Operation Eagle Claw: Action Plan And Significance Sample College Essay

Introduction

The United States government always does whatever it takes to rescue its citizens from the dangerous hands of terrorists. Over the past, the government has launched several rescue missions to salvage captured Americans from terrorists or any perilous groups. Although some of the operations failed, most of them were successful. The American government does not “negotiate” with terrorists and does everything within its power to prevent terror attacks on its soil. The government has devised new tactics to attack its enemies throughout history based on lessons learned from failed missions such as, for instance, the “Operation Eagle Claw”. The mission was subject to poor battle preparation and adverse weather conditions at Iran’s operation’s venue. Albeit the mission’s failure, the military improved its operations to date based on the experiences during “Operation Eagle Claw”. Consequently, the U.S has remained significant in the global fight against terrorism. Although the “Operation Eagle Claw” failed due to unpreparedness and adverse weather conditions in Iran, it remained significant in transforming the American military operations.

Definition and Sources

Operation Definition

The United States embassy in Tehran, Iran, remains significant in American battle history. Incited by hatred and radicalization, about three thousand militant students stormed the embassy on November 4th 1979 seizing 90 hostages including Americans (Amin, 2021). The attacks were incited by president Jimmy Carter’s allowance of the deposed Iranian ruler, Mohamed Pahlavi, into the United States (Nightingale, 2020). The then-new Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, demanded Shah’s return to Iran and the end of the United States’ influence on Iran. After a long period of negotiations, Iran released thirteen hostages. The adversaries kept the remaining fifty-two hostages until 1980, five months later, after failed negotiations (Nightingale, 2020). American military refined a potential rescue mission through vigilante troop and war equipment selection. “Operation Eagle Claw” was launched on April 16th, 1980 (Williamson, 2020). The U.S military drafted an infiltration plan to rescue Americans from the harsh Iranian government.

Research Sources

In Operation Eagle Claw: The ramifications of political divisions in U.S. decision-making during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981 Mary Bowman provides a debrief of the operation and its political ramifications between President Jimmy Carter and his political advisors. The article discusses how the then dovish Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and the hawkish National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, coldly welcomed the idea (2016). Albeit the confrontations against the rescue mission, president Carter allowed the operation that eventually failed. The operation became disastrous to Jimmy Carter’s 1980 presidential bid. Although the article precisely dissects the political environment of the battle, the author fails to cover the rationale of President Carter’s decisions sufficiently.

Nightingale’s Phoenix Rising: From the Ashes of Desert One to the Rebirth of U.S. Special Operations, critically analyses “Operation Eagle Claw” and its impact on the U.S. Special operations. Nightingale, the then-junior member of the Joint Task Force, recounts the events before the rescue mission and the American military’s lessons from the failed mission (2020). The book further tells the formation of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC) and the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Although Nightingale’s book presents real-life experience, the book fails to recount the specific details of the negotiations between the American government and the Iranian adversaries.

Williamson’s book, The disastrous bid to end the Iranian hostage crises, tells the full story of “Operation Eagle Claw”. The book uses maps, exceptional commissioned bird’s-eye views, and battle scenes, helping understand the terrain of the battlefield and weather conditions that culminated in the abortion of the mission (Williamson, 2020). However, the book fails to recount the Iranian political situation that led to the hostage crises and encumbered the negotiations.

Operation Setting

Events Leading to “Operation Eagle Claw”

The U.S government has a long history of fighting militia groups and undemocratic governments that threaten the Americans. The Iranian and the U.S government clashed over control of massive oil reserves in Iran. The clash between the two countries outrageously deteriorated the two countries’ relations. Consequently, the Iranian Revolution groups were enraged caused tensions in Iran between 1978 and 1979. A bloodless coup d’état was organized, deposing Shah Pahlavi in January 1979 (Nightingale, 2020). A famous Islamic cleric, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, took over and promised the Iranians freedom. The war guerillas occupied the U.S embassy few day after the coup d’état (Williamson, 2020). The attack left two Iranians dead as Khomeini demanded the American government reduce its presence in Iran. To meet Khomeini’s demands, the American government reduced its embassy staff from 1400 to 70 (Nightingale, 2020). The new militant Iranian government detororiated the American-Iran relationship.

