Students Again

National Security Policy Papers

 

The SS Mayagüez  Incident

 

 

Fig. 1. From Bill McKinley, “Rare Archival Photos.”

 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. A Brief History

III. Why was Force Deemed Necessary

IV. Ethical, Practical, or Political Issues Arising

V. Type of Forces and Operations Employed

VI. The Outcome

VII. Was the Operation a Success

VIII. Conclusion

IX. Works Cited

I. Introduction

The capture of the United States (U.S.) merchant ship Mayagüez (SS Mayagüez) is one example of an incident that involved the use of U.S. military forces abroad. In order to analyze this incident a brief history of the incident must be provided. Some questions pertaining to the incident must also be answered. These questions should include: Why was force necessary? Were there any ethical, practical, or political issues that arose? What type of forces and operations were employed? What was the outcome of the incident? After answering these questions it must be determined whether the operation was successful. In this case a view of success or failure becomes a matter of opinion and point-of-view. The crew of the SS Mayagüez was released from their captors. However, the handling of the incident failed to produce a positive result without the bloodshed of numerous U.S. servicemen. In addition, it is not clear that the deployment of these servicemen was entirely necessary. The operations occurring due to the Mayagüez incident was both a success and a failure.

 

II. A Brief History

The SS Mayagüez began sailing a regular route in 1965 between Hong Kong, Thailand, and Singapore in support of American forces in Southeast Asia. On May 7, 1975 the SS Mayagüez departed from Hong Kong in route to Sattahip, Thailand (“Capture and Release of SS Mayaguez by Khmer Rouge forces in May 1975”). This was the beginning of the voyage that would evolve into incident.

 

On May 12, 1975 the SS Mayagüez was traveling in the Gulf of Thailand. The ship was sixty miles off of the coast of Cambodia and eight miles from Poulo Wai. Poulo Wai is an island that was claimed by Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam (“Capture and Release of SS Mayaguez by Khmer Rouge forces in May 1975”). At approximately 2:10p.m. the ship was challenged by a Cambodian gunboat. The time approached 2:20p.m. and the SS Mayagüez had significantly reduced speed at which time the Cambodian gunboat fired antiaircraft machine guns across the starboard bow of the SS Mayagüez (Dunham and Quinlan 238). After the initial aggression members of the gunboat’s crew boarded the SS Mayagüez ordering the Captain to proceed to Kompong Som. The Captain refused this request claiming that the ship’s radar was broken. After many hours of being anchored near Poulo Wai the ship was provided with further instructions to proceed to the island of Koh Tang.

 

Once the ship approached Koh Tang an English-speaking Cambodian boarded the ship questioning the Captain about the ship’s mission. After they arrived at Koh Tang the ship’s personnel were taken off of the ship and placed aboard a Thai fishing boat. This was the first moment when U.S. tactical aircraft was noticed to be present by the crew. At approximately 7:00p.m. on May 13 the Thai fishing boat proceed to Kompong Som. During this voyage the U.S. aircraft unsuccessfully attempted to intercept the boat. When the Thai fishing boat arrived at Kompong Som the SS Mayagüez crew was questioned again by another English-speaking Cambodian. He asked the crew about Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affiliation and about arms shipments. The captors seemed to believe that the SS Mayagüez was carrying military weapons.

 

The Captain tried to convince the Cambodians that he would negotiate with the U.S. officials not to take military action if his crew was released. The Kompong Som Commander relayed this information to the Phnom Penh Commander. During this time the Kompong Som Commander indicated to the Captain that the crew would probably be released at 7:00p.m. on May 14. On May 14 at 6:30p.m. the crew boarded the Thai fishing boat, displaying white flags to avoid aggression from U.S. aircraft, and ended their journey alongside the USS Wilson at approximately 11:30p.m. At 1:05a.m. on May 15 they crew finally returned to the SS Mayagüez to continue their original journey (Kissinger 2).

 

III. Why was Force Deemed Necessary

During the Mayagüez incident, President Gerald Ford deemed that military force was necessary. This decision stemmed from provocation of another armed force. This decision was also advised by the President’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger (Mene´trey-Monchau 340–1). President Ford was committed, in times of confrontation, to the fact that he was willing to use military force (“A Strong but Risky Show of Force”). The President was also concerned that this situation could become another USS Pueblo incident[1] and insisted that would not happen (Frisbee). When the President was informed of the Cambodian action, he decided to respond rapidly (Dunham and Quinlan 238). In addition to the President’s unwillingness to stand down to confrontation and the fear of the outcome of past incidents there were other issues that aided his decision. These issues are ethical, practical, and political in nature.

 

IV. Ethical, Practical, or Political Issues Arising

The decision of the President to use force contains an ethical element. It could have been viewed as an immoral action by the President if he did not respond with military action. The Captain of the SS Mayagüez stated in a press conference after the incident that if it were not for the efforts of the military that the crew, “would be in prison or dead now” (Kissinger 3). If the President did not respond and the crew of the ship did end up imprisoned or dead the President would have been responsible for the decision that let that happen. This could have been viewed by the American public as an unjust decision. The decision to use military force was also practical. If American’s are taken hostage abroad it is sensible that the President should take action to secure their release.

 

In addition to the ethical and practical reasoning for the President’s decision, political issues were also present.

 

The incident was an international hostage crisis that the U.S. could not avoid without global backlash. If President Ford decided not to take any action during the Mayagüez incident the U.S. would appear to be a weakened nation. It was important to oppose the growing consensus of U.S. allies and enemies that the country was unreliable and lacked resolve (Frisbee).

 

The President had to show that it was unacceptable for anyone to challenge America or any of her assets. This incident occurred barely two weeks after the end of the Vietnam War. The President had to stand firm with his decisions and handling of this crisis to avoid added disapproval from the conservative section of the government and to avoid overall public disapproval after the loss of Vietnam. Due to low public opinion poles the Ford administration must have also seen the Mayagüez  incident as a final chance to regain confidence to further the chance for re-election in 1976 (Mene´trey-Monchau 339). It was the view of some that until “the Mayagüez incident President Ford was [considered] an unelected, interim figure” (Hart 12). Another political issue aiding the final decision of military operations was the fact that the U.S. had no diplomatic relations with the Khmer Rouge which had recently taken over Cambodia (Frisbee). Due to the President’s initial commitment of rapid reaction to this incident and the ethical, practical, and political issues that supported that decision he employed military forces and operations of a grand scope (“A Strong but Risky Show of Force”).

 

V. Type of Forces and Operations Employed

The military operation in this incident was an extremely complex endeavor. The U.S. did not have any diplomatic relations with the Khmer Rouge. In addition, the U.S. forces that were stationed in Thailand were inadequate and there were no U.S. warships in the area. All of these facts produced the requirement for a massive effort in order to be able carry out President Ford’s orders.

 

The President ordered the aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea and other Navy ships to set course to the Gulf of Thailand. U.S. military aircraft in the Philippines were ordered to find the SS Mayagüez and keep it in sight. A Marine landing team was airlifted from Okinawa, Japan to U Tapao Air Force Base in Thailand. The USS Holt, a destroyer ship, was to be used to recapture the SS Mayagüez. After the recapture the Marines, which would be supported by the Air Force, were to rescue the crew. The USS Coral Sea would be responsible for conducting four bombing strikes on military targets to convince Cambodia that the U.S. was serious (Frisbee).

 

President Ford’s determination to conduct a rapid response was realized. The rapid response would not leave anything to chance. It included a force of approximately six hundred servicemen from the Navy, Air Force, and Marines which utilized many military assets.

 

VI. The Outcome

The Mayagüez incident was a complex event that included many instances of uncertainty. There has been a lot of debate about the handling of the conflict and whether the results were produced from those particular actions. The event lasted only a few days and the military operation was small in comparison to some larger campaigns. However, aside from all of the complexities; the outcome of the Mayagüez incident resulted in the release of the U.S. crew that was captured.

 

VII. Was the Operation a Success

The operations involved in this incident were clearly a success; the captured crew was released. However, the reasoning for success is less certain. In addition, certain aspects of the operation could be viewed as less than successful.

 

The initial U.S. military tactical aircraft presence was believed to trigger the decision to release the hostages. According to the debriefing of the Captain of the SS Mayagüez which was held after the incident it is not believed that the more hostile military combat mission secured the release of the hostages (Kissinger 4). It appears that the initial threat of military force may have been adequate to make this mission a success. The larger scale military operation may not be the reason for success and may be viewed as excessive.

