.
Moreover, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency recently admitted that, though they
technically should be able to access all Iranian military sites, they can't actually search "military
affiliated" sites (Washington Post). Top adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
went so far as to call the US's call for further inspections as a "dream" that would never be possible.
Without access to the military sites, it is impossible to verify that Tehran is implementing the deal.
The United States has no true knowledge about whether Iran is working on the development of
nuclear weapons or not.
It is however known that Iran has aggressively been working towards its ballistic missile program
despite defiance of Security Council resolutions. With the demise of Iranian sanctions, Iran was free
to enter new market. They then invested their proceeds into their ballistic missile program. Iran acts
as a significant threat to close American ally, Israel. It in fact inscribed "Israel must be wiped out" in
Hebrew on two of its ballistic missile tests

Essay On Iran Nuclear Deal
The Iran Nuclear Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was
signed on July 14, 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1, which consists of the
United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Russia, France, China, plus Germany, and the
European Union (EU). The framework of this deal states that Iran would need to reduce, convert,
and redesign its nuclear facilities and accept the additional protocol in order to lift all nuclear–
related economic sanctions, thus, freeing up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues and frozen
assets. US president Donald Trump does not like the Iran Nuclear Deal because he thinks that there
is "not enough tooth" in the deal and not enough enforcement mechanisms in ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Their ability to access wider world markets and export oil to the US threatens Saudi Arabia's
monopoly of the Middle East oil market and will result in both states exacerbating regional rivalry.
Given the long–standing alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, the Saudis will undoubtedly
aggressively push back against any chance of allowing Iran to gain economic advantage. There is
also tension between Iran and Israel, in which, Iran builds up its nuclear arsenal to counter Israel's
and the continuation of Iran serving as the main threat to Israel's security. Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu spoke out about Iran's threat on Israel's survival to former US president
Barack Obama when the JCPOA's framework was under discussion.
Commitment problem, the uncertainty of states delivering on their promises, is another topic of
argument for Trump's dissatisfaction towards the Iran Nuclear Deal. Under the Iran Nuclear
Agreement Review Act (INARA), the US has to certify Iranian compliance, "'appropriate and
proportionate' when weighted against the benefits to US national security", every 90 days. In
October 2017, it is reported that President Trump "is now expected to decertify the agreement,
leaving it up to Congress to decide whether to re–impose economic sanctions on Iran" (Wilts, 2017).
The statement sends a confusing signal to the world because nobody is able to understand Trump's
motives towards a deal that he has

Iran Political Dynamic Essay
The Iranian Political Dynamic
One of the misconceptions of modernization was that societies would secularize as they modernized.
This formed the tenets of post–war modernization theories. Notably, the end of world war two was
characterized by the decline of religious faiths and secularization of societies, especially in Britain
and America. This paradigm fitted the idea of development and breaking free from the yoke of
poverty, hunger, diseases and other social problems. As such, it was believed that progress would
only be achieved at the expense of religion. However, over the past decades, countries such as the
Islamic Republic of Iran have evolved into industrialized economies with religion at the heart of
their growth . It has, therefore, become a point of studies on religious fundamentalism.
The Iranian revolution of 1978 to 1980 changed Iran's political system. The Iranian political system
is based on an agglomeration of politics and religion. The head of this unique political system is the
supreme religious leader: the Ayatollah. Notably, the Shite clergy rule over Iran and as such, it
embodies the absolute supremacy of Islam. The political system is also a fusion of theocracy and
democracy. On one end, it limits pluralism and on the other it allows election of leaders through a
public general election. The constitution of Iran allows popular sovereignty and blend it with the
rule of jurisconsults. In this respect, institutions are governed by the clergy, while

Iran Case Study
According to the President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, if there is to be further imposition of sanctions
by the U.S. government, he warns that their nuclear problem could be restarted at any time. This
threat comes with the U.S. President Donald Trump's stance on the 'disastrous Iran nuclear deal' and
his belief that it is being violated. However other parties that are involved, like Germany and
Britain, have disagreed, noting that Iran is not in violation. Just over a week later, Qatar had decided
to restore full diplomatic relations with Iran on August 24th and send its ambassador to Tehran. It is
a problematic move, as it is increasing the tensions in the regional dispute to isolate Doha by Arab
Nations. This decision is only adding ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With the Islamic Sunnis–Shiite divide and attempts by democratic advocates who actively try to
challenge dictators, the region has fallen into a state of conflict. While, the United States might want
to focus on Asia, it will most always have its concerns about Iran, where oil, its nuclear program,
and most likely outcome to draw a nuclear arms race is one that the world is keeping an eye on. The
Iran Deal signed by the former President Obama, has the intention of lifting sanctions with the goal
to keep Iran from producing nuclear weapons. With regards to the nuclear issue, the Qatari's close
relationship with the Iranians is beginning to add fuel to the gulf issue as a resolution is not that easy
to broker. With the focus being on nuclear weapons, one of the major problems that the world faces
is the North Korean nuclear threat, where the Iran Deal has prevented the rise of another country in
the nuclear race. With China opposing the nuclear program that the North is pursuing, it also wants
to keep its proxy buffer between the itself and the U.S. (where South Korea is concerned). With such
a situation, the deal that was made with Iran has proven to hold to its development and reasons for
existence – it has kept the creation of nuclear weapons from Iran, and escalating the world into
another field of the nuclear arena. With Iran making about $43.9 billion and $31.8 billion in both

Iran's Foreign Policy since the Early 1990's
1 INTRODUCTION
This essay will broadly discuss Iran's foreign policy since the early 1990's. First in order to
understand the foreign policy of Iran, the historical background of Iran's foreign policy will be
discussed. Followed by the foreign policy principles, foreign policy principles assist in shaping the
country's foreign policy and its relationship with other countries. After the post–Iraq invasion Iran
saw the security void as an opportunity to reshape Iraq in order to prevent it from re–emerging as a
strategic threat, although its operation of Iraq's freedom resulted to high levels of insecurity mainly
because other countries failed to see Iraq as a regionally powerful country. Iran's foreign policy aims
and roots are not only mainly pragmatic; they are defensive and based on state–orientated strategic
issues.
The research continues to broadly discuss Iran's Foreign policy through the following heading which
is Iran's foreign policy principles, Iran's first revolution, the second revolution, approaches of the
Islamic Revolution, Iran's foreign policy in the light of the Arab revolts and lastly Iran's foreign
policy towards United States. It concludes that despite the fact that Iran has been playing a major
role, it has only accomplished mixed results at best. The following two keys have been limiting
Iran's foreign policy which is because of its contradictory strategies that substantially contributed.
Firstly Iraq's bitterness towards Tehran's interference and

Iran-Contra Scandal And President Reagan
First, the Lebanese magazine Ash Shiraa reported that the United States had been secretly selling
weapons to Iran in an effort to guarantee the release of seven American hostages. Furthermore, this
illegal sale contradicted President Reagan's vow never to negotiate with terrorists and violated the
U.S. arms embargo against Iran. Additionally, documents were shredded to mask the paper trail in
the White House. Therefore, no connection between the scandal and President Reagan was ever
proven. Whenever Reagan was asked about his knowledge of the Iran–Contra affair, he would
claim, "I don't remember." Regardless, during the Iran–Contra Scandal, only 14 percent of
Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.

The President Of Iran
auditor", "No, I can give it writing if you like" and so it went, the man had an answer for everything,
like he had the office of the President of Iran. She was informed by a senior staff member, that Allah
had bestowed a great opportunity on her. She was chosen to go to Moscow and learn from the
greatest chemists in the world. Nothing more was established, just praise Allah and be ready to
leave. Specifics were not given, but she needed to plan for an extended period.
She was dismissed and returned home. She understood that the government now fell under strict
sacred rule and that questions of any sort would not be tolerated, in fact questions could be
interrupted as doubting the will of Allah. She went back to work and continued ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The unintended consequences that change the world forever are easily observed in hindsight. For
WW II to come together the "winners" in WW I had to become even more oppressive against the
Germans causing pain and depression.
A simple rule is that energy has to be used, it just does not disappear into the ether.
Think of it as the ultimate re–cycle plan in the world. In a way evil and bad emotions have a price
that is extracted once it has gone through the universe re–cycling system.
The emotional energy from this oppression paved the way for Hitler. When the US bombed the
boarder between Cambodia and Vietnam, it cut off ruthless and well trained Vietcong guerrillas
from getting back to Vietnam. Theses fighters ended up in the dense jungles of northern Cambodia
where they came across the Khmer Rouge, a communist group who was in need of training. The
Vietcong helped the Khmer Rouge, knowledge is power and the Khmer Rouge quickly displayed
this power by committing genocide in Phenom Penn. and allowed pure insanity to unfold as they
systematically killed millions of their own people.
Deep personal loss is one of those things that can make a difference because its stored energy
requiring an outlet. The magnitude of destruction that results is similar to a recipe for baking. Loss
that is great and allowed to fester does not go away, it just heats up and becomes more

Iran, India, and Mexico are in extremely different parts...
Iran, India, and Mexico are in extremely different parts of the world, making them very different
from each other. The three countries have different histories, geographies, and natural resources that
have shaped their development. Still, an analysis of Iran's, India's, and Mexico's economic
development and globalization, media access and coverage, and political leaders, shows that there
are some undeniable similarities. Despite the three countries being similar in some ways, overall
Iran, India, and Mexico are extremely different from each other; each country has a different
historical background that has shaped it to be what it is today economically, socially, and politically.
I. Economic Development and Globalization
Iran:
In ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Because of this, Iran's economy has since had negative growth ("Central Intelligence Agency").
Recently though, Iran's government has made a deal with the United States that they will pause their
nuclear enrichment program in exchange for sanction relief. Although it will not help the economy
that much, the psychological component of economic improvement that will come with this deal
could help in the economy picking up ("Iran's President: Nuclear Deal..."). Additionally,
unemployment is extremely high in Iran.
India:
In the past, India had a closed economy where it did not participate in international trade. Iran is not
similar to India in this way, especially because it relies on the exchange of oil with other countries as
a way to make profits. India's type of economy is one that is considered self–sufficient and does not
need external aid. Recently India has transitioned to an open–market economy, although it is not yet
completely an open market. In the early 1990s, there was economic growth due to industrial
deregulation and reduced controls on foreign trade and investment ("Central Intelligence Agency").
India is similar to Iran in this way because Iran also worked to make economic changes in the
1990s. Both reduced how much control and power each government had within their economies; for
Iran it was subsidies and for India it was reducing controls on foreign trade. India's economy has
also undergone privatization of what were once