Amidst the tense Iranian and U.S relationship, the U.S government favored the deposed Shah. The Islamic revolutionaries were angered, leading to an attack on the U.S embassy on November 4th 1979 (Nightingale, 2020). A group of Iranian students, Khomeini’s diehards, convened outside the U.S embassy. The group broke into the embassy’s gate, intending to conduct a peaceful demonstration that went sour (Bowman, 2016). The students held the U.S diplomats and embassy’s staff hostage. American businesspeople, marines, reporters, three CIA, and government contractors were among the victims (Nightingale, 2020). Khomeini released thirteen hostages, women, blacks and African Americans, on the premise that they were also victims of America’s oppression (Williamson, 2020). The remaining fifty-two hostages were subjected to harsh treatment, including bounding, gagging, and being forced to pose for cameras.

The former U.S President, Jimmy Carter, sent a delegation to Iran to negotiate for the hostages’ release. However, the delegation was denied entry onto Iranian soil (Williamson, 2020). The president resorted to a rescue mission that failed, albeit with a cold reception from his key advisors. The Iranian government moved the hostages in secret locations and resisted any diplomatic conversation with the United States in light of the failed mission.

Aims of the Principal Adversaries

The principal adversaries during the operation were the new Iranian ruler and the Islamic extremists who were against the American government involvement in Iranian affairs. The Islamic revolutions in Iran were enraged by their then leader Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, who worked closely with the former U.S President Jimmy Carter. The adversaries wanted the U.S government off the Iranian affairs (Nightingale, 2020). Furthermore, they wanted the U.S government to disallow Shah in the United States seeking medical attention (Bowman, 2016). The American government did not meet the demands of its adversaries, leading to the launch of “Operation Eagle Claw”.

Strategic Overview

“Operation Eagle Claw” is one of the many fights the American government has undertaken against terrorism. The American government is a firm believer in human rights and was constantly involved in negotiating with the Iranian ruler to release the American hostages. In light of the failed negotiations, the government, through President Jimmy Carter, resorted to a rescue mission. The mission’s objective was to safely rescue the American hostages and fly them home (Williamson, 2020). However, the operation failed due to poor military preparations and extreme weather conditions in Iran.

Area of Operation’s Terrain and Weather

Iran is an arid region frequented by weather conditions such as the haboob. Haboob, weather front, is an intense dust storm that occurs regularly in dry areas. The weather front associated with violent winds most affected the operation’s failure (Williamson, 2020). The Air Weather Service (AWS) provided insufficient Iran environmental data that obstructed the safe landing of the helicopters during the operation. The Airforce agency could not detect and predict the Iranian dust phenomenon using satellite data (Nightingale, 2020). The desert terrain full of dust and unstable landing ground affected the landing of the C-130s (Williamson, 2020). The adverse pressure associated with dust affected the C-130s’ hydraulic systems and impacted the pilots’ visibilities during the landing off of the helicopters in Iran.

Comparison, Principal Antagonists

The American military had the advantage of intelligence weapons of the time. The army sent a CIA Twin Otter aircraft and a USAF Combat Controller to help the helicopters land (Williamson, 2020). Iran had no advanced communication systems and could not detect the presence of the U.S militaries in the territory. Due to darkness and adverse weather conditions, the C-130 and RH-53 burst into flames. The militaries were ordered to evacuate and destroy the flamed helicopter but failed. Although “Operation Eagle Claw” was aborted midway, the Iranian government had gotten wind of the landing U.S C-130s. The failure to destroy the aircraft left five RH-53D intact and top-secret plans that fell in the hands of the Iranian government (Nightingale, 2020). The Iran had the intelligence advantage and almost captured the American agents waiting for in-country to help the Delta operators (Williamson, 2020). The operation was disorganized and lacked sufficient preparation that led to its failure.

The Operation’s Action Plan

The operation’s initial plan was to infiltrate Iran using trucks from Turkish territory. However, the plan was cancelled due to potential high numbers of causalities and political reasons. Therefore, the scheme involved using eight helicopters, twelve USAF planes, and several operators in Tehran (Williamson, 2020). The military planned to infiltrate the operators into Iran a night before the actual operation and get them to Tehran and bring them home after the action. Three MC-130s were to drop the Delta Force men, Combat Controllers, and truck drivers at a bare spot in Iran (Nightingale, 2020). Three E-130’s would then follow the Combat Talons to fuel the Marine RH-53’s. The refueled helicopters would then fly the militaries to Tehran outskirts, where they would meet the in-waiting agents to take them to safe houses awaiting the rescue mission (Williamson, 2020). The helicopters were to hide in-country and wait for the Delta operators call.