 

An argument can also be made that the time that President Ford allowed between the initial threat of force and the implementation of combat was too short. According to the Captain’s debriefing the Cambodian authorities had decided to release the hostages before the U.S. combat mission was initialized (Kissinger 4). The problem was that Cambodian officials did not make this decision known to the U.S. authorities which may have happened because there was no diplomatic relations present. The fact that there was no prior notification of the intent to release the hostages could lend credit to the other side of the argument that combat was necessary since the extent of the threat to the hostages could not be certain and time may have been of the essence.

 

One aspect that can be viewed as unsuccessful during this operation is the number of military personnel that were wounded, killed, and went missing (See Table 1).

	Killed	Wounded	Missing	Non-battle deaths
Army	0	0	0	0
Navy/Marine Corps	13	44	3	0
Air Force	2	6	0	23[2]
U.S. total	15	50	3	23

Table 1: Source: “Capture and Release of SS Mayaguez by Khmer Rouge forces in May 1975”

 

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine a value for human life. However, President Ford deployed six hundred soldiers from several sectors of the U.S. military to rescue thirty-nine hostages. This effort resulted in the death of thirty-eight soldiers, the wounding of fifty soldiers, and three missing soldiers. This incident has also been considered the last battle of the Vietnam War (Wetterhahn). The combat mission may have rekindled a larger battle which would have resulted in many more dead and wounded soldiers.

 

The actions that were implemented in the handling of the Mayagüez incident may not have been thought out well enough and enacted too hastily. The risk may have outweighed the reward. Of course, this is a matter of opinion. There is no doubt that military operation is necessary in certain instances to secure the U.S. and in those operations there is always the risk of losing lives.

 

This operation was definitely a success in producing the desired result of the release of the U.S. hostages, but it is a matter of opinion as to whether the cost of producing that result was too high. It is uncertain that the full scale operation which resulted in so many wounded, dead, and missing was the direct result of the release or if the operation could have ended at an initial show of force.

 

Success or failure of this operation can only be determined individually. Making that decision and will depend on which point-of-view in this complex incident an individual will implement in making their decision. Therefore, the view of success or failure regarding the Mayagüez incident can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, in conducting a full analysis of the entire incident it can be determined that elements of success and failure were present in the handling of this incident and the operations that resulted.

 

VIII. Conclusion

The Mayagüez incident was a brief affair that only lasted a few days. However, in researching the incident many complexities can be found.

 

President Ford clearly deemed that force was necessary as a response to this incident. While uncovering a deeper understanding of that decision ethical, practical, and political issues can be found to support reasoning for that decision. The decision to use force encompassed an extraordinary effort on behalf of the U.S. armed forces. The operations included personnel from the Navy, Air Force, and Marines which utilized many U.S. assets in this multifaceted campaign.

 

The outcome of this incident concluded with the release of all U.S. hostages. With that objective realized the operation can be viewed, on the surface, as a success. However, with further analysis of the incident many deeper issues are uncovered. Some of these issues include whether the rapidity and extent of President Ford’s response was necessary to produce the desired outcome and whether the price paid for that outcome was too high. Many of these issues contributing characteristics to overall success or failure in relation to the incident are dependent on individual opinion and point-of-view. This individual decision can only be determined once success is completely defined.

 

In this particular instance the definition of success is very difficult to determine due to the complex and unclear data regarding the incident: Were the Cambodians honestly intending to release the hostages prior to the commitment of U.S. combat operations? It is questions like these which are impossible to answer with certainty; considering there are sources that support both sides of this question.

 

In the end, the hostages were successfully released. Also, in the end, the forces committed were unsuccessful in resisting casualties nearly equal to the number rescued. The incident showed the extent of U.S. resolve to the world at a time it was most needed. Also, this incident could have rekindled the freshly ended Vietnam War. This incident encapsulates many examples that can be viewed from the point-of-view of success or failure. The overall outcome of the operation cannot be the only factor that earns the title of success. Therefore, the Mayagüez incident was both a success and a failure on many different instances that occurred during the event.

IX. Works Cited

“A Strong but Risky Show of Force.” Time Magazine Online 26 May 1975. 6 Mar. 2007 < http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,917461,00.html>.

Dunham, George R., and David A. Quinlan. U.S. Marines in Vietnam: The Bitter End 1973 – 1975. Washington D.C.: History and Museum Division Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, 1990.

Frisbee, John L. “Valor: The Mayaguez Incident.” Air Force Magazine: Journal of the Air Force Association 74.9 (1991).

Hart, Jeffery. “Why the Backlash Against Handling of ‘Mayaguez’ Incident?.” Human Events. Vol. 35 Issue 27 (5 July 1975): 12.