Analysis Of The Book ' Taken Hostage ' By David Farber
The United States history during 1977 to 1989 went through two presidencies and whirlwind of
events happened. When President Jimmy Carter became president he wanted to lower the inflation
rates to make life easier for the people of the United States. While that was his goal it got
completely derailed. Near the end of Jimmy Carters presidency, a group of Iranian students took
over the U.S Embassy in Tehran and took people hostage. Over the course of the 444 days the
hostages where held captive while the people of the United States voted for a new president to help
lead them into a new direction. The people voted for Ronald Reagan. While he was president things
didn't go as he planned as well. The issues with Iran did not calm down and escalated to something
bigger. After the Iran hostage crisis, the US had another issues with Iran and it was the Iran– Contra
affair. During this essay I will be talking about the book called "Taken Hostage" by David Farber
and the information in the book. The book is about the time frame of Jimmy Carter's presidency and
the issues with Iran and the hostage crisis. The second half of my essay is towards President Ronald
Reagan's and the issues about the Iran– Contra affair and the lasting issues between Iran and the
United states.
The book "Taken Hostage" by David Farber the book starts off giving some background information
about the state and the economic state that the United States was in before the hostage crisis took
place. In 1970's

Human Rights Research Paper : Iran
Human Rights Research Paper
Introduction
Iran has long been known to be opposed to freedom of expression, and in recent years, their
negative mentality towards it has been too prevalent. In November 2015, Soheil Arabi, a 30 year old
Iranian citizen, posted a negative comment on Facebook, involving the prophet Muhammad. Iran's
strict and brutal laws regulating expression rights quickly came into action and showed their dark
side by convicting him, upholding the death penalty, and taking his life.1 Soheil Arabi's situation
provides insight into the brutality and corruption of the Iranian government; they prevent dissidence
from their subjects, rule over them with extreme control, and severely punish their citizens. Along
with Soheil ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many of these people are being brutally tortured and sentenced to death. The government
supposedly benefits from this from not having their citizens leak information about their country,
but this isn't the best way of solving that problem, one that arguably doesn't quite exist.
Although the Iranian government has tried to keep their country running the same corrupt way,
many outside organizations are trying to allay the problem. Independent journalists and social media
bloggers are writing about the injustice and corruption in Iran. Also, a show called Parazit, similar to
the Daily Show, makes fun of the government and brings hope to the Iranian Nation. The show is
produced by the Voices Of America, or VOA. The VOA is supposedly funded by the CIA. The new
president, Hassan Rouhani, who has also made it his goal to raise awareness about the issue, said,
"my advice that I give on a daily basis, on a continuous basis, to the Judiciary, is never about a
specific individual." The president of Iran doesn't necessarily have the power to change the corrupt
laws and fix all of the problems with the government, as most of that power lies within the judiciary
branch, but he is advocating for a law reform, and he is freeing illegally detained prisoners in Iran.
Historical Background
What the people in Iran can do has long been an

The Iran Hostage Crisis Changed The Political Connections...
Kristal Cannici
Dr. Lammers
The West and the World: 1945 – Present
20 November 2016
The Iran Hostage Crisis
The Iran Hostage Crisis changed the political connections between the United States and Iran for
several years to come. The Iran Hostage Crisis became a symbol of America 's global power and
influence On November 4, 1979, Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran, Iran, and took
sixty–three Americans hostage. The students agreed that the hostages would not be released until the
Shah returned to "Iran to stand trial for the crimes committed against the Iranian people." (Bechtel).
Despite the Shah's treatment of the Iranian people, the President Carted allowed the Shah into the
United States to receive medical treatment. Although President Carter made attempts to negotiate
the hostages released, he failed several times. Because of his failures he was viewed inept and
ineffective in regards to the crisis. The hostages were released on January 20, 1981, the day that
President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. This paper will discuss the main reason why the
hostages were taken, and why they were not released sooner.
Back in 1950, when Mossadegh was Prime Minister of Iran, he nationalized Iran 's oil industry,
reducing the European influence throughout the nation over the oil commodity. This sparked great
fear throughout the United States; they feared the communists would turn the Iran democracy
against them. After three years in exile, in 1953 Shah Mohammed