On the second night, one hundred U.S Army Ranger troops would be flown in-country and assault the field as the hostages the helicopter flew hostages. The hostages would be passed to Manzariyeh Airfield, where they would wait for C-141’s and be flown outside the country (Williamson, 2020). The helicopters would be destroyed upon accomplishing the mission. Despite the clear and well-planned mission, the first helicopters experienced adverse weather conditions and mechanical challenges (Nightingales, 2020). Five out of the bare minimum of six helicopters required to execute the rescue were functional, leading to mission abortion.

Significance of the Operation

The operation led to the death of eight U.S. service men, and subsequent political differences among the presidential aspirants. The Americans felt that Jimmy Carter’s government had portrayed them as weak before the global community. Consequently, Carter lost his presidential bid in 1980 to Reagan who won by landslide (Nightingale, 2020). An investigation into the operation’s failure established several causes of loss. Lack of coordination among the military services led to inadequate and compartmentalized training (Williamson, 2020). The U.S government adopted several measures to prevent future occurrences of the same and punish Iran at the same time.

The U.S military adopted the “joint doctrine”, which has led to its success between the late 20th and 21st centuries. Through the doctrine, different agencies work in collaboration against American adversaries. The formation of SO/LIC and the USSOCOM led to improved military activities such as direct action, special reconnaissance, and foreign internal defence (Williamson, 2020). The American government refused to purchase Iranian oil and freeze billions of dollars of Iranian assess in America (Williamson, 2020). Furthermore, the U.S. government vigorously engaged in international diplomacy campaigns ageist Iran (Williamson, 2020). Having been pushed to the wall, the Iranian government released the hostages on 20th January 1981 (Nightingale, 2020). Although the military rescue mission failed, the crisis led to advancement of U.S. military operations and international diplomacy.

Conclusion

“Operation Eagle Claw” is one of the most significant operation failures that transformed the U.S military operations. The rescue mission had an objective of rescuing 52 hostages at the U.S embassy in Iran, Tehran, in 1980. The enraged Iranian revolutionaries had captured the Americans, demanding that the American government stop interfering with the Iranian operations. After failed negotiations, the government resorted to a rescue mission that failed. However, the mission helped transform the U.S military by adopting the “joint doctrine” and counterterrorism forces. The “joint doctrine” has enhanced inter-agencies operations that have been successful. The formation of the SO/LIC and USSOCOM has helped the United States fight against terrorism and ensures safety for all Americans. Although “Operation Eagle Claw” was associated with many political conspiracy theories, the operation has remained significant since it transformed the U.S military system.

References

Amin, H. Y. (2021). The General’s Stork. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 30(61-62), 14-35. Web.

Bowman, M. (2016). Operation Eagle Claw: The ramifications of political divisions in U.S. decision-making during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981. Web.

Nightingale, K. (2020). Phoenix Rising: From the Ashes of Desert One to the Rebirth of U.S. Special Operations. Parameters, 51(1), 167-168. Casemate Publishers.

Williamson, J. (2020). Operation Eagle Claw 1980: The disastrous bid to end the Iran hostage crisis. Bloomsbury Publishing.

The Collapse Of The Soviet Union And Its Causes

The collapse of the USSR can rightfully be called one of the most significant political events of the XX century. For half a century, the USSR and the USA, in their confrontation, shaped the entire system of international relations. When the USSR ceased to exist, the whole system of cross-cultural relations underwent significant changes. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted from the country’s economic situation, which, combined with the increasing confrontation costs, led Soviet leadership to introduce liberal reforms. These reforms, intended to revive the country’s economy, unleashed the forces the Kremlin could no longer control that resulted in the fall of the Soviet Union.

In the early eighties, all layers of society suffered from a lack of freedom. With the election of Mikhail Gorbachev as General Secretary of the Central Committee in 1985, a period of reforms began in the USSR. Revising the foundations of the totalitarian political system and the planned and distributive economic system has started in the country. The term “perestroika” that emerged in those years meant a transition from above to the democratization of the political system and the admission of market relations in the economy. This was reflected in reducing the Communist party’s role in public life, the weakening of centralized management of the economy, and increasing the regional authorities’ rights. In essence, this meant the privatization of part of state property and the introduction of market relations into the economy alongside the remaining regulatory role of the state.

The developing economic crisis was accompanied by a deterioration of the political situation in the country. Noting the inability of the central government to improve the financial situation, the leadership of the Union republics, territories, and regions asked for the decentralization of governance, demanding greater rights to solve local economic and social problems. New ideas contributed to the weakening of the party vertical, and the rights of nations to self-determination began to be declared constitutional (Rutland). The elections confirmed the higher legitimacy of the Republican elites compared to the legitimacy of the union leadership.

This fact raised the question of the need to redistribute power between the union and republican centers. By August 1991, a draft Union Treaty was prepared. The treaty stated the transition to a federal state, eliminating a number of established state structures and replacing them with new ones. However, the treaty was not signed; instead, the ‘August Coup’ took place, leading to the loss of influence by Gorbachev and the abolition of the former institutions of central power. Shortly after the coup failed, eight Soviet republics declared their independence, and the collapse of the Soviet Union was underway.

The collapse of the USSR led to the rupture of traditional ties between economic entities in the former republics and the widespread crisis associated with the disintegration of the Soviet economy. In the global arena, the fall of the USSR marked the beginning of a long-term process of changing the global and regional balance of power: economic, political, military. At present, many states still undergo processes of redefinition brought about by new economic and political realities they have to live in.

Caused by economic and political reasons and brought about in opposition to Soviet people’s will, the fall of the Soviet Union marked the beginning of the new era. Having put a stop to bipolar world, this event unleashed centrifugal forces that led to the creation of new states. The confrontation of Cold war gave way to an emerging multipolar world where many actors are still engaged in the processes of redefinition.

Work Cited

Rutland, Peter. “Politics: The Fall of the Soviet Union Revisited”. Transitions Online, vol. 1, no. 9, 2018, pp. 5-6. Web.

The Organizational Change Of A Small Restaurant

Introduction

The modern economy is developing under the influence of many contradictory political, technological, social, environmental, and other trends. This increases the turbulence of the economic environment and uncertainty in making decisions related to management at all levels of the economic system. Accordingly, these conditions impose new requirements on the management systems of organizations. This paper is aimed at a theoretical understanding of the adjustment of the applied forms, methods, and management tools of a small restaurant.

Contextualizing Organizational Change

The organizational change I have selected is within the sequential change model, which was described in the course text. It involves the gradual implementation of innovative activities in turn in all functional departments. After the end of the stage in a particular department, the results are transmitted to the management of the organization. It decides on the expediency of continuing work on the introduction of innovations.

Forces Influencing the Change

Time And Place

The sequence of organizational change is determined by the time of its implementation. During Covid-19, when catering establishments are often closed, special care must be taken about finances. Since the organization is located in a large city with many competitors, it also makes sense to introduce changes gradually. By implementing changes this way, it will be possible to monitor the consumer’s reaction and adjust the action plan.

Economic Force

The spread of the COVID-19 infection worsened the economic condition of the restaurant. The measures taken by the state to reduce the population’s morbidity negatively impacted consumer activity (Lee et al., 2019). As a result of the restrictions imposed, a small business entity should introduce changes gradually since there is no financial opportunity to introduce several changes in parallel.

Technological Force

In order to introduce organizational changes, it is necessary to introduce technological innovations. Commercial feasibility about technical innovations acts as a potential property. The lack of industrial applicability can also negatively affect innovation (Ullah et al., 2021). The sequence of changes allows one to check each new equipment unit regarding fulfilling these criteria. Moreover, this way, employees have time to learn how to work with new devices and can do it gradually.

Geopolitical Force

The geopolitical situation also favors the choice of sequential changes: since the restaurant is Chinese, importing ingredients from China is required. At the same time, due to the pandemic, the import of goods from closed borders is limited (Lambert et al., 2021). In order to introduce changes in parallel, it would require a large-scale reorganization of food supplies. Consequently, the rapid introduction of changes is impossible due to geopolitical forces.