Kissinger, Henry A. Memorandum for the President. 19 May 1975.

McKinley, Bill. SS Mayaguez in Port. 2000. 6 Mar. 2007 < http://www.henninger.com/Mayaguez/stills.htm>.

Mene´trey-Monchau, Ce´cile. “The Mayaguez Incident as an Epilogue to the Vietnam War and its Reflection of the Post-Vietnam Political Equilibrium in Southeast Asia.” Cold War History. Vol. 5 No. 3 (Aug. 2005): 337-367.

USS Pueblo (AGER-2). 3 Feb. 2007. USS Pueblo Veteran’s Association. 6 Mar. 2007 < http://www.usspueblo.org/>.

Capture and Release of SS Mayaguez by Khmer Rouge forces in May 1975. 5 Jun. 2000. U.S. Maritime Service Veterans. 22 Feb. 2007. < http://www.usmm.org/mayaguez.html>.

Wetterhahn, Ralph. The Last Battle: The Mayaguez Incident and the End of the Vietnam War. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 2001.

 

 

U.S. National Security Policy Towards Iran

I. Introduction. 3

II. History of U.S. and Iranian Relations. 3

III. Current U.S. Interest Towards Iran. 3

IV. Current U.S. Policy Towards Iran. 3

V. Iran: Problems and Issues That Could Impact the United States. 3

VI. Conclusion. 3

VII. Works Cited. 3

Fig. 1 MidEast Web, “Iran: A Brief History.”

I. Introduction

United States (U.S.) national security policy towards Iran is a complicated policy that has drastically changed throughout history. In providing the history of U.S. and Iranian relations the complex nature of involvement will become apparent. Once a history has been provided, there must be an analysis of the current U.S. interest in Iran. What factors warrant a U.S. strategy towards Iran?  Are there economic or political interest? After the current U.S. interests are exposed an explanation of current U.S. policy must be provided. Is U.S. policy entrenched in creating difficulties for the Iranian government or is there more of an open diplomatic dialogue? In examining the U.S. national security policy towards Iran there must be the inclusion of what problems within Iran can have an impact on the U.S. Are there environmental concerns? Once all of these points-of-interest are discussed it will be shown that U.S. national security policy towards Iran is aimed at reducing the damage of a tyrannical government and increasing benefit and safety to the U.S.

 

II. History of U.S. and Iranian Relations

The U.S. has a very complicated relationship with Iran. Up until 1979, Americans and Iranians shared many common interests. Early in the twentieth century, Iranians were determined to promote democracy in the Middle East. In between World War I and World War II the U.S. and Iran were involved both commercially and politically. During the Cold War, the United States had a mutually beneficial alliance with the Iranian government (ruled by the Shah); a government that helped to modernize Iran and make it an important country in relation to the rest of the world. By the mid-1970s the U.S. and Iran shared a bond, especially in business and education. Over two hundred thousand Iranian students were studying in the U.S. during this period. Under the guidance of the Shah, the Iranian people wanted a strong economy, social freedoms, and democracy. This growing relationship between the U.S. and Iran would start to falter beginning in 1979 (Morgan et al.). The two main reasons for the severance of the relationship are due to the American hostage crisis in Iran and the fall of the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian hostage crisis occurred when Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held forty-two American diplomats hostage for four hundred forty-four days. This is an incident that the Iranian government has never apologized for to the American people. After the fall of the Shah, a U.S. ally, Iran was run by a new Islamic leadership. The new leadership has continued to avoid democracy, human rights and to pursue nuclear ambitions and harbor terrorists. Through the seizure of the U.S. embassy, Iran’s hard-liners were able to seize control of the government. Along with the seizure of the government came the end of the democratic future that the Iranian people sought. At this time, Iran’s international reputation and relationship with the U.S. was destroyed. The strain between the U.S. and Iran was heightened when Iran began to support terrorist activity against the U.S. through organizations such as Hezbollah during the 1980s. In spite of the U.S. and Iranian governmental relations, the U.S. still has a connection with the Iranian people. The U.S. has naturalized several thousand Iranian immigrants. These immigrants provide a significant contribution to American society. Even though U.S. and Iranian diplomatic relations have been severed, Iranian-Americans still have ties to their native country and hope for a more democratic future for Iran. Most Iranians today have no personal experience with the Iranian Revolution. Having lived under the hard-line regime, many Iranians of the new generation are renewing democratic interests that were present under the Shah’s rule. By the late 1990s, Iran appeared to be heading towards reform despite hard-liner opposition. However, the hard-line regime has continued to maintain control over Iran through the use of its security forces, judiciary, and the suppression of its critics. This has shown a clear struggle between the Iranian government and the majority of the Iranian people. In the current era, Iran’s government has continued to hold a position at odds with most of the international community. This includes pursuit of nuclear weapon capability, support of terrorists, and a disregard for human rights. (Burns)