The Civil War Of Iran Essay
Historical Background
Throughout the 1980's, Lebanon was engulfed in a brutal civil war that was waged between the
government and different rebel factions. Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shia militant group allied with
the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), was one of the major forces fighting against the
Lebanese government. With Ronald Reagan as acting president of the United States, he made an
effort toward stabilizing the Area by sending peacekeeping forces to Beirut. In retaliation to this
involvement, a suicide bomber drove a truck into a military barracks, killing 241 peacekeepers on
October 23, 1983. 21 suspects were detained in suspicion of being involved in the planning of the
attack; Hezbollah, in retaliation, began to kidnap American and western individuals, demanding the
release of these men along with other outrageous concessions. Meanwhile, only a few countries
away, the newly formed Islamic Republic of Iran was at war against its secular neighbor, Iraq. Prior
to the Iranian Revolution, America had close relations with Iran's former leader, Shah Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi, and supplied the regime with American made military equipment. The new Iranians
leaders, however, had begun to exhaust these munitions from its war with Iraq, requiring more
weapons and spare parts in order to effectively thwart the advances by Saddam Hussein's army. The
United States however, had vowed neutrality, stating they would not sell arms to the belligerents of
the war. In the

Iran Hostage Crisis
Iran Hostage Crisis
Imagine being held hostage for four hundred and forty four days. The thought alone is scary but this
was reality for Fifty–three Americans when they was held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran,
Iran. This was a tough situation because America and Iran had bigger problems to deal with.
Insurgency broke out and former King Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced into exile by the people of
Iran. The United States backed the former King and when Pahlavi came to America looking for
refuge this caused a serious situation. The United States learned that Pahlavi had cancer and made a
choice to let him in for treatment. This angered the people of Iran and forced Iranian students to
protest outside of the American embassy. On ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first major visit was Vice President Nixon 's trip to Iran. After Vice President Nixon 's visit, the
Shah visited the United States under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. The United
States and Shah 's relations diminished slightly during Vietnam and shortly before Iran 's Revolution
when Jimmy Carter was elected into office as President.
President Jimmy Carter was put in a difficult situation and his decisions only made United States
and Iran relations worse. The revolution in Iran had become a reality when uprisings started.
President Jimmy Carter had a choice to support either the Shah or the rising revolutionaries in Iran.
There was no response from President Carter to the revolution, and it cost him. The cost came
shortly after the Shah was exiled from Iran. The Shah sought refuge in the United States after his
exile, and Carter had to choose whether he would interfere with the prosecution of the Shah. In the
beginning, Carter refused to accept the Shah because of the anticipated reaction of the Iranian
people. When President Carter discovered the Shah 's positive testing to cancer, the Shah requested
treatment in the United States and thickened the dilemma. After much consideration and hesitation,
Carter granted refuge to the Shah for treatment of his cancer. President Carter had imagined the
possible consequences, but he was stunned on November 4th, 1979. The crisis had

The Pros And Cons Of Iran A Threat To National Security
Iran A Threat to National Security Iran has been living with U. S. sanctions since 1979, hostages
were held at the U. S. Embassy in Tehran. For more than thirty (30) years the United States has
placed sanctions against Iran for international terrorism. The current sanctions against Iran date from
as far back as 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1737 and imposed sanctions after
Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program (Levs, 2012). On July 14, 2015, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) known as the Iran nuclear deal was passed, it is an
international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran. The JCPOA is between Iran and China,
France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The EU and the additional countries that are involved in the Iran deal, as well as President Trump's
security council are in support of signing and extending another 120 days. Hopefully, this will allow
cooler heads to prevail and allow democracy to work. The responsibility of the President and
Congress is to set policies to keep us safe. To provide funding to equip and train a sound military. As
well as have a strong relationship with our allies. Our state and local governments responsibilities in
insuring our national securities is to use the state and local funding to provide citizens with a
national guard and police force, to also establish a legal system, and adhere to the laws. Iran may not
be a direct threat. However, they are a threat to one of our longest standing allies. The protesting
towards the Islamic government in Iran due to the excessive spending to support Syria and
organizations such as, Hezbollah. The EU plus the additional countries included in the Iran deal are
hopeful that President Trump will sign to extend the deal. In the event this does not occur, we could
be looking at war against Israel and Iran opening their nuclear program. Our government
responsibilities from the federal level to local is to protect and provide.
Works Cited Levs, J. (2012). A summary of sanctions against

Taking a Closer Look at Iran's Revolution Essay
Iran a place located east of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and west of Afghanistan ("Where is Iran"). Iran is
having a revolution with its people because Mohammad Khatami, fifth president of Ian lost to
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential elections held in June 2009, former Prime Minister Mir
Hussein Mousavi accused the new president Mohammad Khatami of rigging the vote. Soon after the
announcement that President Mahmoud Ahmadiejad rigged the election, Green Revolution started
where thousands of young people of Iran storm though the streets to protest against President
Mahmoud Ahmadiejad. But the revolution did not last very long all thanks to its military, Green
Revolution was over and more than 500 young Iranians has been capture for ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
The girl was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. In Iran rich families can pay money to
the family of the victim in instead of execution. The murderer then walks free. The rich can get
away with murder. The UN has continuously asked the government of Iran to ban the use cruel
unusual punishment and torture on its people including minors. ("U.N. Again Calls On ...."). This
problem also lead to the problem of government taking away rights from the people of Iran.
President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who supports the right of freedom has signed many
treaties and document about the violation of human rights. The president of Iran is not honoring to
the treaties and documents that he has signed. ("U.N. Again Calls On ....").Under the eight years of
Ahmadinejad's government which enjoyed the full support of the Leader and the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps for the first six years, the people of Iran has been experiencing an
increasing of human rights violations, especially of women's rights, and there are also an increase of
restriction on the media and civil society organizations ( Tohidi ). The number of journalists,
academics and human rights defenders who have gone to prison during President Ahmadinejad's
term in office has increased (Memarian). Iran has been discriminating their people by their religious,
ethnic minorities, denial of political and civil rights. A Special Rapporteur

