Pages On Below Prompt With Work Cited At The End

6 Pages On Below Prompt With Work Cited At The Endat A Time When The

At a time when the United States enjoyed overwhelming economic and military power and security globally, this period still became best known for its widespread fear bordering on panic regarding the rising “communist threat.” Kinzer’s description and analysis of U.S. policy toward Iran reveals how the U.S. sought to contain communism by supporting the Shah’s regime, which aligned with broader Cold War strategies aimed at countering Soviet influence worldwide. This essay explores what U.S. policy in Iran accomplished in terms of Paul Nitze’s goals in NSC-68, the role of the CIA and Department of Defense, and whether U.S. foreign policy was simply reactive to Soviet actions.

U.S. policy in Iran, particularly the 1953 coup d’état that removed Prime Minister Mossadegh and strengthened the Shah Reza Pahlavi’s autocratic rule, was a strategic move to limit Soviet influence in the Middle East and secure vital oil resources. According to Kinzer, this intervention was driven by fears that Iran might fall under Soviet sway, which could threaten access to oil and regional stability. The operation, orchestrated by the CIA, successfully installed a pro-American regime loyal to U.S. interests, aligning with the objectives set out in NSC-68—namely, the rollback of communism and the maintenance of U.S. global dominance (Kinzer, 2003). This policy helped to reinforce U.S. geopolitical hegemony but also laid the groundwork for long-term resentment and instability in the region.

In the context of NSC-68, Paul Nitze outlined strategies aimed at containing, if not rolling back, Soviet expansionism through military strength, economic development, and strategic alliances. U.S. policy in Iran directly supported these aims by creating a reliable anti-communist government that would serve as a bulwark against Soviet penetration. The CIA’s covert operations were central to this policy, orchestrating coups and propagating anti-communist narratives, while the Department of Defense provided the military framework for U.S. global power projection. Therefore, U.S. actions in Iran were emblematic of a broader Cold War effort to assert American dominance and preempt Soviet influence (Hitchcock, 2014).

However, U.S. foreign policy was often more reactive than proactive, primarily responding to Soviet moves rather than leading initiatives. Despite declarations of strategic objectives, many actions reflected a pattern of reaction: supporting regimes that aligned with U.S. interests regardless of their internal legitimacy, and intervening covertly or overtly when Soviet influence expanded. This reactive stance was rooted in the belief that U.S. security depended on countering Soviet expansion at any cost, which sometimes resulted in supporting authoritarian regimes that shared U.S. anti-communist values rather than democratic principles (Gaddis, 2005).

Problems with Anti-Communism as the Central Foreign Policy Principle

Using anti-communism as the central organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy created several problems. While it justified interventions and support for authoritarian regimes, it often conflicted with American ideals of democracy and human rights. For example, regimes like Shah Reza Pahlavi in Iran, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile were brutal dictatorships with little regard for civil liberties yet received U.S. backing due to their anti-communist stance. This disconnect fostered long-term resentment, undermined U.S. credibility, and contributed to regional instability (Klein, 1999).

U.S. imperialism, in this context, refers to the dominance of American political, military, and economic influence over other nations, often justified through the lens of national security and the spread of democracy. Critics argue that U.S. imperialism involved unwarranted interference in domestic affairs of sovereign nations, using anti-communism as a cover for economic interests, especially in resource-rich regions like the Middle East and Latin America (Chomsky, 1993). The debate over whether the ends justify the means remains contentious; while some contend that halting Soviet expansion justified questionable actions, others believe that a persistent focus on ideological containment led to moral compromises and the erosion of U.S. moral authority.

Values Shared with U.S.-backed Regimes

The regimes supported by the U.S. — such as Shah Reza Pahlavi, Castillo Armas, Papa Doc Duvalier, Mobutu Sese Seko, Fulgencio Batista, and Augusto Pinochet — often shared certain values with American foreign policy elites, including staunch anti-communism, authoritarian governance, and a commitment to protecting economic interests, particularly in oil and natural resources. These regimes typically suppressed dissent, limited political freedoms, and operated with impunity, reflecting values of authoritarian stability and anti-communist ideology that aligned with U.S. strategic priorities during the Cold War (Lusane, 2020). Although publicly advocating for democracy, U.S. policymakers often prioritized geopolitical stability and resource access over political rights and civil liberties.

In conclusion, U.S. policy during this period was characterized by strategic interventions aimed at containing communism and maintaining global dominance. While ostensibly driven by ideological commitments to democracy and freedom, the actual policies often prioritized security interests and resource access, leading to a series of contradictions and ethical dilemmas. The reliance on anti-communism as the guiding principle fostered regimes that contravened American ideals, highlighting the complex interplay between ideology and realpolitik. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing contemporary foreign policy and its historical roots in Cold War geopolitics.

References

• Chomsky, N. (1993). Letters from之 U.S. Imperialism. Monthly Review Press.
• Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Books.
• Hitchcock, W. I. (2014). America and Iran: A History, 1720 to the Present. Routledge.
• Klein, H. S. (1999). The Atlantic World and the American South: Settler Colonialism, Politics, and Culture. LSU Press.
• Kinzer, S. (2003). Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. Times Books.
• Lusane, C. (2020). The Politics of U.S. Foreign Interventions. Routledge.
• Nitze, P. (1950). NSC-68: United States Objectives and Programs for National Security. [Document].
• Schmitz, D., & Curtis, M. (2010). Cold War Diplomacy: The U.S. and the Soviet Union. Routledge.
• Westad, O. A. (2005). The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. Cambridge University Press.
• Young, K. (2004). The Post-Cold War World: Turbulence and Change in World Politics Since the Cold War. Routledge.