Scrutinizing Dwight Eisenhower's Foreign Policy Record

---

Dwight Eisenhower: Served as President from 1953-1961

Personal Characteristics: Tactful, Diplomatic, Knowledgeable

A True Military Strategist: Dwight Eisenhower’s fame from his time serving in the military was well-warranted. Not only was he a smart, deliberate leader while serving as a General in the military, he carried that personality in all of his dealings, including the presidential position that he would soon occupy. According to Michael Fowler, “Not only did Eisenhower have a real knack for putting strategy into action, but he was affable and diplomatic. Most felt Dwight Eisenhower was just a real good guy to have around, not only for his knowledge and skills but he could play cards well and really liked to golf – all told, an excellent package for an officer aspiring to move up the ladder. Most key of all, Eisenhower was level-headed, moderate in temperament and views; he had real organizational skills, and he could write and speak in public.” 

Learning On-the-Job: Prior to his time as President, Eisenhower was a career military man with a severe lack of political experience. This however, would not prove to be his downfall while in office. Thomas Bailey expanded upon this by stating that “Eisenhower came into office a political greenhorn. Yet, after prolonged on-the-job, he gradually developed into a fairly sophisticated politician who gave the country a far better administration than it had any right to expect from such a novice. Unlike many other aging military men in civilian office, he proved to be humble, modest, teachable, susceptible to growth, and endowed with common sense. He was not power-hungry. Even more popular at the end than at the beginning, he left the country prosperous and peaceful: his proud boast was that no American soldiers had lost their lives fighting on foreign soil during his eight years.” (Thomas Bailey, Presidential Greatness: The Image and the Man from George Washington to the Present 

Grounded in his Views: While Eisenhower was knowledgeable and deliberate with his actions and policies, he was also grounded and cautionary. “Although Dwight Eisenhower doesn’t seem to have been a man of notable political vision, he was definitely an independent thinker: very confident of his ability to analyze and express things for himself. It was in keeping that Eisenhower devoted a chunk of his Farewell Address to cautioning against America’s ‘military industrial complex’ that, he felt, could grow too powerful and distort the American way of life. As for his political philosophy, Eisenhower belonged to that wing of the Republican Party that believed in limited government.” 

The International Context: 

Israeli-Egyptian Conflict: Since the Arab world was, for the most part, against the creation of an Israeli state, along with the increased Western influence in the region that would coincide with its creation, Egypt, and much of the Arab world became more aggressive toward the budding Jewish state. Continued guerilla raids against the Israelis occurred, with Israel deciding on whether or not to fully invade Egypt to knock it out of any further conflicts in the region. The increased fighting, which would only be worsened by British and French involvement with Israel, led to the Suez Crisis in the region.  

The Suez Crisis: This would quickly become a crisis that Eisenhower would have to solve quickly, always remaining on his toes. However, this issue had been brewing prior to his presidency, and exploded right after his inauguration. Winston Churchill, back in office as Prime Minister, attempted to bring Eisenhower on board with negotiations with the Egyptians regarding Britain’s military presence in the Suez Canal Zone. Eisenhower began to mull over the issue, but did not have much time as in the summer of 1952, Muhammad Naguib had seized power in Egypt, but would eventually be usurped by Gamel Adbal Nasser, who immediately became hostile with the British. They began calling for the removal of British forces, putting in question the accessibility of the Suez Canal with the new, aggressive leaders in power. Egypt and the British would begin negotiations to resolve the crisis, with Eisenhower having to keep a watchful and helpful eye on the progress of the negotiations. Finally, during a period of Eisenhower’s health keeping him out of commission, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, closing it off from foreigners, which caused the British and French to prepare for war against the Egyptians. While this issue would eventually be resolved, it almost boiled over into a conflict of major proportions. 

