Fp Paper 1

1369 WordsMar 30, 20126 Pages
Steve Smith Article Question #1 The article by Steve Smith outlined the Iran Hostage Crisis as a case of bureaucratic politics and provided convincing evidence as to why it should be thought of as such. Specifically, the most compelling arguments lie in the actual structure of the meetings and parties involved. Although many different parties were involved in the discussion, it remained clear that the parties involved all had their own goals and objectives in mind which directly correlated to their role in government and defined organizational interests. The four main groups involved in the management of the crisis were: President Carter, President Carter’s supporters, “The Doves”, and “The Hawks”. Throughout negotiations and the three meetings on the interests of these four entities either changed or remained the same dependent on extenuating circumstances. For example, while President Carter originally maintained that sanctions should be the primary method through which Iran should be pressured into releasing the hostages. However, as public pressure mounted for him to “do something”, his attitude changed and he became inclined to use force. This, most likely, had to do with his desire to be re-elected. Thus, his position directly affected his decision on the process and exemplified the saying “where you stand depends on where you sit”. This self-preservation process also showed itself in the cases of the three other groups as they too proposed options that would enhance their self-interests. Question #2 There is also evidence that the groupthink model may have played a role in this particular situation. This is the most obvious in the case of Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher (the Doves). On March 22, Vance—the Secretary of State— presented his dissenting opinion on the rescue mission to the four parties involved. After leaving the meeting he “felt there

More about Fp Paper 1

Open Document