 

III. Current U.S. Interest Towards Iran

Current U.S. interest towards Iran is rather broad. The main interest to the U.S. involves Iran’s impact over the Persian Gulf region. These main interests include the Arab/Israeli peace process, access to Persian Gulf oil, and geopolitical interest.

 

The U.S. relationship with Israel is an important factor to U.S. interest in the Middle East. Israel remains to be the only country in the Middle East that shares common values and an interest in democracy. Both countries have had a mutual interest in discouraging war, promoting stability, and achieving peace. U.S. interest in maintaining Israel as part of its interest in the Middle East is at odds with Iran’s view towards Israel. The Iranian government has been adamant about its disdain for a permanent Israeli state. Iran’s position on Israel has led to a terrorist opposition of the Arab/Israeli peace process. This Iranian action directly undermines this U.S. interest. In turn, on this issue, U.S. interest is aimed at the prevention of Iran achieving its goal of ending the Israeli state. (Myers, 7)

 

Another main interest the U.S. has in relation to Iran is access to Persian Gulf oil. The economic well-being of the U.S. and the rest of the world are dependent on the supply of fossil fuels. Iran is of major U.S. interest in this area considering that it holds approximately nine percent of the world’s oil reserves and sixteen percent of the world’s natural gas reserves. The U.S. is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, but must also be concerned about energy resource accessibility of its major trading partners. Occurrences of incidents, such as the Iranian Revolution, can have severe international economic repercussions. (Hamilton, et al., 13-4)

 

Geopolitical interests are also of concern to the U.S. in relation to Iran. Iran’s geographic and political factors have great influence in the region. Iran can contribute to the stability of former Soviet states in the Caucasus Mountains and Central Asia by providing an economic hub for its imports and exports. Iran’s military action on the eastern border with Afghanistan can help dissuade narcotics trafficking; stopping the flow of narcotics into European markets. Iran can play an important role in respect to Pakistan and India as a potential balance in the region and a transportation route for energy supplies. Russia and China have also shown interest in Iran due to its regional power and strategic location. Many of these attributes in relation to Iran are of great interest to the U.S. (Hamilton, et al., 7)

 

IV. Current U.S. Policy Towards Iran

The U.S. policy towards Iran is focused on expelling the unfavorable practices of the country. Some of these unfavorable aspects are: a tyrannical regime, support of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, disregard for human rights, and many other practices in an unending list. U.S. policy to thwart the unfavorable Iranian position includes: regime change, economic sanctions, and military containment.

 

Regime change within Iran is an active component of U.S. policy. There are several U.S. officials that believe that only a regime change will permanently reduce the threat created by Iran. Throughout the last thirty plus years the U.S. has provided funding to anti-regime groups. The current Administration’s interest in regime change became apparent after the September 11, 2001, attacks when President Bush included Iran as part of the “axis of evil.” More recent indications of the U.S. preference for regime change have included public criticism of the Iranian government’s human rights record. The U.S. has also implemented diplomatic missions around Iran to help facilitate U.S. democracy promotion programs. (Katzman, 29-30)

 

Economic sanctions have become part of the U.S. policy towards Iran. This policy aims to eradicate terrorist activity and nuclear proliferation. Iran has been included on the U.S. terrorism list ever since 1984. This designation bans any arms sales or direct financial assistance from the U.S. to Iran. In addition, being on the terrorism list, any other country that assists Iran in any of the previously mentioned efforts is penalized by the U.S. Proliferation sanctions have also been imposed on Iran. These sanctions also impact any foreign entities that assist Iran in any weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) programs. (Katzman, 9)

 

U.S. policy has focused on containing any military threat posed by Iran to the U.S., U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf, and international shipping. It has been mentioned that military action in Iran could become a reality if the President decides it is necessary. U.S. encounters with Iranian naval vessels have been less than cordial in the past. It has also been mentioned that U.S. military containment against Iran may change in the after the Iraq war. However, U.S. military containment against Iran is a current U.S. policy. (Katzman, 13-4)

 

V. Iran: Problems and Issues That Could Impact the United States

There are many problems and issues in Iran that could potentially impact the U.S. Some of these issues and problems include: environmental, weapons development, and Iran’s attack on the U.S. dollar.