The Baghdad Pact: The Baghdad Pact was a mutual defense treaty signed between Iraq and Turkey, in which the British would soon tag along in signing the treaty, greatly angering the Nasser regime of Egypt, who thought of it as an anti-Arab movement. The purpose of the Pact was to create a Middle Eastern version of NATO to prevent the spread of communism in the region. States such as Egypt and Syria refused to join, so Western powers attempted to bring other states on board, like Iran and Pakistan. To counter the Baghdad Pact, Egypt maintained relations with communist states, which led to them signing an arms agreement with Czechoslovakia and the USSR in 1955 following the Bandung Conference. Nasser then recognized the sovereignty of the communist People’s Republic of China. 

Middle Eastern Unrest: While this would eventually become a U.S. issue, especially after Eisenhower’s Doctrine was approved in Congress, there was still much unrest in the Middle East without an American presence. In a short span of two years, there were constant events of instability in countries like Jordan, Oman, and Syria. Furthermore, there was a coup in Iraq in 1958, along with a threat by Nasser in Egypt of closing off the Suez Canal if U.S. intervention in the region was maintained.  

Change of Power in Guatemala: At the beginning of Eisenhower’s time in office, Jacobo Arbenz was inaugurated as President of Guatemala following his coordinated assassination of his competitor in the national army. This would eventually become a major issue of U.S. interest as Arbenz attempted to enact land reforms, which alienated some American businesses. The shift in power in the state caused a rift in America’s relations with states in the region going forward, making it a notable international development at the time. 

Key Foreign Policies:

The Eisenhower Doctrine: The Eisenhower Doctrine was a direct reflection of the unrest in the Middle East. As America took on the role of international arbiter following World War II, this policy would extend to Eisenhower regarding the Middle East. Eisenhower, in March of 1957, requested from Congress the authorization to provide $200 million dollars to the Eisenhower Administration to use on Middle Eastern countries that Eisenhower would extend the aid to, and who would furthermore accept such aid. Finally, the Doctrine held that not only was military and economic aid permissible, but armed forces in the Middle East would also be allowed, if necessary, to preserve the peace of the Middle Eastern region, an area of vital importance to the United States. 

Continued Containment: Eisenhower made sure to continue the Truman Administration’s policy of containing communism around the globe. The issue would become even greater as Jacobo Arbenz would usurp power in Guatemala, bringing the threat of communism to the Western hemisphere. In this regard, Eisenhower argued that “if world Communism captures any American State, however small, a new and perilous front is established which will increase the danger to the entire free world and require even greater sacrifices from the American people.” 

Covert Operations: Eisenhower was the first president in the Cold War era to normalize the consistent use of CIA covert operations, favoring the subtlety of these operations over aggressive and direct military intervention that could harm America’s reputation. According to Christopher Andrew, “Eisenhower’s use of covert action was based on principle. He believed that there was no other way of fighting the Cold War effectively against a ruthless enemy.” These covert operations would be utilized throughout Eisenhower’s term to undermine communism in the least confrontational way possible. 

Middle Eastern Appeasement: Following the Eisenhower Doctrine of economic and military aid/intervention, Eisenhower also sought to appease the Middle Eastern states in order to preserve U.S. oil interests in the region. Goals in the Middle East were twofold: prevent communism from taking over the area at all costs, and maintain America’s foothold on petroleum resources in the region. This led to Eisenhower secretly signing NSC-5428, an initiative that laid out U.S. interests in the area, which surrounded the protection of U.S. oil interests by containing communism. 

Positive Achievements: 

Keeping America out of War: Eisenhower bragged that during his eight years in office, he did not have any American soldiers lose their lives on foreign soil. Considering this fact and the era in which Eisenhower was president, this was a tremendous accomplishment. Eisenhower, once the Cold War was all said and done, was one of only a handful of president’s that kept America out of international wars. That in itself is a major accomplishment, as he could have inserted the U.S. into military conflicts like the one between Egypt and Israel. Instead, he opted to play the role of mediator to protect America’s interests. 

