Reagan Foreign Policy Regan Foreign

Reagan Foreign Policy

Regan Foreign Policy (Paper 1)

The Reagan Administration's policies were focused on counteracting the Soviet Union's military buildup from the 1960s into the 1980s. In retrospect, some of his supporters such as Steven Hayward claimed that Reagan's real intentions were to win the Cold War (although this was never mentioned during his presidency). He advocated a policy of "Peace through Strength" and increased military spending on conventional and nuclear weapons. (Hayward, 2009, pg. 99). Essentially, the Cold War was a central them to Reagan's worldview. Regardless of the new threats were emerging at the end of his second term.

Not all of the foreign policy decisions were in line with Regan's ideals especially in: Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a representation of new challenges to be addressed in the future. In the case of Iran, an Islamic-fascist leaning government came to power (which was hostile to the Soviet Union and the United States). This was also the situation with the Afghan freedom fighter that the U.S. was supporting. Iran was a major military and economic partner during the Cold War. This was the main reason why the CIA supported a coup in 1953 in order to prevent the nationalization of assets that were owned by British Petroleum. During the 1979 Revolution, the U.S. support continued for Shah because of these interests. As a result, Iran became hostile to both sides in the Cold War (which led to military and economic isolation over the last thirty two years). (Khan, 2010, pp. 77 -- 110)

Throughout the Iran-Iraq War (from 1980 to 1988), the U.S. provided direct support to Saddam Hussein (of Iraq) when he attacked Iran. This is despite the fact that he had been an ally of the Soviet Union going back to the late 1960s. After the downfall of the Shah, Iraq invaded Iran, under the premise that the purging of the Shah's military left the Islamic Republic significantly weakened. The idea was that Iraq could be able to seize key ports and increase its control of major oil resources. This was a perfect opportunity for U.S. officials to sell arms and military equipment to Iraq (in an effort to counteract any kind of Iranian influences). (Khan, 2010, pp. 77 -- 110) During this time is when the U.S. And its allies sold to Saddam Hussein same weapons of mass destructions that were used a justification for invading Iraq later on.

Furthermore, no U.S. President has had any kind of strong diplomatic relations with the Iranian regime. The economic embargo, that was imposed in the after the downfall of the Shah was designed to cripple the Islamic Republic. This has caused the Iran to lag behind Turkey in economic development (despite the windfall revenues they are receiving from the sale of oil). At the same time, Iran was focused on acquiring nuclear weapons going back to the mid 1970s (under the Shah). This was not considered to be an area of strategic importance given their inability to have a massive WMD program in place. As a result, Regan ended up passing on to his predecessors the challenges associated with the Iran and its hostility towards the U.S. (Hayward 2009, pg. 108)

Another significant aspect of his policy was to support freedom fighters such as: the Contras in Nicaragua and the guerillas in Afghanistan. In both situations, the Administration supported these ideas through providing direct assistance to both groups. The way that this was accomplished was to give these individuals more advanced weaponry in an effort to directly attack communist forces. The results were that this policy allowed officials to address the immediate threats over the short to medium term. While at the same time, this policy emboldened these groups. One of the individuals that U.S. were directly providing with billions of dollars in weapons was the Osama Bin Laden. After the Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan is when these groups become stronger from the weapons and training that they received. This left many regional countries such as: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran with directly interacting with these individuals and organization when the Regan Administration did not see them as a threat. (Hayward 2009, pg. 108)

Bin Laden and other groups were provided with direct military assistance by the U.S., Pakistan and the Saudi Arabia. The war allowed these groups to have a single enemy to focus on and it provide them with a training ground for a host of activities. To help fund these activities, Bin Laden established a number of charities through the Middle East that were providing him with financial assistance. This network remained in place until the September 11th terrorist attacks. ("9/11 Report," 2003)

Moreover, Pakistan's intelligence services played a vital role in supporting jihadist groups. After the Soviet Union withdrew, is when these groups would unite to form the Taliban. They practiced radical Islam and established this kind of government in Afghanistan until 2001. There was also support provided by radical Islamic clerics. One of which was Omar Abdel Rahman, who was a blind Egyptian cleric, that encouraged his students to become involved in terrorist activities. He inspired the assentation of Anwar Sadat and the terrorists behind the first World Trade Center bombing. This helped to provide these groups with new recruits that were willing to support radical Islamic ideas. ("9/11 Report," 2003)

Bin Laden believed that the U.S. And its friends were supporting an extermination campaign against the Muslims though their backing of Israel. This is because America was a corrupt nation based on its history and civilization. Many of the monarchs and dictatorships, throughout the region were backed by American assistance. At the same time, a series of schools were created in Pakistan and other Muslim countries that provided students with an indoctrination in radical Islam. In the 1980s, this provided the jihadists and eventually the Taliban (in the 1990s) with new recruits for their organization. The various assignations that were occurring (such as Sadat of Egypt) were a sign of the growing influence of these groups. Regan did not see these challenges, which made his foreign policies counterproductive or nonexistent in these areas. (9/11 Report)