 

There are many environmental issues in Iran which include air pollution. Air pollution is a danger that could not only have an impact on the U.S. but potentially the rest of the world. Iran has neglected to address its environmental problems as they are reaching a crisis point. In the past, Iran has shown devotion to preserving the environment. However, political goals and issues in dealing with economic sanctions have superseded environmental concerns. Iran is currently faced with many environmental problems:

 

In addition to deforestation and desertification issues across much of Iran’s territory, overfishing in lakes and rivers has caused a drop in fishing levels; industrial and urban waste water runoff has contaminated a number of rivers and coastal waters and threatened drinking water supplies; wetlands and reservoirs are increasingly being destroyed under the pretext of creating agricultural and industrial lands; and oil and chemical spills in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea continue to pollute the seas and harm aquatic life. (Energy Information Administration)

 

If these environmental concerns are not addressed they could have an impact on the U.S. and the rest of the world; environmental issues are never a one-country problem.

 

Iran’s development of weapons is another issue that could have an impact on the U.S. Threats against the U.S. by Iran, joined with advances in their nuclear weapons program, support for terrorist organizations, and international diplomacy are examples of the security threat Iran imposes. Iran has conducted a clandestine uranium enrichment program. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence is concerned that Iran will be nuclear capable sometime within the next decade. There are also speculative concerns about further capabilities of Iran in relation to weapons production:

 

Iran likely has an offensive chemical weapons research and development capability.

Iran probably has an offensive biological weapons program.

Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East. The U.S. Intelligence Community has raised the concern that Tehran may integrate nuclear weapons into its ballistic missiles.

Iran provides funding, training, weapons, rockets, and other material support to terrorist groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and elsewhere.

Elements of the Iranian national security apparatus are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq. (U.S. House of Representatives, 4)

 

All of the facts and scenarios pose an immediate threat that could have great impact on the U.S. Iran seems capable, or close to being capable, of supporting or carrying-out an operation of mass proportions to the U.S. The rift between the U.S. and Iranian government is deep and long-standing which increases the possibility for disaster.

 

Another problem that has an impact on the U.S. is Iran’s financial decisions that have an impact on the value of the U.S. dollar. Tehran has decided to end all oil sales in dollars. The willingness of other major oil customers, such as China and Japan, has expressed their willingness to buy oil in currencies other than the dollar. This creates even more problems for the U.S. dollar. For example, China has one trillion dollars in foreign reserve holdings, but has now stated that it will no longer accumulate reserves. Nearly seventy percent of the one trillion dollar holdings were in U.S. dollar assets. The demand from Iran for their customers to purchase oil in currencies other than the dollar will have a great impact on the U.S. federal budget and the value of the U.S. dollar. (Corsi)

 

VI. Conclusion

The U.S. national security policy has devised a strategy for thwarting the evil efforts of the Iranian government; efforts which pose a threat to the U.S. The policy also aims to benefit the U.S. and her allies. Some of the interests to the U.S. towards Iran include the preservation of Israel, access to Persian Gulf oil, and the power of Iran within the region. U.S. policy towards Iran plays an aggressive role. The U.S. has made it clear that it would prefer a regime change believing that will be the only way to reduce threat. The U.S. has also imposed several economic sanctions in an effort to reduce Iran’s involvement with terrorist organizations and nuclear proliferation. The U.S. has chosen a containment policy for the Iranian military to weaken any military threat. There are many problems and issues within Iran that have an impact on the U.S. Iran has critical environmental issues which could impact the U.S. Iran’s weapon’s development programs provide the possibility of Iranian sponsored terrorist attacks against the U.S. Iran has also posed an economic impact on the U.S. by facilitating the devaluing of U.S. currency. For all of the confrontational positions Iran takes towards the U.S., the U.S. must be prepared for the threat imposed through a strong national security policy.

VII. Works Cited

Burns, R. Nicholas, “U.S. Policy Towards Iran.” U.S. Department of State. 30 Nov. 2005. 20 April 2007 <http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/57473.htm>.

 

Corsi, Jerome R., “Iran Leads Attack Against the U.S. Dollar.” Global Policy Forum 12 April 2007. 20 April 2007 <http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/2007/0412attackdollar.htm>.