Essay On Iran Nuclear Deal
Iran Nuclear Deal: In or Out?
In 2015, a nuclear deal was struck between Iran and six of the world's powers: The US, UK, France,
Russia, Germany, and China. This deal was in fact the trademark foreign policy of Barack Obama's
two terms of presidency. On October 13, 2017, President Trump disavowed the nuclear deal, calling
it an embarrassment and the "worst deal". Trump claims the deal was too lenient on Iran and
consequently, Iran has already broken many parts of it3. The United States should stay in the Iran
Nuclear Agreement because atomic scientists have insisted the deal was effective4, it will burn all
other options short of war with Iran5, and leaving it would make other nations less trusting forcing
them to make less agreements ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Iran still and has always claimed they did and do not seek nuclear weapons.5 The scientists currently
are holding their ground against leaving the deal for they truly do believe that it is working and Iran
is holding back from designing nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to the Presidential White House,
they suggested additional ways to monitor Iran instead of denouncing and trashing the accord.6
Stating, that for the Iran agreement, it is "necessary to provide the time needed to develop and
implement these initiatives".1 If we lose the deal, how else will we be able to prevent Iran from
designing a multitude of nuclear weapons that they could aim right back at us. The only other option
would be to go to war with Iran. By dropping the deal, we also send a bad message. Whilst the
confusion is going on around the Iran deal currently, there has been an underlying tendency to paint
a demonizing picture of Iran, which could possibly lead US American citizens to misinterpret the
threat the country presents and what's really going on here under the mess of misleading cameras
and reporters.2 This misunderstanding could lead to a bigger conflict consisting of risky and totally
unnecessary confrontation. Not only would it burn all other options short of war with Iran, it may
nonetheless be the cause of war with North Korea as well.3 Now what would happen if we did go to
war with Iran? Iran's allies may turn against us; however, our allies may turn

Relations Between Iran And Iran
This paper explores long–strained relations between Iran and United States that began decades ago.
The paper also examines the events that led to this decades of disagreement between Washington
and Tehran. Allies to enemies, that is what happen after series of events such as the CIA backed
coup in 1953 to the hostage crises at the U.S Embassy in Tehran. The U.S and many of its allies
criticized Iran's nuclear program which they believed that Iran was using it to develop nuclear
weapons. Iran on the other hand denied this accusations and stated that their nuclear program was
only for civilian use only. After long talks and crippling sanctions against Iran, finally there was a
historic agreement between Iran and six world powers that would stop Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons and would lift the sanctions imposed on Iran.
Keywords: Foreign relations, executive agreement, interest groups, theocracy, multilateralism
The Nuclear Deal
Iran and the United States were once a powerful ally. During the Cold War, the United States
supported, and some cases rallied allied countries, including Iran as a fortification against the Soviet
Union. In certain cases, the United States was supporting unpopular and suppressive regimes. The
Shah of Iran and his suppressive regime was one of those governments. The Shah regime was
overthrown in 1979 and was ultimately replaced by another regime, but this this regime and its
leadership were anti–American. The new regime was a

Iran Pros And Cons
Under Supreme Leader Khamenei; moderate President Rafsanjani; and reformists President
Khatami, the Iran nuclear program received support in the 1990s from China, Russia, and the A.Q.
Khan network. China and Iran signed an agreement in 1990 and subsequently imported a metric ton
of uranium hexafluoride, a feed gas for gas centrifuges, from China in 1991. According to certain
safeguard agreements in place, Iran was supposed to report the transfer to the IAEA but they did not.
However, support from the Chinese stopped in 1992 after China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group
and succumbed to U.S. pressures. These measures forced the Iranians to seek assistance from the
A.Q. Khan network again; therefore, Iran purchased more drawings and components for 500 P–1
centrifuges and drawings for the upgraded P–2 centrifuges. Russia also supported the Iranian
nuclear program in the 1990s. In the mid–1990s, picking up where the Germans left ... Show more
According to the official White House website, Iran currently has two means to produce a nuclear
weapon, which are highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Assuming there are no other
secret facilities, uranium is currently produced at Natanz and FFEP, while plutonium is produced at
Arak. The website also mentions that Iran currently possesses enough HEU to produce eight nuclear
bombs, and that it possesses 20,000 centrifuges between the previously mentioned Natanz and FFEP
sites. The deal requires Iran to reduce its HEU levels by 98% and maintain the levels at or below the
3.67% while reducing the number of centrifuges to 6,104 for at least the next 10 years. Additionally,
the deal addresses concerns about future secret facilities, specifying that Iran is subject to
exceptionally vigorous monitoring, verification, and inspection measures as well as allowing the
IAEA access to any suspected nuclear

Iran And The Iranian Nuclear Program
Iran is currently a burning issue due to its nuclear program and the dialogue between the USA and
Iran has seemed very complicated since years. Western countries have feared that Iran wants to
acquire the atomic bomb since they have discovered its nuclear program in 2003. From that moment
Iran has been considered as a real threat by the USA. But in fact the relations between these two
countries have begun about 150 years ago and have not always been tense. The first relations were
also cordial and useful for both parties. Iran used the US help to develop its education and industry,
notably its oil industry, and the USA found an ally in the Middle East.
So why Iran came to be perceived as a threat to the US and is it still a threat?
Firstly we will focus on the beginning of the relations between the two countries. Then we will see
how the Islamic revolution in 1979 radically changed the relationships. We will also examine the
current issue of the Iranian nuclear program. Finally we will try to understand the foreign policy and
the intentions of Tehran.
1. Iran and the Cold War – 1950s
The first official relations between the USA and Iran began in 1856 when the Shah of Persia
Nasreddine sent an ambassador to Washington. Until the Second World War these relations were
cordial. Actually the support of the USA served as a buffer against the pressure of the British and
Russian Empire on Iran. But the implication of the USA in Iran was still limited. This situation
evolved

President Reagan And Iran During The Cold War
During the time of the Cold War, many people lived in fear of communism and terrorism. In 1983,
several Americans were taken hostage in Lebanon by a terrorist group. This terrorist group was loyal
to Iran, so President Ronald Reagan stated he was against Iran. In addition, he told American allies
not to sell weapons to Iran which would help them in their war with Iraq. Reagan proved to be
against Iran, however, in 1986 President Reagan allowed the selling of weapons to Iran. By the
selling of these arms, America would have the seven hostages in Lebanon returned. Then, members
of President Reagan's staff gave some of the money from these sales to Contras in Nicaragua. After
several investigations, it was seen that there was a scandal

Ken Pollack Of The Brookings Institution
Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution once said: "Remove all of the baggage– all of the ideology,
the history ...and look in purely geostrategic terms... it's hard to figure out why the United States and
Iran would necessarily be in conflict. In fact during the Shah's era, before 1979– recognizing that
there were all kinds of other problems– the Unites States and Iran worked together splendidly at the
strategic level" ( qtd. in Addis). Initially, the United States and Iran maintained amicable relations
but resentment rose in Iran over time toward the Americans. The Iran–contra with the United States
lasted for more than a century, conflict beginning in the late 1800s until 1980. The Iran Hostage
crisis on November 4th, 1979, served as the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mosaddeq supervised a nationalist party that sought to end all foreign intrusion in Iranian affairs. He
sought to nationalize the oil industry, whereas, the shah promoted a privatized system ("Iran Hostage
Crisis": Wright 1). Also known as the Iranian Coup D'état of 1953, the United States aided the Shah
to overthrow the government of Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq. Joined with the Shah, the Central
Intelligence Agency, more commonly known as the CIA, and the British intelligence engineered a
plan to depose Mosaddeq. The Shah bribed powerful figures, planted false reports in newspapers
and provoked street violence as methods of disposing of Mosaddeq (Wright 22). President Dwight
D. Eisenhower agreed and ordered the CIA to embark on Operation TP– Ajax to dispose of
Mosaddeq and install a new government by the Shah (Cohen, p. 57). The United States and Iran
became official allies. Following the Coup, Iranians began to protest that the United States retained
unnecessary authority on Iranian associations (1). Therefore, the Shah introduced the SAVAK,
trained by the CIA, as an enforcement agency to root out government enemies'. The SAVAK of the
shah murdered and tortured thousands of people causing significant tension and becoming one of the
most feared enforcement agencies in the world (Bechtel 2: Iran Hostage Crisis). Furthermore, the
Shah signed agreements with the United States and several other European countries for oil creating
more apprehension. President