After Regan left office, is when his predecessors were left with a host of foreign policy issues. In the case of the George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush; they were forced to deal with an emboldened Iraq. This is when these weapons were used on other nations such as: when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait over an oil dispute. Furthermore, this approach also strengthened many of the Islamic groups. These elements are significant, in showing how Regan's policies were based on the East-West conflict. This caused his Administration to focus exclusively on these challenges, while ignoring the after effects of arming various groups and nations. In many ways, the lack of concentrating on these areas made the underlying situation much worse. (Scott, 2003, pp. 85 -- 96) (Brown, 1995, pp. 249 -- 265)

The effect of these diplomatic efforts is that the U.S. started: supporting governments, groups and individuals that shared similar ideas in select areas. This was designed to keep friendly governments in power. Over the course of time, this had a negative impact on a number of countries that were in the areas where conflicts were taking place. (Scott, 2003, pp. 85 -- 96) (Brown, 1995, pp. 249 -- 265)

For example, when the U.S. withdrew support for jihadist activities after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. This created a power vacuum in the region, with Afghanistan falling under the influence of a radical Islamic government that was unfriendly to the U.S. While in Pakistan, this created a number of radical militias that were exporting terrorism to their neighbors in the region (i.e. India). This increased the amounts of terrorist related activities. (Scott, 2003, pp. 85 -- 96) (Brown, 1995, pp. 249 -- 265)

For the U.S., this became an increasing threat from these groups, with the realization that they were capable of conducting devastating attacks on American soil. While Iraq, was able to use these weapons to become a constant threat to its neighbors (leading to fears that they have WMDs). This had an effect on the region by placing many America's Arab allies, in the position of having to deal with this rising threat. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, this increased the dangers that the U.S. was facing from once allied regimes and groups. This is when the vulnerabilities from these organizations rose exponentially leading to future conflicts. In this aspect, the diplomatic effort failed to anticipate or identify these problems early. (Brown, 1995, pp. 249 -- 265)

Part II

After the Cold War, the relationship between Iran and U.S. is fueled by animosity and anger. At the heart of this dispute, are the historical issues Iran has with America's support for brutal regimes and Israel in particular. In response to these issues, Iran has sponsored terrorist related activities that are directly targeting U.S. interests. Like what stated earlier, since 1979 the U.S. has unilaterally imposed sanctions to punish Iran for its support of these activities. To address the shortages from this embargo, the Iranian government has been working on developing nuclear power. They claim that this will help to tackle the nation's current and future energy needs. (Khan, 2010, pp. 77 -- 110)

This has led to the UN imposing another embargo against the Islamic Republic for their continuing incompliance with international law. At the heart of the issue, are concerns that Iran is using their nuclear energy program as a cover for developing an atomic bomb. The fear is that the Iranians will pass on nuclear related materials to terrorist groups or they will use these weapons to attack the U.S. To prevent this from happening, America is leading an international effort to further isolate Iran. In response, Iran has been defiantly working on their program. This has caused the tensions to increase exponentially with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz and directly attack the U.S. Or Israel (in the event of a military conflict). These factors are illustrating how the underlying hostilities between Iran and the West have risen dramatically. (Khan, 2010, pp. 77 -- 110) ("Iran to Hold Military Drills," 2012)

In the case of China, the U.S. is taking a different approach. Towards the end of the Cold War, is when the U.S. began to work closely with China. This is because the Chinese government was reforming the economy and opening up many areas that had been closed to outsiders. The way that this was achieved was through: supporting the liberalization of the economy and promoting democratic principles. Over the course of time, these reforms have helped China to improve its standard of living. ("China," 2012) ("United States," 2012)

In general, this policy has been both a success and failure. The way that it achieved the intended objectives, is to encourage economic development in China. During the last 20 years, this has created a major shift with China becoming the second largest economy in world and it is experiencing tremendous amounts of economic growth. ("China," 2012)

The problem is that China has been reluctant to embrace political reforms. This is because the military establishment and the Communist party members want to keep strict controls on personal freedoms. The results have been that the government has cracked down on: protests arrested / tortured political prisoners and imposed strict limitations on what content is acceptable for viewing. At the same, China has been rapidly modernizing and expanding the size of their military. These issues are leading to confrontations on the world stage. As the United States want to maintain a certain balance of power in the region and support of democratic ideals. The issue is that China is challenging these policies through their hostile tone and support of brutal regimes that are not friendly to the West (i.e. North Korea and Iran). This makes it difficult for the U.S. To deal with issues like: nuclear proliferation and terrorism. (Shirk, 2007, pp. 13 -- 35) (Shirk, 2007, pp. 79 -- 110)

These areas are showing, how the current diplomatic approach is bringing about select changes inside China. The biggest challenges are associated with how fast these transformations are occurring. This is creating periods where there will be increased amounts of tension between the U.S. And China about some of its policies. While at other times, there will be a strong bond based on the close economic relationship. As a result, the current diplomatic approach is addressing the economic challenges facing China. It is also increasing the amounts of fear and skepticism surrounding its long-term objectives. (Shirk, 2007, pp. 13 -- 35) (Shirk, 2007, pp. 79 -- 110)