Is it ever a good idea to get involved in a violent and problematic situation? The United States has handled conflicts in the Middle East gracelessly from the overthrowing of Prime Minister Mossadegh in Iran, to the involvement in the Iraq-Iran war, and all the way up to the present in how the ISIS dilemma is being handled. Beginning all the way back in 1953, the United States has involved themselves in Middle Eastern affairs hoping to achieve results that affect the country positively. The U.S. started it all upon the overthrowing of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in order to install a Shah who was more friendly towards the west. After having gotten tied into their affairs and becoming reliant upon
…show more content…
Now, though the U.S. is finally becoming more conservative in their involvement, they are obligatorily involved in the ISIS mayhem. In 1953, the United States made the mistake of beginning Middle-Eastern involvement by placing a western-friendly Shah in Iran. The author of the history.com article, “Iran Hostage Crisis”, explains how after the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran announced that he was going to nationalize Iran’s oil economy, the United States felt the need to selfishly step in. The author states, “In response to these policies, the American C.I.A. and the British Intelligence Service devised a secret plan to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with a leader who would be more receptive to Western interests.” If the United States wasn’t so reliant on the Middle East’s copious oil supply, there would have been no need to meddle with Iran’s government. After all, why else would the government of a country thousands of miles away from another have any concern with who was ruling the latter? The U.S. …show more content…
The war, like most wars was petty to begin with. According to the article “The Iran-Iraq War: Causes & Timeline” by Daniel Vermilya, the Iran-Iraq war started with tension over political points of view. Iran and Iraq were not getting along because of Iran being accepting of western relations and going against people like Saddam Hussein in the Ba’ath party who were in favor of nationalization. Eventually though, the war arose due to territorial disputes. (infoplease.com) Ideally, the United States would hold to their neutrality regarding conflicts between two countries entirely separate from it, but our actions ended up getting complicated, and only making the situation more convoluted. As reported by Seymour M. Hersh of the New York Times, “Iraq was on the verge of being overrun by Iran whose army was bolstered the year before by covert shipments of American-made weapons.” This is the paradigm of U.S. actions snowballing into more and more instances in which they need to involve themselves in not only calamitous, but wildly expensive situations. If they hadn’t secretly shipped weapons to Iran previously, they would not feel compelled to help Iraq fight back against Iran. Having to help Iraq in a long, brutal, and expensive war is bad enough, but the attempt to be seen as neutral regardless of the assistance to Iraq
Now, though the U.S. is finally becoming more conservative in their involvement, they are obligatorily involved in the ISIS mayhem. In 1953, the United States made the mistake of beginning Middle-Eastern involvement by placing a western-friendly Shah in Iran. The author of the history.com article, “Iran Hostage Crisis”, explains how after the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran announced that he was going to nationalize Iran’s oil economy, the United States felt the need to selfishly step in. The author states, “In response to these policies, the American C.I.A. and the British Intelligence Service devised a secret plan to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with a leader who would be more receptive to Western interests.” If the United States wasn’t so reliant on the Middle East’s copious oil supply, there would have been no need to meddle with Iran’s government. After all, why else would the government of a country thousands of miles away from another have any concern with who was ruling the latter? The U.S. …show more content…
The war, like most wars was petty to begin with. According to the article “The Iran-Iraq War: Causes & Timeline” by Daniel Vermilya, the Iran-Iraq war started with tension over political points of view. Iran and Iraq were not getting along because of Iran being accepting of western relations and going against people like Saddam Hussein in the Ba’ath party who were in favor of nationalization. Eventually though, the war arose due to territorial disputes. (infoplease.com) Ideally, the United States would hold to their neutrality regarding conflicts between two countries entirely separate from it, but our actions ended up getting complicated, and only making the situation more convoluted. As reported by Seymour M. Hersh of the New York Times, “Iraq was on the verge of being overrun by Iran whose army was bolstered the year before by covert shipments of American-made weapons.” This is the paradigm of U.S. actions snowballing into more and more instances in which they need to involve themselves in not only calamitous, but wildly expensive situations. If they hadn’t secretly shipped weapons to Iran previously, they would not feel compelled to help Iraq fight back against Iran. Having to help Iraq in a long, brutal, and expensive war is bad enough, but the attempt to be seen as neutral regardless of the assistance to Iraq