The causes of the 20th century «Irangate» and the relevance of its lessons for the foreign policy strategy of the United States of America

Abstract

The article examines the domestic political development and foreign policy of the United States during one of the acute periods of the presidency of R. Reagan. The purpose of the article is to highlight the political crisis of 1986–1987 in the United States, known as «Iran-Contra» and «Irangate». At the same time, the author, relying on the analysis of memoir literature as the main and unique source of research, solved the following tasks: to analyze the development of the political crisis and to make a comparative analysis of the views on the problem of the participants and contemporaries of the events. To achieve the set goal and solve the tasks, comparative-historical and systemic methods were used, which allow for objective coverage of the subject of scientific development. The key to the Iran-Contra affair, according to the author, was this: starting in the 1950s, the United States wanted accessible Middle Eastern oil. Securing the American economy with accessible Middle Eastern oil will remain an imperative for subsequent administrations.The good desire of President R. Reagan to put an end to the practice of taking compatriots hostage by terrorists had wide support among American citizens. But it was implemented in the conditions of political life, when there was a fierce confrontation between the executive and legislative branches of power, in the conditions of departmental struggle for influence on the president, and key figures and their entourage, who received unlimited power, did not neglect the principle: the end justifies the means, which ultimately resulted in a political crisis. At the same time, the political crisis of the mid-1980s was a product of the course of the American leadership to restore the country's dominant positions in the Persian Gulf and, in general, the policy of strengthening the global leadership of the United States. The country's ruling circles did not consider it inappropriate to use illegal means to protect their economic and strategic interests, as they understood them.