Sociocultural Force

The socio-cultural environment is quite changeable: consumers’ tastes are constantly changing depending on the introduction or cancellation of the self-isolation regime. In this regard, organizational changes in businesses related to nutrition should be easily reversible. Gradual changes fall under this criterion more than other change models since the manager can always go back to the previous point of the business plan.

Environmental Force

The environmental impact is also an argument in favor of consistent changes. The increase in waste associated with the introduction of organizational changes requires new ways of disposal. Thus, the introduction of changes consistently will give time to resolve issues related to the environment. The ecological footprint reduction will be most possible due to small steps, such as the distribution of small fractions of new waste and the solution of gradually emerging problems.

Other Macro Forces

Other macro forces influencing the choice of the change model were administrative ones. The quality of nutrition and compliance with infectious safety are very important aspects of the regulatory framework. In this regard, changes need to be adjusted and modified depending on changes in regulatory regulations (Akpotu & Ozioko, 2020). Gradual changes are the most convenient since by correcting one of the plan steps, the organization does not have to rebuild the entire previously developed system completely.

The rationale for Choosing the Model

The advantage of choosing a gradual model over a parallel one is that it has lower risks. Moreover, the control system is simpler since, at each stage, there is only a homogeneous type of activity (Cummings & Worley, 2008). The main condition for the effective integrated form of innovation is a clear definition of the functions and responsibilities of all group members. However, the workers of the Chinese restaurant are mostly migrants; due to the language barrier, a gradual model where the manager is mainly responsible for the changes is better.

The Effects of the Change

Effects On Company’s Shareholders

Two factors are important to the restaurant’s shareholders: maintaining its reputation and brand and the financial side of the issue. Successive changes will be most beneficial for them, as they will require less investment in the short term. Moreover, gradually introducing changes will be easier to maintain the company’s brand.

Effects On Employees

Organizational transformation entails changes in some approaches to working. Preparing all participants in the process, including line employees, is very important for these changes. A gradual model will allow the implementation of changes consistently so that employees have time to get used to them. Therefore, they will not oppose innovations, as is the case with a large number of changes at the same time.

Effects On Customers

The process of changing organizational strategy can be stressful; the most exciting part is the reaction of customers. Gradual changes will prepare customers for innovations that will no longer seem as significant to them as they would be in the case of other models.

Effects On Society

The changes will affect society due to the influx of Chinese migrants into the local community. Since the restaurant is Chinese, most of the employees belong to the culture that the institution is trying to convey. Due to organizational changes, more employees will be needed, and vacancies will appear. They will be occupied by the Chinese, whose increasing diaspora will affect society as a whole. An increase in the proportion of migrants from China will lead to a change in the cultural background.

Effects On the Environment

Restaurant visitors are willing to spend more, provided the institution uses eco-friendly methods. Therefore, in taking measures, it is necessary to pay attention to the environmental effect of the measures taken. Consistent changes will positively impact the environment due to a large amount of time to find the most environmentally friendly solutions.

Conclusion

In this paper, the effect of choosing a consistent model of changes on a small Chinese restaurant business was investigated. Taking into account economic, technological and environmental factors, it was confirmed that this is the most profitable model. Taking into account the human component (both employees and customers), the gradual introduction of changes will have the best impact on business development. In the current geopolitical and administrative conditions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, this model will allow us to quickly adapt to constantly emerging changes.

References

Akpotu, C., & Ozioko, E. A. (2020). Managerial integrity and employee turnover intention in fast food and restaurant firms in port Harcourt. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences, 8(1), 60-68.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, S. G. (2008). Organization development & change. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Lambert, A., Jones, R. P., & Clinton, S. (2021). Employee engagement and the service profit chain in a quick-service restaurant organization. Journal of Business Research, 135(2), 214-225.

Lee, C., Hallak, R., & Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2019). Creativity and innovation in the restaurant sector: Supply-side processes and barriers to implementation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31(16), 54-62.

Ullah, M., Yasir, M., Hamayun, H., Ullah, A., & Khan, S. N. (2021). Servant leadership and ethical climate as antecedents of turnover intentions in the restaurant industry of Pakistan. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 27(2), 1-16.

error: Content is protected !!