Settling the Suez Crisis: While America did not have a direct hand at the table regarding negotiations between the British and Egyptians, America did play an integral part in striking a deal between the two states. “Finally, Eisenhower’s relentless pressure on the British paid off. On October 19, 1954, Britain signed an agreement with Egypt to cede control of the Suez Canal Zone to Egypt, with a proviso making the base available again to the British if necessary to defend the canal against foreign aggression.” With this, “the British and French still controlled the lion’s share of the stock of the Suez Canal Company and, therefore, its overall operations. This agreement meant that Eisenhower was able to satisfy both sides, looking like an unbiased mediator of the crisis. Egypt maintained its technical sovereignty over the canal zone, while the British were able to maintain its presence to preserve Western interests in the area. 

Eventually though, the peace would fall through. As the British largely removed themselves from the canal zone, Nasser then decided to nationalize it, creating just as much tension as before. Eisenhower then refused to topple Nasser with the British and French, thinking that it would make the issue even worse. Therefore, he met with Nasser in an attempt to improve relations, which ultimately failed, but was a positive step in the right direction. 

Cases of Successful Intervention: As expressed by the Eisenhower Doctrine, his Administration had the expressed consent of Congress to intervene in Middle Eastern states in which the U.S. had vital economic and military interests. Following instability in Jordan, Oman, and Syria, Eisenhower green-lit two operations by the U.S. Sixth Fleet to park itself in the Mediterranean to calm down any possible uprisings in states that were friendly with America. Furthermore, “When Syria appeared to be coming under communist control, Eisenhower successfully restrained Turkey and Iraq from taking military action until the crisis passed.”  Finally, following a 1958 coup in Iraq, Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to the pro-Western Lebanon, and more specifically its largest city of Beirut to ensure the same would not happen there. 

Preventing Middle Eastern War: Following the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Nasser, the British and French were more than ready for war. However, Eisenhower played a crucial role in preventing this. “In his conversation with Anthony Eden about the seizure, he brilliantly reframed the issue, making it more difficult for the allies to go to war. He argued that the issue involved a number of nations–not just Britain and France–and he upheld Egypt’s right to nationalize the canal and be judged on the effectiveness of its management.” Eisenhower gambled greatly on his confrontation with America’s allies, but the move paid off, as he prevented war. “There is little doubt that, without his principled opposition, the British and French would have gone to war soon after Nasser nationalized the canal. Throughout the crisis, Eisenhower played a major role in ushering in the post-imperial era in the Middle East.”  

Negative Drawbacks: 

Iran: Relations between the U.S. and Iran exemplified a fear of communism that drove America to act irrationally in some cases. Iran, which had much political unrest between the Shah and Iran’s Premier, Mohammed Mossadegh, enticed America to intervene in the state based on the conflict between the two. Following legislation that was passed by Mossadegh that revolved around oil, the Shah tried to overthrow him, which failed. Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, agreed with the British that Mossadegh was too sympathetic toward communism, which led to them reinstating the Shah and arresting Mossadegh following the unrest. The problem was, however, that “the intelligence available to Eisenhower did not say Mossadegh was a communist or under their influence. His independence of both the party and the Soviet Union was well established.” This meant that the U.S. toppled a Premier who most likely wasn’t even a communist in favor of a brutally oppressive leader in the Shah, showing the extremes America would go to in order to contain even a semblance of communism.

Guatemala: The situation in Guatemala was similar to that of Iran, with one caveat. Once Jacobo Arbenz took over, he very clearly was more in line with communists than he would be with the West. The main issue between America and Guatemala came over a dispute with land reforms implemented by Arbenz that alienated America’s United Fruit Company The problem arose from the price that Arbenz gave to United Fruit for compensation, which was about $14 million less than the estimation provided by the Eisenhower Administration. 

Following an arms deal between Guatemala and Eastern Europe, The U.S. bolstered a right-wing rebel movement, led by Carlos Castillo. This movement was victorious because of America’s operation “El Diablo,” which was started during the Truman Administration and continued under Eisenhower. This operation revolved around the training of Guatemalan rebels by America, which led to the successful coup of the Arbenz regime with the help of U.S. air support. This intervention created the trend of covert military operations to contain communism, but led to some states being led by brutal military dictatorships, such as Castillo’s Guatemala that America directly created.

Covert Operations and Interventions: The biggest red mark on Eisenhower’s foreign policy initiatives were shown in the aftermath of his initiatives. His interventions in Iran and Guatemala stoked fear in other Latin American states, such as Cuba. “In 1959, the strength of the Cuban Revolution came in part from the widespread hostility to American interventions in Latin America, but especially in reaction to events in Guatemala.” So, this shows that while the U.S. under Eisenhower attempted to prevent communism by all costs in the Western Hemisphere, they created a communist state by toppling a regime that was not even fully on the communists side. 

Furthermore, the Iranian Revolution that took place in the 1970s was a result of backlash against the West and the bitterness over the Americanization of Iran by the Shah, calling America “the Great Satan.” “It was in Southeast Asia, however, that America paid the highest price for its disregard in the Eisenhower years of the need to come to some understanding of what strong reformist governments might look like in the effort to stop communism.” This means that Eisenhower’s lack of foreseeing the consequences of his actions partially created the growing conflict with Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam that sparked the war there in the first place, one of which would be an extreme failure for America. 

“May-Day'': This event is one that furthers the argument that covert operations were ineffective and unnecessary, especially during peacetime. Eisenhower utilized covert operations to investigate the Soviet Union using U-2 Spy Planes, in which he was eventually caught and cornered, turning his reputation into a disaster for the short-term. According to Stephen Rabe, “The U-2 incident turned into an immense propaganda victory for Kruschev because the Eisenhower administration initially denied that the United States had intentionally violated Soviet airspace. The U-2 incident further wrecked the May 1960 summit meeting in Paris between Eisenhower and Kruschev.” 

SEATO: The Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an agreement enacted by the Eisenhower Administration to support anti-communists in Vietnam. While this Treaty can be viewed as a positive in a vacuum, it set the stage for increased influence in Vietnam, which was a completely idiotic policy. The Treaty called for the recognition of the South Vietnamese government by the United States, and, furthermore, gave the U.S. a legal basis to intervene in the region if necessary, which would come to fruition during the Kennedy Administration. While this is a subtle drawback of Eisenhower’s presidency, I find it to be his biggest political oversight, as he created a logistical nightmare for future presidents to deal with. 

Final Grade: B/ Dwight Eisenhower had a solid record in foreign affairs, especially considering his inexperience when taking office. His ability to be more effective regarding foreign policy than many other presidents in the era while having much less political experience earns him some points. However, he was also a victim and enabler of the containment addiction that was widespread at the time. His desire to contain communism ended up creating more of it that would come to greatly hinder America during the Cold War with the following Administrations. The trends he set of conducting covert operations, while understandable, were somewhat unnecessary, all things considered. However, Eisenhower had a mostly positive record for settling the Suez Canal crisis, keeping America out of any major international wars, and for having some cases of successful interventions, like in Turkey and Lebanon. In short, Ike was the last president for multiple iterations to have a more restrained perspective on war. Showing his capability to lead a superpower. 

References:

1. Michael Fowler, “Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles,” (Unpublished, working paper, 2023)
2. “The Guatemalan Crisis [by Dwight Eisenhower],” in Gambone, ed., Documents of American Diplomacy, 354-360.
3. “Eisenhower Doctrine, Mar. 9th, 1957,” in Gambone, ed., Documents of American Diplomacy, 360.
4. Christopher Andrew, “Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-61),” For the President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush, (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 199-202, 216-18, and 239-56. 
5. David Nichols, “Prologue,” “The Man and the Moment,” and “Conclusion: Waging Peace in the Middle East,” Eisenhower 1956 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), xix-xx, 1-17, 275-86. 
6. Tony Smith, “Iran and Guatemala, 1953-54,” America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century, 1st ed., (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press) 191-99.
7. Stephen Rabe, “John F. Kennedy and the World,” Debating the Kennedy Presidency, James Giglio and Stephen Rabe, eds., (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 3-29, 65-69.