To What Extent was President Reagan’s Personal Role in the...
A. Plan of Investigation
The investigation assesses the extent of significance of President Reagan's role in the Iran–Contra
affair in the 1980's. Reagan's role will be looked at while aiding the Nicaraguan Contras, releasing
American hostages, both which led to the Iran–Contra affair, and during the cover up, in America
and partly in Iran. An investigation account and American history are mostly used to evaluate
Reagan's role. Two of the sources used in this essay, Firewall: The Iran–Contra conspiracy and
cover–up written by Lawrence E. Walsh and The Age of Reagan by Sean Wilentz will then be
evaluated for their origins, purposes, values, and limitations.
B. Summary of Evidence
Prior to the Iran–Contra affair, Reagan was in the last ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Also, Oliver North was ordered to teach the Contras military tactics and raised money for them. As
Reagan and his private officials went about on doing this secretly, publicity had a way to find what
was going on. Congress was lied to as a cover up by Reagan so they would not intervene. After his
reelection, Reagan supported another covert program: an attempt to release hostages in Lebanon.
This would soon turn into the Iran–Contra Affair. In 1984 a Shiite Islamic group that was loyal to
Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini had captured and held seven Americans hostage in Lebanon. The
President was very much concerned for the Americans' well being. An Israeli foreign minister,
David Kimche, insisted that since Iran and Iraq were at war with each other, Iran would need more
weapons, and because Israel would also gain monetary benefits, they could help with persuasion to
release the officials. All the U.S. needed to do was to approve a small shipment of armaments to
Iran. Reagan then agreed to this deal, to sell arms to Iran through Israel, which would induce the
kidnappers in releasing the hostages. Even though Reagan stated before that "America will never
make concessions to terrorists," the transferring of arms violated that statement and the Arms Export
Control Act since congress was not informed and didn't give consent. The secret request, hidden
from congress would not only help free the hostages, but also

The Middle East : The End Of Israel
Today, the Middle East has become more dysfunctional due to various Countries changing
governments, and others becoming more chaotic. However, what most Middle Eastern countries
have in common is that they don't like Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The
reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu has affected not only the Middle East, but America as well.
Today, the United States is at a stand still with Israel as opposed to many years when they shared the
same views of their enemies. With the current U.S. Foreign policies and the reelection of Prime
Minister Netanyahu it seems that this friendship and other close allies might be dissolving.
Depending what the next few months bring, it will determine whether Israel will sustain a
relationship with the U.S. or will this once unbreakable friendship be pulled apart.
The recent negotiation with the U.S. and Iran over a possible nuclear deal has brought much
discontent with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu believes that this deal with
Iran will ultimately be the end of Israel. On April 6, 2015, David Jackson from USA Today released
an article expressing Benjamin Netanyahu's feeling about the deal on how the deal will leave Iran's
nuclear Infrastructure in Place. On the other hand, President Barrack Obama believes that this will
bring a new era of peace and nuclear free weapons in Iran. President Barrack Obama went on to
radio and said, "international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran's

Iran Contra Affair Case Study
I. Foreign Policy Puzzle
The Iran–Contra Affair in the 1980's not only caused a disruption in our nation, but also tarnished
the name of President Ronald Reagan. The Iran–Contra Affair involved two parties, the Contras, a
rebel group in Nicaragua fighting against their communist government, and Iran. The deal in Iran
was a trade to help negotiate the retrieval of American hostages located in Lebanon. During this
period of time, President Reagan approved the operation that involved the selling of missiles to Iran
during an arms embargo (Hunter, 2012). It was also said by President Reagan that as a country we
would not be rewarding terrorists by any means. One of the bigger issues regarding the money going
to the Contras was the fact that there was no congressional approval (Hurwitz et al., 1989). After the
Iran–Contra affair came into the light, President Reagan denied that he knew about the selling of the
arms and then money from the deal, going to the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Psychology
Often, people may look at a scenario and not really define what psychological factors that may have
been the root of why decisions have been made. There are quite a few aspects of psychology Reagan
possessed and could have contributed to his thought process when making foreign policy decisions,
in this case, the Iran–Contra affair. The main areas of President Reagan's psychology that will be
highlighted are the Big Five personality traits, specifically extraversion, emotional stability,
conscientiousness, and his need for power.
One of the first areas of Reagan's psychology that plays an important role in Ronald Reagan's
psychology are the Big Five personality traits. The Big Five personality traits consist of:
extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism, also
understood as emotional stability (Taber et al., 2013). The main areas of the Big Five personality
traits that will be analyzed will be extraversion, emotional stability and

History Of The Iranian Hostage Crisis
There are many important events that have occurred in this world. To the United States, Iran was
important. This is because Iran gave oil to the industrial West. In this case, the United States wanted
to keep Iran independent and stable. Though, the relations between the two countries soon became
broken. One major event was between the United States of America and Iran, which was the Iranian
Hostage Crisis.
On President Jimmy Carter's third year as president, the shah of Iran was in deep trouble. Iran had
brutal and unpopular policies that many people did not agree with. Revolution broke out in the
January of 1979, because many Iranians didn't agree with the shah's ruling. The shah had no support
due to his "secret police" that would ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The crisis made the relations between the united States and Iran very bitter. The Iranians also
developed strong and contempt feelings toward President Jimmy Carter. Carter failed at attempting
to secure the hostages' freedoms and that decreased his popularity. This crisis caused the Iranian
Revolution to get moved along and become a bigger problem. An oil conflict also resulted because
the United States then had trouble getting oil from Iran. After the hostage crisis, the U.S. then
looked at Iranians as terrorists and did not have

President Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran–Contra affair can be described as the type of event expected to give rise to a demonstration
of public support for the president. However, this incident had the opposite effect. The public's
response to the Iran–Contra affair led to a sharp decrease in the support of President Reagan. Due to
President Reagan's role in the political scandal of aiding armed conflict in Nicaragua, the United
States Congress used its constitutional power to investigate and check the role of the executive
branch. The impact of this congressional oversight highlights the checks and balances the Founder's
instilled in our political government during our nation's conception. Beginning on May 5th, 1987,
most of America turned in to national television to watch ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Oliver North became an American obsession even though he was convicted of charges related to the
affair, with the public making dolls, shirts, and even sandwiches as a tribute to him. It seemed as if
the Iran–Contra hearings were more of a last hurrah of the numerous Congressional hearings being
held in Congress rather than evidence of the hearings' efficacy. Compared to other hearings, the
Iran–Contra affair involved deeper partisan divides (Brown University). Party divides created
conflict through the congressional hearings, with Republicans defending and supporting the
administration and Democrats united in an attack against the administration. One of the minority
members of the House Select Committee charged with investigating the Iran–Contra affair, Bill
McCollum, made this statement, "Partisan bickering was the most distressing thing about the
hearings. It got in the way of our purpose, which was to bring out the facts, to determine the
President's credibility, and, finally, to recommend law and policy changes that reach far beyond
these hearings" (Brown University) Consequently, some blame can be placed on party divide as to
why the public and government officials felt very little had been done to address the secrecy and
blatant incompliance of law at a federal

Iran Hostage Crisis Essay
Iranian hostility of United States can be traced back to the 1950s. The United States supported any
regime that was not communist, even though they would be considered very unpopular with the
people of their country. Because of this, Iran became an anti–communist country and the Shah
became an ally of the United States. In 1950 the Shah left Iran when Mohammed Mossadegh was
elected Prime Minister. After Mossadegh election, he used his authority and nationalized the oil
industry in the country. This incident generated fear in the United States. The state department felt
that communists could abuse this anarchy and Iran could turn against the United States. The Shah,
who had been removed from power, contacted the United States and the Central ... Show more
Ronald Reagan won 47 states and Jimmy Carter only 37 states. President Carter worked till the end
of his presidency trying to negotiate with Iran. A few days before Ronald Reagan took the
presidency oath, President Carter received word the hostages would be released. "The day of
President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and
the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from
lawsuits arising from the incident". Once Ronald Reagan actually became President, the hostages
stepped foot and walked on U.S. grounds and were finally

Iran 's Iran Nuclear Program And Us Israel Relationship
Executive Summery:
Iran's clerical regime with a highly complicated government structure is an adversary of the US and
its allies in the Middle East. While the historical hostility between the countries, is more than the
Iran's nuclear program, but now the center of debates are Iran's nuclear program and US–Israel
relationship. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has reduced tensions between both
countries. But Israel and Saudi Arabia, two allies of the US and adversaries of Iran has opposed the
agreement. Iran is till considered a threat to the US national interest and security. The threats can 't
be eliminated by only military means, but it requires a comprehensive strategy. It is important to
reduce the capability of Iran and change its intention. The best possible way to do this is supporting
a gradual political transition of power from an extremist religious leader to the Iranian nation.
Iran in a Glance:
It 's important to understand a nation's history and culture to assess its intention, capabilities, threats
and strategies. Therefore, I would like to describe Iran 's history, government structure, and key
institutions briefly.
Located in the Middle East, bordering the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea, Turkey,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan, Iran is 1,648,195 sq km large.
It is the 18th largest country in the world with a population estimated at 80 million median age of
28.8 years, 99% Muslims and one 1%

The Iranian Revolution Of Iran
To be able to clearly answer the question on whether the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran
is a curious hybrid of authoritarian, theocratic and democratic elements on must define each of the
forms of government and compare them to the Iranian system of governance, also to explore the
Iranian constitution and make arguments and base an opinion on the findings, This essay will be
looking to analyse the Iranian constitution and set out to either question the statement made by
Francis Fukuyama or argue a case for it. This essay will also compare the Iranian constitution to that
of other states to fully get a grasp of the Iranian system of governance and its many levels. The
Iranian revolution of 1979 is maybe the most significant ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Khomeini became the new leader of Iran. With the change of leadership and system of governance
came also a new constitution based on Islamic codes and law. (w.l.cleveland, M,bunton, A, history
of the modern middleast, p.432)
What led to the establishment of the Islamic order in Iran started with a national referendum in of
march 1979 that approved of the replacement of the monarchy and the establishment of a Islamic
Republic, in the beginning there was a struggle to find a constitutional definition of the term Islamic
republic, when put forth to the assembly Khomeini personally addressed the assembly stating that
the constitution should be based "one hundred percent on Islam". (w.l.cleveland, M,bunton, A,
history of the modern middleast, p.432)
The Islamic Republic of Iran passed the new constitution on October 24, 1979 which replaced the
previous constitution of 1906. The constitution came into effect on December 3, 1979 and was
adopted by referendum. The new constitution was made up from the teachings of Quran and hadith
while implementing the Islamic Law– shariah and was outlined by Iranian Islamic scholar, Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomenei.
So how does the constitution outline power positions and to whom belongs what duties. The Iranian
political system is based

Iraq War Between Iran And Iraq

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Lisa Martinez

More from Lisa Martinez (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Iraq War Between Iran And Iraq