Danica McCallister

Marvin Aaron
History 121 T/TR 8:00
1 September 2014

Chapter 30 Text Response

The Cold War Intensifies

Jimmy Carter, during his presidency, aimed to govern in a way that emphasised the
importance of universal human right standards. Carter promised to reverse U.S. support of
dictators, secret diplomacy, interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and excessive
reliance on military solutions. Carters support of human rights manifested itself in many ways
throughout Carters presidency. Carter claimed a need to intervene militarily as little as possible
and aimed to find accomadation with the nations Cold War enemies. Carter also formally
recognized the Peoples Republic of China and signed a strategic arms reduction treaty with
Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev. Many of Carters foreign policy positions were established
through his lense of promoting universal human rights.
When the Soviet Union invaded their neighbor, Afghanistan, Carter found it necessary to
intervene in foreign relations in defense of Afghanistan, hoping to stop the spread of
communism and maintain the United States Stake in the oil supply found near the Persian Gulf.
.
Carter instituted the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use
military force if necessary to defend its interest in the Persian Gulf. His human rights policy fell
by the wayside as the United States stepped up aid to the military dictatorship in Afghanistans
neighbor, Pakistan, and the CIA funneled secret aid through Pakistan to Afghan rebels. Carter
also increased the budget in regards to defense spending.

Additionally in the Middle East, Iran opposed the role the United States played in the
overthrow of the Mossadegh government. Iran was also deeply opposed to the Shah and the
adoptation of Western cultures and values. Irans loud opposition came to the head in a
revolution of 1979 that forced the Shah out of Iran, and brought the Shitte Islamic
fundamentalists to power. President Carter allowed the Shah into the United States to receive
medical treatment, which was interpretted by many Iranians as United States support of the
eventual restoration of the Shaws power. Iran responded by breaking into the U.S. Embassy in
Irans capital and capturing sixty-six U.S. democrats. They demanded that the Shah be returned
to Iran for trial as a trade off for the captives. Carter refused, and further responded by freezing
Iranian assets in U.S. banks and placing an embargo on Iranian oil. To address the captives, he
sent a small military operation into Iran. The mission operation failed.
The overall morale as the Iran hostage crisis was broadcasted across the United States
fed a support of a more militaristic foreign policy. The relations between establishing a dominant
power in foreign affairs became once again emphasized. Because Carter stood in opposition of
such an established dominance and militaristic approach, it is said that these events led to his
defeat. The day Carter was defeated, the hostages were released. Relations with the Middle
East, however, did not resolve and remained tense.
I really found this section to be interesting. [Not to mention, it really made me want to
watch the movie Argo again]. I think the Carter administration really portrayed the difficulty of
balancing unnecessary interference with intentional advancement of certain United States
ambitions (specifically, controlling oil). It was clear the conflict of interest as Carter navigated the
waters that relating to the middle East presented. Same with the hostage situation. It all really
left me asking How little is too little? And How much is too much? Is there a way to remain
unremoved from foreign dealings that has a positive outcome? Do we get to wrapped up in
promoting freedom? I found it all very interesting.