 

Hamilton, Lee H., et. al., “Thinking Beyond the Stalematein U.S.-Iranian Relations.” The Atlantic Council of the united States Jul. 2001. 20 April 2007 <http://www.acus.org/docs/0107-Thinking_Beyond_Stalemate_U.S.-Iranian_Relations.pdf>.

 

“Iran: A Brief History.” MidEast Web 2003. 20 April 2007. <http://www.mideastweb.org/iranhistory.htm>.

 

Katzman, Kenneth, “Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses.” CRS Report for Congress 1 Nov. 2006. 20 April 2007 <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf>.

 

Katzman, Kenneth, “Iran: Current Developments and U.S. Policy.” Issue Brief for Congress 25 April 2003. 20 April 2007 <http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/20242.pdf>.

 

Morgan, T. Clifton, et al., “United States Policy Towards Iran: Can Sanctions Work?.” The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University Apr. 1998. 20 April 2007 <http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/UnlockingtheAssets_USPolicyTowardIran _CanSanctionsWork.pdf>.

 

Myers, Harry L., “The U.S. Policy of Dual Containment Towards Iran and Iraq in Theory and Practice.” Air War College Apr. 1997. 20 April 2007 <http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/97-139.pdf>.

 

United States. Energy Information Administration. Department of Energy. Iran:Environmental Issues. May 2002. 20 April 2007 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iranenv.html>.

 

U.S. House of Representatives. Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Recognizing Iran as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States. 23 August 2006. 20 April 2007 <http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/IranReport082206v2.pdf>.

 

 

Political Ethics and political Corruption Papers

 

Al Gore – An Inconvenient Truth

During the film, An Inconvenient Truth, many ethical dilemmas came to fruition. The film was mainly about global warming. The effects of global warming and what is (or is not) being done to adequately address the problem. There is little debate in the scientific community that global warming exists and is a problem. However, there is much debate about whether the cause is man made. This film takes the stance that global warming is a man made phenomenon, or at least expedited by man, which is growing increasingly dangerous. In exposing two of the ethical dilemmas pronounced in this film the stance the film takes will be assumed legitimate, otherwise, the dilemmas will not have a base to stand and lend accuracy. The two ethical dilemmas that will be addressed are the death and destruction that will be endured if something is not done to stop global warming and the industries that actively deter activities that would aid in the fight against global warming in exchange for profit.

 

During the film a chart was presented that show the correlation between levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature levels from the last 650,000 years to the present. While Al Gore presented this chart he explained where our current level lies and that the lowest levels represented periods of ice age. Gore then predicted that within the next fifty years the levels would sky rocket which, on the chart, looked to be about three times higher than the range over the last 650,000 years. The he posed a disturbing question asking, if from our current level to the lowest level of the range was an ice age then what would happen if the level was increased from the current level to the predicted level for fifty years from now? He did not provide an answer to this question because he could not be sure. However, he did express that it was probably not good if you consider that on the lower side is an ice age (which is bad for obvious reasons). Gore also predicted, with more detail, what he believes will happen during the progression to this high level above the current range. Some of these predictions included more frequent droughts, wildfires, and ice shelf loss that could raise world wide sea levels twenty feet or more. If these predictions were to occur the result could be increasing loss of human life and extinction of many animal species. This raises the first ethical dilemma. Why aren’t the world and especially the largest contributors (the U.S., U.K., and China) to global warming doing everything within their power to prevent this progression? This leads to the environment versus the economy debate. Which side of the debate should government policies serve? This creates a dilemma because humanity will suffer in either case. It is dependant on personal opinion as to which suffrage will be more severe.

 

The final dilemma involves two industries that were presented in the film. These two industries are the automobile and oil industries. In the film it was argued that oil and automobiles are two of the leading contributors to global warming. The ethical dilemma entails greed or preservation of life. The film argues that greed is winning this battle. It was cited that there is at least 100 trillion dollars of oil still to be extracted from the earth and the oil industry intends to capitalize on every drop. The automobile industry was also charged with blame for making sure that the electric car died an early death. Should industries only interested in profit be able to make decisions that could threaten our very existence?

 

Both of these specific ethical dilemmas rely heavily on the belief that global warming is accelerated by human action or inaction. However, the biggest dilemma does not depend on whether one believes or not. The biggest dilemma is whether humanity is willing to risk it all to find out the truth of the cause and effects of global warming.