First steps in the middle east - how concerns about communism and orientalist perceptions shaped U.S. policy towards Iran in the 1950s

how concerns about communism and orientalist perceptions shaped U.S. policy towards Iran in the 1950s

Nonfiction, Entertainment, Drama, Anthologies
Cover of the book First steps in the middle east - how concerns about communism and orientalist perceptions shaped U.S. policy towards Iran in the 1950s by Michael Schmid, GRIN Publishing
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Michael Schmid ISBN: 9783638784078
Publisher: GRIN Publishing Publication: April 28, 2007
Imprint: GRIN Publishing Language: English
Author: Michael Schmid
ISBN: 9783638784078
Publisher: GRIN Publishing
Publication: April 28, 2007
Imprint: GRIN Publishing
Language: English

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject American Studies - Miscellaneous, grade: 1,3, Free University of Berlin (John F. Kennedy Institut), course: Rise to Power: US Foreign Policy in the 20th Century, 24 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: No area seems to be of more importance in the field of foreign policy and diplomatic history today than the so called Middle East. The continuing clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian suicide bombers, the difficult challenge of stabilizing a newly elected government in Iraq and the growing tension between Iran and the international community concerning the issue of nuclear power are just a few examples which illustrate the urgency to look at origins of these conflicts. As an example for this essay, I have chosen the case of Iran. I will focus on the very beginning of the involvement of the United States in the Middle East, and I will demonstrate what kind of issues and perceptions played an essential role in the determination of U.S. policy towards Iran. Although I do not attempt to find causes for the current situation, some of the factors I will identify in this essay might also serve as an explanation for the current conflict with Iran. Yet, this is not my primary intention and further research and empirical data will be required to investigate connections to the contemporary situation with Iran. However, I will argue that the way US policymakers viewed their Iranian counterparts did not change fundamentally for many decades at least regarding the country of Iran if not more countries in the Middle East. I downplay this aspect because a lot more research is needed to support this argument and it would extend beyond the scope of this essay. Mostly the dealings with Iran and its premier Muhammad Musaddiq in the early 1950s at the time of the Anglo-Iranian oil crises will be of relevance. The essence of my argument is that even though strategic thinking and the fear of a communist takeover of Iran played a role in negotiating with Iran, the reason why Musaddiq was toppled by the CIA and the British MI-6 was because Western diplomats had a so called 'orientalist' mindset and perceived him as too weak and irrational as to fight off Soviet attacks and propaganda which could have led to an eventual takeover of Iran by Soviet forces. In order to pre-empt that, the United States and Britain collaborated to bring down Musaddiq and install a shah regime that would, on the one hand be more favourable to Western oil interests, and on the other hand more resistant regarding possible Soviet invasion efforts.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject American Studies - Miscellaneous, grade: 1,3, Free University of Berlin (John F. Kennedy Institut), course: Rise to Power: US Foreign Policy in the 20th Century, 24 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: No area seems to be of more importance in the field of foreign policy and diplomatic history today than the so called Middle East. The continuing clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinian suicide bombers, the difficult challenge of stabilizing a newly elected government in Iraq and the growing tension between Iran and the international community concerning the issue of nuclear power are just a few examples which illustrate the urgency to look at origins of these conflicts. As an example for this essay, I have chosen the case of Iran. I will focus on the very beginning of the involvement of the United States in the Middle East, and I will demonstrate what kind of issues and perceptions played an essential role in the determination of U.S. policy towards Iran. Although I do not attempt to find causes for the current situation, some of the factors I will identify in this essay might also serve as an explanation for the current conflict with Iran. Yet, this is not my primary intention and further research and empirical data will be required to investigate connections to the contemporary situation with Iran. However, I will argue that the way US policymakers viewed their Iranian counterparts did not change fundamentally for many decades at least regarding the country of Iran if not more countries in the Middle East. I downplay this aspect because a lot more research is needed to support this argument and it would extend beyond the scope of this essay. Mostly the dealings with Iran and its premier Muhammad Musaddiq in the early 1950s at the time of the Anglo-Iranian oil crises will be of relevance. The essence of my argument is that even though strategic thinking and the fear of a communist takeover of Iran played a role in negotiating with Iran, the reason why Musaddiq was toppled by the CIA and the British MI-6 was because Western diplomats had a so called 'orientalist' mindset and perceived him as too weak and irrational as to fight off Soviet attacks and propaganda which could have led to an eventual takeover of Iran by Soviet forces. In order to pre-empt that, the United States and Britain collaborated to bring down Musaddiq and install a shah regime that would, on the one hand be more favourable to Western oil interests, and on the other hand more resistant regarding possible Soviet invasion efforts.

More books from GRIN Publishing

Cover of the book European Union and United States: Problems and Perspectives of the Transatlantic Dialogue by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Is the rise of radical Islam a response to authoritarian rule? by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book The Doha Round - Ambitious Aims, Enduring Impasse by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Analysis of Kodak Financial Report 2004 by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Estimated MPG and The First Amendment by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Different Readings of Sir Thomas More's Utopia - from an Ideal state to the First Dystopia by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book African American Vernacular English - Origins and Features by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book The protection of individual rights in the EU law system. Law provision's direct effect, applicability of law sources by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book What does a confrontation between autocratic rule and popular self-organization entail? by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Creative Poetry Writing in the EFL Classroom by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Taking sides in Ronald Harwood's 'Taking Sides' by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Global Business Context Environmental Report - Petrochemical Industry by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Washington Irving: The Alhambra His inspiration to write the tales by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Strategies of multinational corporations in the emerging markets China and India by Michael Schmid
Cover of the book Verb Valency - The dependents of the verb by Michael Schmid
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy