History

            Israel, backed by the United States, has consistently been implementing the newest defense technologies the market has offered. A major component of this has been the air defense system. A strong air defense system has three main components: detect, decide, and disable the threat. The first is detection or the recognition of an immediate and incoming threat. Deciding is the way to avoid the treatment will be avoided. What should the counter be? Should the place be evacuated and destroyed, or should another missile be fired to blow up the other before it can harm someone? The defense system must decide what is the right course of action. The final category is disabled. This is the physical act of eliminating or limiting the threat at hand. The defense system must be able to launch a response at the push of a button in order to be timely and successful in the defense.

            The most recent and currently the most innovative air defense system is Israel’s Iron Dome. According to the BBC, the Iron Dome was developed in 2006 in response to attacks by Hezbollah, which killed thousands of people in Israel (BBC, 1). This was an innovative measure to improve the safety of the citizens in a land full of turmoil within a nation that is constantly under threat.

            The “Iron Dome” is designed for short-range attacks. The BBC article elaborates on the setup of the “Iron Dome” when it states, “It is designed to intercept short-range rockets, as well as shells and mortars, at ranges of between four kilometers and seventy kilometers from the missile launcher. There are “Iron Dome” batteries across Israel. Each one has three or four launchers containing twenty interceptor missiles each. Iron Dome detects and tracks incoming rockets with radar and calculates which ones are likely to reach populated areas. It then fires missiles at these rockets, leaving the others to fall on open ground (BBC, 1).”

            This is a high-tech system that can respond to attacks very quickly. Think about the reaction time of a system that detected, coordinated, calculated, and executed a response to an attack from four kilometers away. That converts to roughly two-and-a-half miles. It takes no longer than three minutes to drive somewhere that is two and a half miles away. The ability to respond to a flying missile that is launched from a half mile away is so much harder. The missile would arrive in seconds as opposed to minutes. This is truly a remarkable feat. Even further, the Israel Defense Forces cite a ninety percent success rate in preventing attacks when using the Iron Dome system. That is remarkable and proves how successful the Iron Dome is. The University of Colorado cites that the missiles that the Iron Dome detects and deters arrive at an average of one kilometer per second. That is a total of at least four seconds of response time. That is remarkable.

            The question that follows is, how does this work? According to the University of Colorado, “For Iron Dome, it is a supersonic missile with heat-seeking sensors. These sensors provide in-flight updates to the interceptor, allowing it to steer toward and close in on the threat. The interceptor uses a proximity fuse activated by a small radar to explode close to the incoming missile so that it does not have to hit it directly to disable it (Boyd, 2).” This is extremely high-level technology that is efficient. It is one of the reasons that the Iron Dome is still being used and is still effective after twenty years of use. It has only been recently that chinks have begun to appear in the armor.

            The attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2024, were a major highlight of this. The University of Colorado pointed out that a big reason for this was system overload. The Iron Dome only has ten batteries in operation. If a large-scale attack is sent from a short distance. It is likely to overload the system and not be able to take out all of the threats. Additionally, the counterattacks cost a significant amount of money. Due to the high-tech nature of the response missiles highlighted above, launching one to counter an incoming attack from a foreign enemy is not inexpensive. Oftentimes, the missiles attacking Israel are far cheaper than those protecting Israel. This cost disparity sometimes causes hesitation by the system controllers, leaving the system open to a potential letdown. This is one of the reasons why initiatives for a new air missile defense system have begun to take shape. The signs are on the wall for the slow reduction in the Iron Dome’s use. This is why the integration of the next generation is so important.

Golden Dome and Its Impact

            With the history of the Iron Dome in mind, why is the Golden Dome needed? What is the Golden Dome? The Golden Dome is the next-generation air missile defense system that Donald Trump has planned to install over the United States and possibly Canada. In a White House release, the Trump administration stated, “Purpose.  The threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks, remains the most catastrophic threat facing the United States (White House, 1).” This shows the concern by the White House of a potential attack and the skepticism of the White House about the current state of the present missile defense systems.

            BBC highlights some of the core issues with the present missile defense system, providing a blunt and dark view of threats under the current system. The article describes, “Even a single, relatively small nuclear detonation hundreds of miles above the heads of Americans would create an electromagnetic pulse – or EMP – that would have apocalyptic results. Planes would fall out of the sky across the country. Everything from handheld electronics and medical devices to water systems would be rendered completely useless (Debusman Jr, 1).” This is a dark scenario that describes the state of the United States if an attack were to occur under the current missile defense system. An author and weapons researcher from Montreat College describes the possible situation as “setting the United States back over one hundred years (Debusman Jr, 1).”  It is hard to imagine a future America in a situation that is grave and dark, but with current technology, that is a possibility under the right circumstances. This is one of the core reasons President Trump has pushed for this technological upgrade.

            At this point, it is vital to ask the question, what upgrades would the Golden Dome entail, and how does it work? The answer to this is complex, but important. Lockheed Martin is one of the top military developers in the world and has been in part tasked with designing and creating the next piece of state-of-the-art defense technology. Lockheed Martin describes the Golden Dome as “Golden Dome for America is a revolutionary concept to further the goals of peace through strength, and President Trump’s vision for deterring adversaries from attacks on the homeland. This next-generation defense shield will identify incoming projectiles, calculate trajectory, and deploy interceptor missiles to destroy them mid-flight, safeguarding the homeland and projecting American Strength (Lockheed Martin, 1).” This is a strong testament to the possibilities of the Golden Dome. This is an upgrade to the Iron Dome, which does this on a smaller scale, making the possibilities wider in the scale of protection that the Iron Dome could ensure.

            The Golden Dome aims to use the new technology from Lockheed Martin to provide security from numerous advanced technological threats, including those that travel in various ways through and above the atmosphere. It aims to defend against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, (ICBMs), which can be launched from land or sea, possibly carrying nuclear warheads; hypersonic missiles, which are over five times the speed of sound; and the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), which are low orbiting ballistic missiles that release nuclear warheads when over their intended target (Debusman Jr, 2). All these threats are modern innovations that have been largely developed by the United States’ biggest rivals. This is why the urgency is in President Trump’s employment in the Golden Dome implementation process.

            This implementation process is not a quick one either. According to Tony Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he estimates that the Golden Dome would not be fully functional and operational for another ten years (Stone and Mason, 3). Other sources have suggested that the Golden Dome would cost approximately 175 billion dollars and not be operational until 2028 (Lowell, 1). This operational use suggested by Lowell would only be demonstrable by the year 2028. One of the reasons for this is the highly technologically manufactured parts that not only need to be loaded and established online but also be present in Space. Lowell discusses this point by saying, “By the end of Trump’s term, instead, the Pentagon could have the network of space-based sensors and communications and attempt to integrate it with untested space-based weapons to shoot them down. The space-based network is likely to rely heavily on Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which has been developing a next-generation tracking system known as the “aerial moving target identifier”. The Defense Department acquired the prototypes last year during the Biden administration (Lowell, 2).” This is a massive development that only adds credibility to President Trump’s installation of the United States Space Force during his first term in office. The infrastructure is already in place to monitor, install, maintain, and service the equipment that will be so crucial to the United States’ defense. The Space Force is not the only military branch or government agency that is essential for this. The Air Force, Army, Navy, Missile Defense Agency, and National Reconnaissance Office are all playing instrumental roles in this project (Darling, 4).

            It is for this reason that President Trump has nominated the Vice Chief of Space Operations in the U.S. Space Force, General Michael A. Guetlein, to oversee the construction and implementation of the Golden Dome. Guetlein has previously compared the Golden Dome expansion to a case of the Manhattan Project on steroids, noting the major impact it will have on the United States’ defense strategy and systems going forward (Cohen, 7). This will be a revolutionary change for the United States, as it has not had a military technology advancement as significant as this since the Manhattan Project, which built the first nuclear bomb and changed warfare forever.

            Despite the technological advancement that is sure to come from this project, some hold serious concerns. One such concern from the CATO Institute highlights the difference in geography between Israel and the United States. The relative size comparison of the countries poses a concern when trying to scale the defense system. There is a lot more area and land to observe and protect, which could make the Golden Dome somewhat inefficient and less effective than the predecessor Iron Dome (Glitner and Logan 1).

            The other serious concern with this idea is cost. For a military system this vast and complex, it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that this will be a costly endeavor. President Trump tagged the creation with a $175 billion price tag. While expensive, this is not the final estimation of the true cost of the project. The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of not the exact Golden Dome, but other Space-Based Interceptors. In this analysis, they identified that the cheapest cost alternative would be a comparatively respectable $161 billion. This was the absolute cheapest, however. The highest cost alternative, which the United States will probably end closer to, was $542 billion (Revell 2). This would be an extremely hefty markup that the taxpayers would certainly feel. It would be extremely hard to foster positivity towards this project if the cost exploded in this way. It would more than likely have a very detrimental effect on the citizens of the United States and the markets in turn. In reality, if the United States had built Ronald Reagan’s Space Based Interceptors in the 1980s and the 1990s, the cost would not be so high and so impactful to the people. This is partially the fault of previous administrations for not doing the work necessary to create and prepare innovative military technology that would have been innovative and necessary in the future. Instead of utilizing the research and technology that was created in the 1980s and 1990s, the United States must start from scratch in order to create the advanced military defense system discussed today.

Conclusion

            To conclude, through the historical impact of the Iron Dome and the potential capabilities of the Golden Dome, it is understandable to see the direction that President Trump wants to go with national security. Overall, it is a military return to the Reagan roots for the United States. Fox News stated, “Trump’s order cited former President Ronald Reagan’s so-called ‘Star Wars’ plan to build laser-based nuclear defense systems against the Soviet Union (Creitz, 3).” President Trump again later quoted former President Ronald Reagan’s desires when President Trump stated, “We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland (Atherton, 1).” This is a monumental step for the safety of the nation, and it harkens back to one of President Reagan’s most sought-after ideas. While some proponents and opponents question the cost-effectiveness and the reality of this idea, the Golden Dome provides a new era of United States home defense that is focused on protecting the American people.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said regarding the Golden Dome, “The Department remains committed to providing our nation with a strong, credible deterrent and will ensure all work done on Golden Dome for America adds to and does not detract from our ability to deter nuclear and non-nuclear strategic attacks on the United States. Our goal is peace through strength. Golden Dome ensures that the American homeland is not left exposed while adversaries develop more advanced and lethal long-range weapons (Hegseth, 7).”

References

• Atherton, Kelsey D. “Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ System Is an Expensive Way to Make America Less Safe.” MSNBC.com, MSNBC, 28 May 2025, www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-golden-dome-missile-defense-nuclear-rcna208521.
• BBC. “How Israel’s Iron Dome Missile Shield Works.” BBC News, 17 May 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20385306.
• Boyd, Iain. “Israel’s Iron Dome Air Defense System Works Well – Here’s How Hamas Got around It.” Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine, 13 Oct. 2023, www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2023/10/13/israels-iron-dome-air-defense-system-works-well-heres-how-hamas-got-around-it.
• “C2BMC.” Lockheed Martin, 2025, www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/missile-defense/golden-dome-missile-defense.html.
• Cohen, Rachel. “Trump Formally Nominates Guetlein as Golden Dome Czar.” Air & Space Forces Magazine, 19 June 2025, www.airandspaceforces.com/trump-formally-nominates-guetlein-as-golden-dome-czar/. Accessed 29 June 2025.
• Creitz, Charles. “Golden Dome” Comprehensive Weapons Defenses in the Works as Lawmakers Make Trump Dream a Reality.” Fox News, 24 June 2025, www.foxnews.com/politics/us-golden-dome-comprehensive-weapons-defenses-works-lawmakers-make-trump-dream-reality. Accessed 29 June 2025.
• Darling, Daniel. “Inside Trump’s Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield – GovExec Space Project.” Govexec.com, 2025, spaceproject.govexec.com/defense/2025/03/inside-trumps-golden-dome-next-gen-missile-defense-shield-america/403807/. Accessed 29 June 2025.
• Glitner, Benjamin, and Justin Logan. “Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Will Raise the Risk of Attack on US.” CATO.org, CATO Institute, 25 May 2025, www.cato.org/commentary/trumps-golden-dome-will-raise-risk-attack-us. Accessed 24 July 2025.
• Hegseth, Pete. “Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Statement on Golden Dome for America.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2025, www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4193417/secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-statement-on-golden-dome-for-america/.
• Jr, Bernd Debusmann. “Can Trump’s Pricey ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Defense System Be Done?” BBC News, 23 May 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvmj6mem70o.
• Lowell, Hugo. “Golden Dome Missile Defense Program Won’t Be Operational by End of Trump’s Term.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 30 May 2025, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/trump-golden-dome-missile-defense.
• Revell, Eric. “How Much Will Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Defense System Cost?” Fox Business, 21 May 2025, www.foxbusiness.com/politics/how-much-trumps-golden-dome-missile-defense-system-cost. Accessed 24 July 2025.
• Stone, Mike, and Jeff Mason. “Trump to Make Golden Dome Announcement on Tuesday, US Officials Say.” Reuters, 20 May 2025, www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-make-golden-dome-announcement-tuesday-us-official-says-2025-05-20/.
• “The Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield.” The White House, 21 May 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/videos/the-golden-dome-missile-defense-shield-2/. Accessed 29 June 2025.
• The White House. “The Iron Dome for America – the White House.” The White House, 28 Jan. 2025, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/the-iron-dome-for-america/.

On January 18, 2025, President-elect Donald Trump upended political norms when he elucidated a plan to acquire Greenland and, in turn, make it the fifty-first state. To many, this idea sounded preposterous. President Trump even went as far as to say that the residents of Greenland possessed a desire to become United States citizens.

Greenland is one of the few territories that is under the control of a more powerful nation. Currently a territory of Denmark, Greenland is the largest island in the world; its population, however, is a paltry fifty-seven thousand. The most important part of Greenland, as it stands today, is the vast ice sheet that currently ensconces its land. Only ten percent of the island has been settled due to the colossal tundra that overlays the significant majority of the island. According to various sources,

• “The Greenland Ice Sheet covers about 80 percent of the world’s largest island, stretching across 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles)—an area about three times the size of Texas (National Snow and Ice Data Center).”
• “The Earth’s crust is elastic, meaning that it changes shape with the redistribution of mass on its surface (Underwood).”
• “Most of the ice is believed to have formed during an ice age from 188,000 to 130,000 years ago. The ice sheet expanded during the final Pleistocene glacial advance until about 24,000 years ago (Raikar).”

This alone has been a core reason for Greenland’s lack of usability in the past. To understand why the distaste of Greenland has subsided, it is imperative to analyze the history, the trade access, the military bases, and the natural resources of Greenland.

History

Greenland was first settled more than four thousand years ago by Canada’s Thule Region inhabitants. The aforementioned settlers varied from the Inuit people who currently inhabit the nation to the Norsemen, the more well-known founders of the land. The Inuit, who comprise ninety percent of the current population, descended from Canada, jumping from island- to island in the Arctic. They are almost entirely direct ancestors from the initial immigration waves of people to the island. The other group credited for the discovery of Greenland is attributed to the Norsemen or Vikings. Erik the Red is said to have found this land after being, “banished from Iceland for manslaughter.” Erik the Red established multiple colonies throughout Greenland on both the west and east sides of the island (“Greenland – People”).

As time progressed, the Norsemen continued to leave their impact on the newly settled island. Son of Erik the Red and one of the founders of North America, Leif Eriksson, was the first missionary in Greenland, bringing Christianity over to the small farming village of only a couple thousand people. As time progressed and the climate in Greenland warmed, the Innuits and the Norsemen battled each other. This led to the slow but complete annihilation of the Norse influence.

Subsequently, Greenland witnessed reinvigorated world involvement for the first time in centuries. The former farming island was rediscovered, this time by the English and Dutch. Denmark and Norway established trading companies and missionary foundations in Nuuk throughout this exchange. This, in turn, resulted in the transition to an island dominated by maritime activity. Because of these interactions, Denmark slowly began to annex Greenland, which was under its control. In 1721, Greenland was officially declared a Danish colony. In 1776, Denmark closed Greenland’s coast to outside trade and contact. It reserved exclusive rights to Greenland, initiating a territorial takeover through economic exploitation of the people and land that would not be dismantled or changed for two hundred years.

 Trade Routes

Trade routes are paramount to Greenland’s identity. For this reason, Denmark closely guarded Greenland, protecting it from potential aggrandizement. Being directly North of both Europe and North America, Greenland’s geographic location allows for very advantageous trade routes to both areas. Even sailing north through the Arctic would be more apt because the port is in Greenland. Having an advantageous Arctic location avoids having to sail around Europe or the Pacific Ocean to get to locales such as Russia and East Asia. The maps below visually represent the distance between Greenland, Europe, and North America.

According to The World Economic Forum, “As Arctic ice melts, sea routes will stay navigable for longer periods, which could drastically change international trade and shipping…Control of these routes could bring significant advantages to countries and corporations looking for a competitive edge (LePan).”

Additionally, there has not been historical data depicting signs of this becoming a reality. From 2013-2023, there was a thirty-seven percent increase in the number of unique ships in the area. While that does not account for repeat trips through the Arctic, it does mean that an influx of companies are utilizing the Arctic Passage as a valuable trade asset. During this study, there was even a rise in bulk transport and oil tankers. Both of these are new to Greenland’s utilization.

These are key projections that this would not be useful just for the United States, but worldwide. The use of Greenland for shipping as an effect of the melting ice would significantly reduce the number of days at sea for imports and exports, making this a potential money saver amongst international products. The Arctic Portal states that two shipping routes are currently centered around The Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The potential for a new shipping route in the north would be a major addition for companies and nations around the world. This is especially important when considering that a southern channel is impossible due to Antarctica (“Shipping Routes”).

The only potential downside to a northern shipping route is speculation, as it is unknown how much ice will melt. The more melted ice, the more effective nations can utilize these trade routes to move goods and products. If the ice melt is nominal, there is less of a likelihood that the full potential of a northern trade route will be achieved.

Some predictive analysis of this can be viewed in trying to estimate the amount of ice that will melt in the coming years. The Wright-Ingraham Institute has calculated that about eleven billion tons of ice have been melting in Iceland annually since the early twentieth century. At that rate, “scientists now predict that all of Iceland’s glaciers will be gone by 2200 (“Deglaciation in Iceland: Trends and Consequences”).”

Obviously, for the nation that is Greenland and the rest of the world, it would not be an ideal scenario if an inordinate amount of ice were to melt. Still, if the historical trends continue, Greenland could be effectively utilized for trade.

Lawmakers must predict and maximize the use of land, person, or body. The term “buys low and sells high” aligns with this principle. The same can be said for the reasons why Greenland has become hyper-analyzed for its location. There are currently twenty-four Greenlandic sea ports scattered throughout the coasts of the territory. If shipping routes were to broaden, these ports would become extremely valuable and would add to the need for more ports and jobs.

This would be critical to boosting the United States economy and broaden its horizons. It would allow for a growing population in Greenland, which would help establish a larger foothold in the country, but it would also give the United States a stronger foothold in the world trade atmosphere. The location near Europe and the Middle East would allow for a more efficient and shorter path to the United States, saving everyone valuable time and money. This would boost the American economy by shipping more goods out faster and bringing international products in for cheaper.

According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book, Greenland’s unemployment rate is just nine percent. Rejuvenating the relatively dormant shipping industry will exponentially increase human and liquid capital. For the aforementioned reasons, Greenland could become a geostrategic and commercial ally of the United States.

Military Bases

Another major factor of Greenland’s advantageous location is the susceptibility of naval bases. The United States currently operates Pituffik Space Force Base (formerly known as Thule Air Base), which is the United States’ northernmost military base. Chief of Space Operations U.S. Space Force Gen. Chance Saltzman stated, “The United States greatly values the contributions that the Greenlandic people bring to defending the Arctic region and to global security, and that renewed strategic competition in the Arctic can be expected with Russia’s historically significant presence in the region and the People’s Republic of China self-proclaimed near-Arctic power, seeking opportunities to expand its influence  (Dillon and Brady).”

This is a major statement from an extremely high-ranking official from the United States military highlighting the significant value of the region. Greenland’s proximity to Russia and China is a major asset to the United States. It allows for a closer location to be able to protect and defend the American people, especially from a naval perspective. This proximity also allows the U.S. to work in closer quarters with these nations, increasing the potential of working together.  According to American military personnel stationed at Pituffik Space Force Base, “The mission of the 821st Space Base Group is to enable force protection, space superiority, and scientific research in the Arctic Region for our nation and allies through integrated base support and defense operations. The 821 SBG operates not only the DoD’s northernmost installation but also the world’s northernmost deep-water Seaport and provides a unique platform for arctic training, international scientific research, and environmental programs (“Pituffik SB, Greenland”).”

Pituffik Space Force Base locale, the world’s northernmost point, poses a geostrategic advantage for the United States. Within the last couple of years, the United States government has renovated the base to meet the needs of modern warfighting. Due to the harsh conditions, building deterioration accelerates faster than in other locales. The United States Army Corps of Engineers highlighted this problem by having active military bases in Greenland. They stated, “Arctic construction can be challenging due to severe weather and limited daylight, which requires the use of unique building materials, techniques, and fast-paced construction (Castagna).”

Because of the weather, significant renovations must be undertaken during the summer—twenty-four hours of daylight is commonplace during the summer months. While challenging, these are the difficulties associated with the base’s location. That said, it provides valuable protection and proximity to the United States’ rivals. As the United States regularly conflicts with Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others, the geographic location of Greenland provides a very advantageous post that draws near to these places and allows for quick potential action from an air force and naval perspective. The proximity to these nations from Greenland provides valuable ground for gathering troops and sending out potential attacks or defenses if necessary. The United States is separated by oceans on both sides, which makes it difficult to launch a true attack on a rival nation. Greenland’s location affords it the luxury of being shielded by foreign aggrandizement. As tensions with the aforementioned arise, expansion, or possible addition of military bases would be valuable.

It does not just stop at the United States military that is looking to expand into the arctic and Greenland. The Center for European Policy Analysis has encouraged western nations to further their presence in the Arctic for military cooperation. Erwin states, “CEPA argued that Arctic stability depends on developing deterrence strategies tailored to polar threats (Erwin).” These threats include nations like China and Russia who are also growingly active in the region.

One United States Space Force Officer, Chief Master Sgt. John Bentivegna, stated, “The Department of Defense has unveiled a new Arctic strategy, underscoring the region’s critical importance to our national security and that of our allies. Maintaining a strong presence and projecting power from the Arctic is paramount; we must fortify it, ensuring that we capitalize on our unique position at the top of the world to safeguard our interests and those of our allies.”

It is impossible to deny that there is an extreme effort across the world to expand its reign in the Arctic, with this most specifically being held in Greenland. Whether that be from the renovation and expansion of military bases in Greenland or the strategic location that Greenland poses in the Arctic, Greenland is growing increasingly valuable to all countries from a military perspective. The Pituffik Space Force Base is one of the most important bases in the United States military and will only continue to grow in value as time progresses.

Natural Resources

The final topic that is vital to discuss is the untapped natural resources in the area. As mentioned earlier, Greenland has only fifty-seven thousand inhabitants. Greenland’s population is comprised mostly of fishermen/whalers and farmers. There are not enough people to invest in harvesting the bountiful natural resources in Greenland.

Perhaps the following question should be posed: Why is investment in the extraction of natural resources not a loadstar of Greenland’s economy? The ice sheet covering Greenland is roughly two miles thick at its center. That, in total, is much work to do to make the resources accessible. No area in the United States has the same level of degree of difficulty in gaining access to resources as Greenland does as a result of the ice sheet.

With the thickness of the ice being a concern, the question becomes, what is the point? In the past decades, Greenland has been liberal in its mining regulations, but this has slowly started to change. Many mines closed down in 2013 and have yet to be replaced. Greenland has attempted to attract independent groups to mine, but they have been unsuccessful because of the land conditions and the cost.

Greenland has several key resources that would be beneficial for the mining industry. This list includes rare Earth metals, oil, gas, and uranium, to name a few. A study from the Harvard Belfort Center stated, “In particular, Greenland has large deposits of rare earth elements (REEs) required for manufacturing batteries, wind and solar technologies, and advanced military equipment. Western countries see Greenland’s mineral resources as an opportunity to reduce their dependence on China, which dominates critical mineral supply chains (Spence and Hanlon).”

China is the world leader in mining rare Earth metals and controlling the market. The ability of Western countries to gain access to Greenland’s mining industry, particularly the United States, would benefit their economies. In his campaign, Donald Trump elucidated the consequentiality of the United States becoming energy independent. In years past, the United States has relied on countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China for resources that are unable to be harvested in the United States. Investing in Greenland’s natural resources would change the fact that the United States currently has underwhelming representation in the energy industry worldwide. Products such as lithium-ion batteries would no longer be unique to China; they could be produced in the United States.  Another study from a 2022 Nordic Council of Ministers study cited that all of Greenland that is currently ice-free holds high potential for significant oil and gas deposits, only heightening the potential Greenland could possess economically ((“Report: Large Potential for Critical Minerals in Greenland and the Nordic Countries | Mineral Resources Authority – Naalakkersuisut”).

  One of the focus points is not if Greenland can produce energy and resources but when it will.  Brookings made a confident report stating, “Eventually, large-scale mining will take place in Greenland (Boersma and Foley).”

It does not appear as if Denmark or Greenland intend to utilize Greenland’s vast resources. It is up to one of the dominant powers in the world today. The obvious two that would try to achieve this would be the United States or China. Both nations are in direct competition over these resources. China already has a near-monopoly on these resources, and mining Greenland would only exacerbate that supremacy. The United States acquisition of mining rights could profoundly alter the future economic outlook and reorient the direction of manufacturing. It has the potential to make the United States a manufacturer in many businesses, especially in the automotive business. It would also boost the capabilities of energy self-dependence in the United States and strengthen its standing as a dominant world power both now and for decades to come.

Conclusion

           Greenland is about to enter the precipice of geostrategic importance for the world’s future. This includes everything from trade routes through the Northwest Passage or Transatlantic Sea route to the Pituffik Space Base, as well as the abundant natural resources located below the ice and Earth of the nation. Greenland can change the world. It is on a stage that it has never been on before, and as the world warms and the ice melts, the opportunities for Greenland only grow.    

Bibliography

Aikman, Ian. “Donald Trump Says He Believes the US Will “Get Greenland.”” BBC, 26 Jan. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkezj07rzro.

Boersma, Tim, and Kevin Foley. “The Greenland Gold Rush: Promise and Pitfalls of Greenland’s Energy and Mineral Resources.” Brookings, 14 Sept. 2014, www.brookings.edu/articles/the-greenland-gold-rush-promise-and-pitfalls-of-greenlands-energy-and-mineral-resources/.

Castagna, JoAnne. “People: Top Priority on Top of the World.” New York District , 2 Aug. 2023, www.nan.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Story-Article-View/Article/3480303/people-top-priority-on-top-of-the-world/. Accessed 2 Feb. 2025.

—. “Thule Air Base, Arctic – Consistently on Top of Its Game.” Www.army.mil, 13 Dec. 2019, www.army.mil/article/230993/thule_air_base_arctic_consistently_on_top_of_its_game. Accessed 2 Feb. 2025.

“Deglaciation in Iceland: Trends and Consequences.” Wright-Ingraham Institute, 18 Mar. 2023, wright-ingraham.org/deglaciation-in-iceland-trends-and-consequences/.

Dillon, Connie , and Steve Brady. “Thule Air Base Gets New Name.” United States Space Force, 6 Apr. 2023, www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/3355840/thule-air-base-gets-new-name/.

“Environment and Mineral Resources – Greenland Institute of Natural Resources.” Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, 2019, natur.gl/guidance/miljoe/?lang=en.

Erwin, Sandra. “Trump’s Interest in Greenland Highlights Space Race in the High North.” SpaceNews, 13 Feb. 2025, spacenews.com/trumps-interest-in-greenland-highlights-space-race-in-the-high-north/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.

Frerichs, Peter. “US Interest in Greenland – a Shipping and Reserves Case.” Global Trade Magazine, 22 Jan. 2025, www.globaltrademag.com/us-interest-in-greenland-a-shipping-and-reserves-case/. Accessed 2 Feb. 2025.

“Greenland – People.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 30 Jan. 2025, www.britannica.com/place/Greenland/People.

“Greenland – the World Factbook.” Www.cia.gov, 16 Jan. 2025, www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/greenland/.

“Greenland Sea Port List | Greenland Shipping Ports | SeaRates.” SeaRates, SeaRates.com, 2024, www.searates.com/maritime/greenland. Accessed 2 Feb. 2025.

“History and Culture.” Japan.um.dk, japan.um.dk/en/about-denmark/greenland/history-and-culture.

LePan, Nicolas. “This Chart Shows New Trade Routes That Could Open up the Arctic.” World Economic Forum, 13 Feb. 2020, www.weforum.org/stories/2020/02/ice-melting-arctic-transport-route-industry/.

National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Ice Sheet Quick Facts.” National Snow and Ice Data Center, 2024, nsidc.org/learn/parts-cryosphere/ice-sheets/ice-sheet-quick-facts.

“Pituffik SB, Greenland.” Www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil, www.petersonschriever.spaceforce.mil/Pituffik-SB-Greenland/.

Raikar, Sanat Pai. “Greenland Ice Sheet | Ice Sheet, Greenland.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 24 Oct. 2023, www.britannica.com/place/Greenland-Ice-Sheet.

Rasmussen, Rasmus. “Greenland – History | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/place/Greenland/History.

“Report: Large Potential for Critical Minerals in Greenland and the Nordic Countries | Mineral Resources Authority – Naalakkersuisut.” Mineral Resources Authority, 4 Mar. 2022, govmin.gl/2022/03/report-large-potential-for-critical-minerals-in-greenland-and-the-nordic-countries/.

“Shipping Routes.” Arctic Portal, 2024, arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes.

Spence, Jennifer, and Elizabeth Hanlon. “Explainer: The Geopolitical Significance of Greenland.” The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 16 Jan. 2025, www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/explainer-geopolitical-significance-greenland.

Underwood, E. “Massive Waves of Melting Greenland Ice Warped Earth’s Crust.” Eos, 28 June 2017, eos.org/research-spotlights/massive-waves-of-melting-greenland-ice-warped-earths-crust. Accessed 2 Feb. 2025.

This month, James Earl Carter Jr., America’s thirty-ninth president eclipsed the century mark, making him the nation’s first centenarian president. Mr. Carter’s post-presidency—spanning more than forty years, the longest in American history serves as a model for all future chief executives. Eschewing the spotlight, Carter, following his loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, returned to the modest home he and Rosalyn purchased in the 1960s—an abode in which he currently resides—to embark on the next chapter of his life.

Upon leaving office, Mr. Carter has devoted hundreds of thousands of hours to running the Carter Center at Emory University, a nonprofit organization devoted to advancing human rights and democracy which he founded in 1982; building homes with Habitat for Humanity; traveling the world in an effort to foster peace agreements in nations ravaged by war or territorial conflict; writing books, thirty-one of which were penned during his post-presidential years; and serving as a model of grace, humility, and courage. While this author was a vehement critic of President Carter’s foreign and domestic policies, he admires the thirty-ninth president’s decency, humility, courage, and unwavering commitment to public service. Jimmy Carter’s is unquestionably one of America’s most admired post-presidencies, as the thirty-ninth president achieved more in the diplomatic and humanitarian realms than many of his predecessors and successors achieved during their respective terms. Mr. Carter was, indeed, a failed president, but a first-rate humanitarian whose post-presidency serves as the loadstar for presidents present and future.

Faith, particularly an unwavering relationship with Jesus Christ, is the compass of Jimmy Carter’s life. Carter has repeatedly stated that his deeply personal relationship with Jesus Christ has allowed him to survive innumerable medical issues and make consequential decisions during his lone term as President of the United States. In his presidential memoirs, Carter wrote at length about praying before making major decisions, especially sending American troops into harm’s way.[1] Jimmy Carter’s was a relational faith. In describing his relationship with Jesus Christ, Carter wrote, “To me, Jesus Christ is not an object to be worshiped but a person and companion.”[2] This deeply personal relationship with his creator—one the former president has worked assiduously to instill in others through his service as a Sunday school instructor for more than seventy years—Carter posited, has given him a “pleasant feeling of responsibility to share with others.”[3]

Carter’s faith was the driving force behind many of the policy issues he championed as president, chief among them, homelessness, human rights, welfare reform and the war on poverty. Coincidently, Carter, a Southern Baptist, eschewed many of the issues of chief importance to the majority of evangelicals: abortion, school prayer, school choice/tuition tax credits, and same-sex marriage. Gary Scott Smith, in his tome exploring the role faith played in the American presidency, wrote of Carter’s Christianity, “Three major factors shaped Carter’s ideology: Southern evangelicalism, Baptists’ views of the separation of Church and State, and the Christian realism of Reinhold Niebuhr. In most ways, Carter’s personal faith was typical of Southern Baptists and most other evangelicals. He believed in the need to be born again, and the authority of the bible. Carter insisted that his faith should play an important role in his political decisions.”[4] During the Iran hostage crisis, for example, Carter prayed daily for the Americans held captive and evoked religious rhetoric in many of his speeches and press conferences. No modern president with perhaps the exception of George W. Bush, relied as heavily on faith when making consequential policy decisions.

Nineteen months ago when the thirty-ninth president entered hospice care, many believed the end of his extraordinary life was on the precipice. Through grace, humility, prayer, and an abiding faith in the Almighty, James Earl Carter was able to celebrate his one hundred birthday. In a moving tribute to the former president, The New York Times wrote of his extraordinary life, “The last chapter of Mr. Carter’s already remarkable life story is turning out to be one of astonishing resilience. The peanut farmer turned global statesman has over the years beaten brain cancer, bounced back from a broken hip, and outlived his political adversaries. And now he is setting a record for presidential durability that may be hard to break.”[5] The past forty-plus years of Jimmy Carter’s life have been devoted to the causes of greatest importance to him: The Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity, human rights, democracy promotion, eradicating disease, famine, poverty and war, and conflict resolution. According to Texas A&M University, “The Carter Center has worked to eliminate six preventable diseases: Guinea worm, river blindness, trachoma, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis and malaria Hispaniola. Thanks to Carter’s efforts, guinea worm disease—a parasitic infection contracted when people drink water contaminated with Guinea worm with—could soon be eradicated.”[6]

In spite of the aforementioned, establishing peace in the Middle East, chiefly the creation of an independent Palestinian state has been a focal point of Jimmy Carter’s post-presidency. Unlike many of his predecessors and successors, Carter has been outspoken and steadfast in his endorsement of an independent Palestinian state, a position this author fervently rejects. Furthermore, Carter has blamed Israel, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for the ongoing imbroglio in the West Bank. In his controversial book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter argues that Israel’s “colonization” and unwillingness to recognize an independent Palestinian state have been the greatest obstacles to peace in the Middle East. In the book, Carter identifies two obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:

• “Some Israeli’s believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and
• Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israeli’s as a victory.”[7]

What, then, according to Carter is the solution to peace in the Middle East? Carter identifies three steps to restore the Middle East peace process:

• The security of Israel must be guaranteed.
• The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to restore Israel’s permanent legal boundary.
• The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored.[8]

In recent years, Carter has been more outspoken in his opposition to Israel, blaming Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Likud party for tumult and instability in the Middle East. Carter’s unwavering support for the creation of an independent Palestinian state and use of the term “apartheid”—one for which he was resoundingly criticized by diplomats and political leaders on both sides of the aisle for being insensitive and anti-Semitic[9]–have contributed to unrest and tumult in Gaza. In fact, on October 1, 2024, the day of Carter’s one hundredth birthday, Iran launched more than one hundred and eighty missiles into Israel. The creation of a Palestinian state that is not democratic with all the protections of civil society would upend peace in the Middle East, pose an existential threat to Israeli security and legitimize the Palestine Liberation Organization, an anti-American terrorist regime. America must not and will not negotiate or legitimize terrorist organizations.

Was Jimmy Carter’s presidency a failure?

Jimmy Carter has been consistently ranked as an “average” or “below-average” president since leaving office in January 1981. Carter’s standing with presidential historians has witnessed a rehabilitation due largely to his post-presidential accolades. Judging any president’s successes based on accomplishments after leaving office is ineffectual, naïve, and counterproductive. Presidential rankings assess the accomplishments and/or failures of the chief executive during his time as guardian of the nation. Under that criteria, the author ranks Carter as one of the least successful presidents in American history, trailing only James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Joseph Biden.[10] Carter’s shortcomings are myriad, ranging from the Iran Hostage Crisis to a record-high inflation.

 Yes, Jimmy Carter was indeed a failed president. His tenure was mired by infighting among his senior advisors, lack of a coherent vision for his administration, a reorienting of American foreign policy from hard power realism to preoccupation with soft power, human rights and toppling the regimes of right-wing dictators. The author concurs with Stephen Hess, a scholar at the Brookings Institute and professor at his graduate school alma mater, The George Washington University; correctly considers Carter as the quintessential process president. For those unfamiliar with the term, a process president refers to a chief executive who “places greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of the policy itself.”[11] Jimmy Carter was an activist who possessed a grandiose vision about the proper role of government in a free society. Partially a result of Carter’s lack of a coherent vision and legislative experience, he was unsuccessful in coupling his vision of a world devoid of peace and conflict with a successful governing agenda. Stephen Hess is correct, “Process is only a tool for getting from here to there—it is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.”[12]

Jimmy Carter’s presidency lacked what George Herbert Walker Bush referred to as “the vision thing.” Carter’s administration was devoid of a consistent message, governing philosophy or vision for America. While human rights and democracy promotion abroad were the cornerstones of the national security doctrine that bore his name, Carter frequently deviated from those tenets as new crises emerged. Jimmy Carter’s was a programmatic, not an activist administration. On every major policy decision, it appeared as though Carter was robotic, lacking comprehension of the consequences his actions would have on a world in tumult. Stephen Hess also best summarized Carter’s presidency when he wrote, “What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Jimmy Carter’s failure to set consistent policy goals—or more grandly, a philosophy for government.”[13] Americans distrusted Carter due to his administration’s inability to develop and articulate a coherent vision for America. Accordingly, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter resoundingly in 1980 by portraying the incumbent president as aloof, out-of-touch and devoid of a grandiose vision for moving America forward during one of the most tumultuous eras in the nation’s history.

Lack of a governing philosophy was not Carter’s only failure during his lone term as the nation’s chief executive. Inflation and unrest in the Middle East created insurmountable obstacles for him. Had Carter possessed a coherent governing philosophy and not made decisions on a whim, he could have weathered the storm, won reelection in 1980, and been regarded by historians as a transformational and historic president. Unfortunately, for Carter and the nation, the opposite occurred. Inflation reached record highs; gasoline rationing was widespread due to largely to the 1979 Arab Oil Embargo and Iranian Revolution. American hegemony waned because of the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Carter Doctrine’s accomodationist, pro-human rights tenets.

The Carter Doctrine’s obsession with appeasement, capitulation and soft power is chiefly responsible for tumult in the Middle East and Latin America. The Camp David Accords, arguably Carter’s foremost achievement as president, although a short-term success, failed to establish peace and stability in the Middle East. Iran’s recent bombing of Israel serves as another reminder that Carter’s passive approach to American-Iranian relations was an abject failure. Since Carter left office, Iran has become more virulently anti-American than at any point in its history.

 Future presidents can learn a valuable lesson from Jimmy Carter’s shortcomings: aggression, not appeasement is the only viable solution for defeating those who seek to destroy and pose an existential threat to American hegemony. Paul Miller is correct:

“The aftermath of Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy is still present today. The lives lost, because of his incompetence in dealing with Iran before, during and after the Islamic Revolution is far greater than the turmoil in Iraq. Considering the support insurgent groups in Iraq as well as terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah get from Iran, Carter’s mistakes as president are still costing lives all over the Middle East.”[14]

The Iranian Hostage Crisis was, without question, the seminal shortcoming of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Western intrigue with Iran began in 1909, following the discovery of oil. Anglo-Dutch Shell, a British-based petroleum company, possessed near unilateral authority over Iran’s oil supply until 1951. In 1951, the Majilis (Parliament of Iran) elected Mohammed Mossadeq prime minister, by a vote of seventy-seven to twelve. Immediately following his election, Mossadeq expelled Anglo-Dutch Shell from the country, leading many in the United States government to believe collaboration or takeover by the Soviet Union was imminent.[15] According to Professor Robert Strong, the potential Soviet occupation of Iran led the United States Central Intelligence Agency to:

“Stage a coup that toppled the prime minister and restored to power the Pahlavi ruling dynasty, whose monarch at the time had been reduced to a figurehead under Mossadeq. This leader, Mohammed Reza Shaa Pahlava was allowed to govern once rights to eighty percent of oil were ceded (transferred) to American and British interests.”[16]

Civil unrest and discord became ubiquitous, because of the Shah’s deployment of secret police agencies to spy on Iranian citizens, the outlawing of rival political factions, and a host of egregious human rights violations. When Carter assumed the presidency in 1977, discontent and disorder precipitated a widespread distrust of the Iranian government. According to Richard Nixon, “The CIA and other allied intelligence agencies gave covert help to General Fazollah Zahredi in his successful effort to put down Mossadeq. Mossadeq was ousted and the Shah was restored securely through the throne; from then on, the Shah took personal control of Iran’s affairs.”[17] The Shah assumed power in 1941, following the death of his father, but deferred many of the day-to-day policy decisions to Prime Minister Mossadeq. The 1953 Iranian coup d’état resulted in the Shah retaking control of the government and ruling in a monarchical fashion.[18] The last King of Iran, Mohammed Pahlavi (the Shah), would remain in power until 1979, when he was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution. With the Iranian government on the brink of collapse, the Shah was deposed by a coterie of hardline Muslim traditionalists, and fled to Paris where he resided in exile for the next fifteen years. According to Dr. Robert Strong, by early 1979 the conservative Islamic movement had become so strong that the Shah was forced to flee Iran and turn over power to a new group of western-oriented technocrats.”[19] In 1979, the Shah, now residing in Mexico and dying of cancer, was invited by President Jimmy Carter to visit the United States, where he sought state-of-the-art medical treatment. In response to Carter’s action, a group of militant Iranian students loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini, seized the American embassy in Tehran, holding sixty-six Americans, including the charge d ’affairs, hostage. The militant students wanted the Shah returned to Iran to stand trial for his alleged violations of Sharia law. Robert Shaw, in discussing the aftermath of this decision, wrote, “The Ayatollah returned to his homeland soon afterward and was instantly installed by a million Iranians marching on the capital as the nation’s undisputed leader.”[20] In spite of attempts by President Carter to end the crisis by freezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets and imposing rigorous sanctions, American hostages were held for four hundred-forty-four days.

Americans’ discontent with Carter’s inability to free the hostages in a timely fashion fostered the perception that he was aimless, inept, and incapable of exuding American leadership abroad. Desperate for the hostages’ return, President Carter authorized Operation Eagle Claw, one of the first-ever Delta Forces missions. It resulted in eight helicopters being sent to Iran, with one crashing and eight American service members dying. According to Mark Bowden, the operation would have been deemed a success and continued had six of the eight helicopters been operational.[21] The mission was aborted on April 25, 1980, just one day following its launch. With his approval ratings hemorrhaging, Carter made a last ditch effort to rehabilitate his presidency and bolster the possibility of reelection: fostering a hostage release agreement with the Khomeini regime. The agreement, which became 1981 Executive Order 12283, unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian funds, established a tribunal at The Hague to settle financial claims, and prevented the United States government from interfering in internal Iranian affairs.[22] President Carter’s inability to get the American hostages released during his presidency—they were released immediately following Ronald Reagan’s inauguration—is largely a result of his administration’s lack of vision and its capitulation to the whims of adversaries, and obsession with soft power diplomacy.

Khomeini’s regime, recognizing dissent among Carter administration national security officials and the lack of a confrontational approach to dealing with the crisis, possessed the upper hand with respect to negotiations. The United States Department of State’s Office of the Historian described this tension:

“Carter initially favored Secretary Vance’s policy of negotiation, but by 1980 was more receptive to National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s more confrontational stance. Once again, the National Security Council and the Department of State were in open conflict. The issue came to a head when Secretary Vance opposed a mission to rescue the hostage in Iran—a move championed by Brzezinski. Vance had been correct—the 1980 mission was a debacle. But Vance was frustrated and he resigned in protested in April 1980.”[23]

While the Iranian Hostage Crisis proved to be Carter’s most prolific foreign policy failure, he also exacerbated the failed policy of détente with the Soviet Union and a hollowing out of America’s military. Détente, as this author defined it in his most recent analysis of Richard Nixon’s contributions to preserving Israeli independence, is the relaxation of strained tensions between geopolitical rivals. The Carter administration expanded upon détente by relying specifically on soft power tactics, modernization of the Third World, focus on human rights, and support of Marxist-inspired autocrats in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The first year of Carter’s presidency witnessed a Soviet military buildup, dramatic reduction in the number of active-duty American military personnel, and the expansion of Soviet influence in Africa, the Caribbean, and Afghanistan. Jeane Kirkpatrick best described Carter’s rebranding of détente, when she wrote:

“The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long tries to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The Marxist presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. support for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid elsewhere.”[24]

President Carter and his advisers maintained that affording Marxist-inspired dictators with monetary resources and weapons would compel them to reject the Soviet Union and evolve into western-inspired democracies despite their analogous political ideology.

Few Marxist-Leninist governments run by anti-American autocrats have embraced democracy, the rule of law, or natural law. According to Kirkpatrick:

“Although there is no instance of a revolutionary ‘socialist’ or Communist society being democratized, right-wing autocracies do sometimes evolve into democracies—given time, propitious economic, social, and political circumstances, talented leaders, and a strong indigenous demand for representative government…But it seems clear that the architects of contemporary American foreign policy have little idea of how to go about encouraging the liberalization of an autocracy.”[25]

Iran and Nicaragua are two prominent examples of the failure of this approach to remaking the world that occurred under Carter’s auspices. In both instances, the Carter administration failed to comprehend that replacing autocratic rulers with “moderates” or those supportive of western ideals, would guarantee a profound ideological transformation or hasten support for democratic values. Kirkpatrick is correct: “Authority in traditional autocracies is transmitted through personal relations: from the ruler to his close associates and from them to people to whom the associates are related by personal ties resembling their own relation to the ruler.”[26] President Carter and his advisors’ reorientation of American foreign power from hard power realism to “rational humanism,” coupled with a belief the Cold War had subsided, proved calamitous and posed an existential threat to American hegemony.

Rational humanism was a foreign policy doctrine elucidated by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s former secretary of state, in his book, Between Two Ages, in which a focus on national supremacy and political confrontation would be replaced by globalization and human issues. Brzezinski wrote of rationalism humanism, “Today, the old framework of international politics with their spheres of influence, military alliances between nation states, the fiction of sovereignty, doctrinal conflict arising from nineteenth century crisis—is no longer compatible with reality.”[27] In essence, rational humanism, obsessed over modernization of the third world. Concern for national interest and preserving the Pax Americana was replaced with Third World modernization. The “Modernization Paradigm”, as dubbed by esteemed political scientist, Dr. Samuel Huntington, focused on urbanization, literacy, social mobilization and economic growth—all of which the Carter administration, particularly Brzezinski argued were necessary for transforming Marxist-Leninist governments into Western-inspired democracies. Jeane Kirkpatrick, in describing Samuel Huntington’s full-fledged repudiation of the “Modernization Paradigm”, despite serving as a member of the National Security Council during Carter’s presidency, wrote:

“The modernization paradigm, Huntington has observed, postulates an ongoing process of change: complex because it involves all dimensions of human life in society; systemic, because its elements interact in predictable, necessary ways; global, because all societies will, necessarily, pass through the transition from traditional to modern; lengthy, because time is required to modernize economic and social organization, charter, and culture; phased, because each modernizing society must pass through essentially the same stages; homogenizing, because it tends towards the convergence and interdependence of societies; irreversible, because the direction of change is given in the relation of the elements of the process; progressive, in the sense that it is desirable, and in the long run provides significant benefits to the affiliated people.”[28]

In essence, the “Modernization Paradigm” rejected the “great man theory” which postulated that individual actions are the essence of decision-making. Instead, the “Modernization Paradigm” reasoned that events and external forces such as those outlined by Huntington were primarily responsible for global events. President Carter proclaimed that factors beyond his control triggered the Iranian revolution and turmoil that engulfed Southeast Asia. In a 1979 speech the Georgia Technological Institute, Carter articulated the “Modernist Paradigm” with respect to the Iranian Revolution when he said, “The revolution in Iran is a product of deep social, political, religious, and economic factors growing out of the history of Iran itself.”[29] Carter’s view is not only naïve, it precipitated the rise of fervently anti-American autocrats in third world countries, many of whom were armed and aided by the Soviet Union.

Jeane Kirkpatrick and Stephen Rosenfeld, a reporter with the Washington Post, most aptly described the essence of Carter’s failed modernization paradigm. According to Kirkpatrick, “…Carter’s doctrine of national interest and modernization encourages support for all change that takes places in the name of ‘the people,’ regardless of its ‘superficial Marxist or anti-American content.”[30] Stephen Rosenfeld provided a similar analysis, writing:

“The Carter administration came to power, after all, committed precisely to reducing the centrality of strategic competition with Moscow in American foreign policy, and to extending the United States’ association with what it was prepared to accept as legitimate wave-of-the-future popular movements around the world-first of all with the victorious movement in Vietnam…Indochina was supposed to be the state on which Americans could demonstrate their post-Vietnam intent to come to terms with the progressive popular element that Kissinger, the villain, had denied.”[31]

Jimmy Carter and his advisors rejected the hard power, balance-of-power politics of the Cold War Era and instead, embraced revolutionary uprisings, most often engineered by activists in third world countries. The Carter administration’s unwillingness to decimate these anti-American regimes emboldened and strengthened the Soviet Union’s grip on Latin America, Southeast Asian and the Middle East. Because of Jimmy Carter’s naivety and embrace of the modernist paradigm, anti-American sentiment remains pervasive in much of the world, particularly those regions he sought to remake in the image of America.

The final word on the Carter administration’s failures with respect to expansion of détente belongs to none other than Jeane Kirkpatrick:

“The foreign policy of the Carter administration fails not for lack of realism about the nature of traditional versus revolutionary autocracies and the relation of each to the American national interest. Only intellectual fashion and the tyranny of Right/Left thinking prevent intelligent men of good will from perceiving the facts that traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies, that they are more susceptible of liberalization, and that they are more compatible with U.S. interests.”[32]

As shown by his unwillingness to modernize America’s weapons systems or naval fleet, President Carter was no fan of the Department of Defense or United States military, despite having served in the United States Navy during World War II. Akin to many of his predecessors, Carter embraced the World War II, nation-state approach to combat; believing the United States military must be robust, and focused on defeating multiple adversaries simultaneously. Instead, he neglected what Donald Rumsfeld would later describe as the “light and lethal” approach to fighting, which recognizes that modern warfare will be dominated by new technology, fewer ground troops, and guerilla tactics.[33] Immediately following his inauguration, President Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and removed American ground troops from South Korea. Carter’s pardoning of more than one hundred thousand Vietnam War draft dodgers engendered ill will with both rank-and-file military personnel and top brass at the Pentagon. American personnel, as a result, lost faith in their commander-in-chief, believing he was more concerned about appeasing America’s enemies than projecting peace through strength. Steven Hayward argued that Jimmy Carter’s bellicosity at a time when the Soviet Union was strengthening its military arsenal adversely affected the United States’ ability to win future wars and undermined America’s claim to be the most powerful nation in the world.[34]

As president, Jimmy Carter opposed construction of the B-1 bomber to replace the outdated B-52, which had first been constructed in 1952 and used extensively by the United States during the Vietnam War. Carter’s opposition was precipitated by his supposition that the B-1 bomber would be cost-prohibitive and unnecessary for modern warfare. Despite overwhelmingly bipartisan support for construction of the B-1 bomber in both houses of Congress, Carter objected to its creation, opting instead for deployment of cruise missiles. Austin Scott, a reporter with the Washington Post wrote of this decision, “Pentagon sources said production of the cruise missile, a pilotless, winged aircraft that can hit targets with tremendous accuracy over a range potentially greater than two-thousand miles, will now be accelerated.”[35] President Carter argued that technological innovation with respect to missiles and the robust fleet of B-52s, despite being obsolete, justified opposition to the B-1 bomber. Construction and deployment of the B-1 bomber would become priorities of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton presidencies. In fact, the B-1 bomber would make its combat debut on December 18, 1998 during Operation Desert Fox in Bahrain.

In addition to the B-1 bomber, President Carter also significantly reduced the Navy’s shipbuilding program, believing it was too costly and unnecessary in the post-Vietnam era of warfare. In his first Department of Defense budget, President Carter slashed in half the number of new American ships to be built over a five-year period from the one hundred fifty-seven proposed by President Gerald Ford, to just seventy. Additionally, Carter’s first two defense budgets held naval funding constant, while the Soviet Union, by contrast, had exponentially increased spending on its navy, in an effort to finally obtain access to fresh water port. Francis West, in a 1979 issue of Proceedings, a magazine published by the United States Naval Institute, argued that the Carter administration cited inflation, the energy crisis, and a discounting of the Navy’s significance by many in the administration and Pentagon, particularly Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, as the impetus behind these reductions.[36] Mr. West wrote the disparity between US and Soviet naval funding, “Soviet military spending is increasing in real terms by four-to-five percent a year, compared to two percent in the United States. If this trend continues for the next decade as it has for the past decade, the in the 1990s the Soviets will be outspending us in research and development by ninety percent, and in personnel, by forty-five percent.[37] Fortunately, for the United States, Mr. West’s assessment failed to become a reality and the Berlin Wall would fall in 1989, ultimately bringing about the Soviet Union’s demise.

With respect to naval funding proposed by both the Department of Defense and recommended by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, John Stennis (D-MS), President Carter rejected all of the following:

• $560 to reinstate the USS Oriskany and the battleship New Jersey, the latter of which would be mothballed in 1979, as a result of Carter’s inaction. Both the Oriskany and New Jersey, despite their respective ages, were suitable and equipped with the tools necessary to deploy cruise missiles—coincidently, the very weapons President Carter wanted to use instead of the B-1 bomber.
• President Carter, according to Robert Novak and Roland Evans, “Rejected $495 million for increasing the four new guided-missile frigates to six, considered a bare minimum by the Navy for anti-aircraft protection.”[38]
• $907 million for 6688-class nuclear submarines.
• Expansion of the F-18 aircraft production from the forty-eight to seventy-four planes recommended by the Department of the Navy. Carter argued that rejection of the Navy’s proposal would save $4 million per plane and allow the Department of Defense to support the United States’ existing naval fleet; a fleet that was obsolete and unbecoming of the world’s foremost superpower.

 President Carter’s outright rejection of the Department of Defense’s military equipment upgrade and funding requests was further evidence that he no longer believed American primacy was of paramount importance. No president since Carter has caused more harm to the United States military with respect to troop levels, weapons system upgrades, fleet numbers, and military readiness.

Jimmy Carter’s eclipsing of the century mark, despite being frail, on hospice care for nearly two months is a testament to his tenacity, courage, and will to live. Despite disagreeing with his policy agenda, and highlighting his innumerable foreign policy failures as president, this author and everyone at the Pax Americana Institute wish Jimmy Carter a happy one-hundredth birthday and thank him for his decades of service to the United States. Jimmy Carter is an honorable, God-fearing man who deserves admiration, praise and gratitude from every American, regardless of political affiliation.

His post-presidency transcended partisanship and placed issues such as human rights, global health, democracy, peace and compassion at the forefront of public policy discussions. Again, congratulations to Jimmy Carter on becoming the first presidential centenarian. Carter’s has been a life well lived, a model for every global citizen. Thank you, President Carter for your compassion, honesty, and decency, and for devoting your life to serving a cause greater than yourself.

Bibliography

Afkhami, Gholam Reza. The Life and Times of the Shah. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Bosman, Julie. “Carter Book Stirs Furor with Its View of Israelis’ “Apartheid.”” The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cart.html.

Bowden, Mark. “The Desert One Debacle.” The Atlantic, 1 May 2006, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/05/the-desert-one-debacle/304803/. 

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic World. New York, NY: Praeger, 1970.

Carter, Jr., James Earl. “Text of Speech by President Carter at Georgia Tech.” The New York Times, 21 Feb. 1979, http://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/21/archives/text-of-speech-by-president-carter-at-georgia-tech-a-challenge-to.html. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

__________. “Executive Order 12283—United States-Iran Agreement on Release of the American Hostages | the American Presidency Project.” Ucsb.edu, University of California-Santa Barbara, 19 Jan. 1981, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12283-united-states-iran-agreement-release-the-american-hostages. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

_________. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1982.

_________. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2006.

_________. Faith: A Journey for All. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2018.

Clark, Caitlin, et al. “How Will We Remember Jimmy Carter?” Artsci.tamu.edu, 9 Mar. 2023, http://www.artsci.tamu.edu/news/2023/03/how-will-we-remember-jimmy-carter.html.

Huntington, Samuel. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968.  

Kinsey, Michael. “Michael Kinsley – It’s Not Apartheid.” Washingtonpost.com, 12 Dec. 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101225.html. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Kirkpatrick, Jeane. “Dictatorships & Double Standards.” Commentary Magazine, 1 Nov. 1979, www.commentary.org/articles/jeane-kirkpatrick/dictatorships-double-standards/.

Hayward, Steven F. The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators, and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry. Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004.

Hess, Stephen. “Jimmy Carter: Why He Failed.” Brookings, 21 Jan. 2000, www.brookings.edu/articles/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/.

 Knott, Jack, and Aaron Wildvasky. “Jimmy Carter’s Theory of Governing.” The Wilson Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 2, 1977, pp. 49–67. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40255179.

Miller, Paul. “Jimmy Carter Can Only Blame Himself – American Thinker.” www.americanthinker.com, 25 May 2007, www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/05/jimmy_carter_can_only_blame_hi.html.

Nixon, Richard M. The Real War. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, 1980.

Novak, Robert, and Roland Evans. “Sinking the Navy.” The Washington Post, 21 May 1980, http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/05/21/sinking-the-navy/de5849f5-d145-49a8-9d9f-27a95bae3bd1/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Rojas, Rick, and Peter Baker. “Jimmy Carter Approaches the Century Mark, Eclipsing His Presidential Peers.” The New York Times, 30 Sept. 2024, http://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/us/politics/jimmy-carter-100th-birthday.html.  Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Rosenfeld, Stephen S. “Third World Policy: Better by Half.” Washington Post, The Washington Post, 30 Nov. 1979, http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/11/30/third-world-policy-better-by-half/14dd6079-4204-47af-a16a-c4f64ca2ab51/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Rumsfeld, Donald. Known and Unknown: A Memoir. New York, NY: Sentinel, 2011.

Scott, Austin. “Carter Halts B-1 Bomber Production.” Washington Post, 1 July 1977, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/07/01/carter-halts-b-1-bomber-production/07fe7171-5bd5-4426-ad98-5d5b81946ebd/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

Smith, Gary Scott. Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Strong, Robert. “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs | Miller Center.” Miller Center, 4 Oct. 2016, millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs, https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs

The Washington Times. “Carter Apologizes for “Stupid” Book Passage.” The Washington Times, 25 Jan. 2007, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jan/25/20070125-112710-7481r/. Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

United States Department of State-Office of the Historian. “The Iranian Hostage Crisis – Short History – Department History – Office of the Historian.” State.gov, United States Department of State, 12 June 2019, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/iraniancrises. Accessed 1 Oct. 2024.

West, Jr., Francis J. “Panning for the Navy’s Future.” Proceedings, vol. 105, no. 120, Oct. 1979, pp. 46–60. United States Naval Institute, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1979/october/planning-navys-future.  Accessed 14 Oct. 2024.

[1] James Earl Carter, Jr., Keeping Faith: Memoirs of A President (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1982).

[2] James Earl Carter, Jr., Faith: A Journey for All (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2018), p. 111.

[3] IBD, p. 112.

[4] Gary Scott Smith, Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 293.

[5] Rick Rojas and Peter Baker, “A Presidential Portrait of Uncommon Resilience.” The New York Times, October 1, 2024, p. 1; 20. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/us/politics/jimmy-carter-100th-birthday.html

[6] Caitlin Clark, “How Will We Remember Jimmy Carter?” Texas A&M College of Arts and Sciences, March 9, 2023. Retrieved from: https://artsci.tamu.edu/news/2023/03/how-will-we-remember-jimmy-carter.html

[7] James Earl Carter, Jr., Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006). P. 185. 

[8] IBID, p. 186.

[9] See: Michael Kinsey, “It is Not Apartheid,” The Washington Post, December 12, 2006. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101225.html. Julie Bosman, “Carter Books Stir Fervor with view of Israel’s Apartheid,” The New York Times, December, 14, 2006. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/books/14cart.html; And, The Washington Times, “Carter Apologizes for ‘stupid’ book passage.” The Washington Times, January 25, 2007. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jan/25/20070125-112710-7481r/

[10] The author excludes William Henry Harrison and James Garfield from the list, due to the brevity of their respective presidencies.

[11] Stephen Hess, “Jimmy Carter: Why He Failed.” The Brookings Institute, January 21, 2000. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/jimmy-carter-why-he-failed/ See also: Jack Knott and Aaron Widavsky, “Jimmy Carter’s Theory of Governing.” The Wilson Quarterly (Vol. 1, No, Winter 1977), pp. 49-67. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40255179 

[12] Hess, 2000, p. 2.

[13] Hess, 200, p. 3.

[14] Paul Miller, “Jimmy Carter Can Only Blame Himself.” The American Thinker, May 25, 2007. Retrieved from: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/05/jimmy_carter_can_only_blame_hi.html

[15] Robert A. Strong, “Jimmy Carter: Foreign Affairs.” The Miller Center at the University of Virginia, October 1, 2024. Retrieved from: https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs

[16] IBID, p. 5.

[17] Richard Milhous Nixon, The Real War (New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, 1980), p. 168.

[18] Gholam Rezka Afkhami, The Life and Times of the Shah (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009).

[19] Strong, 2023, p. 5. Retried from: https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs

[20] IBID, p. 5.

[21] Mark Bowden, “The Desert One Debacle.” The Atlantic, May 2006. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/05/the-desert-one-debacle/304803/

[22] Strong, 2023, p. 6. Retried from: https://millercenter.org/president/carter/foreign-affairs. See also: James Earl Carter, Jr., Executive Order 12283-United States-Iran Agreement on Release the American Hostages.” January 19, 1981. Retrieved from: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12283-united-states-iran-agreement-release-the-american-hostages

[23] United States Department of State, Office of the Historian, “The Iranian Hostage Crisis, October 1, 2024. Retrieved from: https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/iraniancrises

[24] Jeane Kirkpatrick, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Commentary, November 1979, p. 5. Retrieved from: https://www.commentary.org/articles/jeane-kirkpatrick/dictatorships-double-standards/

[25] IBID, p. 11.

[26] IBID, p. 11.

[27] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic World (New York, NY: Praeger, 1970), p. 113.

[28] Kirkpatrick, 1979, p. 16. See also: Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968).

[29] James Earl Carter, Jr., “Speech at Georgia Technological Institute on Foreign Policy and the Iranian Revolution.” February 20, 1979. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/21/archives/text-of-speech-by-president-carter-at-georgia-tech-a-challenge-to.html

[30] Kirkpatrick, 1979, p. 26.

[31] Stephen Rosenfeld, “Third World Policy: Better by Half.” The Washington Post, November 29, 1979. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/11/30/third-world-policy-better-by-half/14dd6079-4204-47af-a16a-c4f64ca2ab51/

[32] Kirkpatrick, 1979, p. 29.

[33] Donald Rumsfeld, Known and Unknown: A Memoir (New York, New York: Sentinel, 2011).

[34] Steven F. Hayward, The Real Jimmy Carter: How our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators, and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004).

[35] Austin Scott, “Carter halts B-1 Bomber Production.” The Washington Post, June 30, 1977, Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/07/01/carter-halts-b-1-bomber-production/07fe7171-5bd5-4426-ad98-5d5b81946ebd/

[36] Francis J. West, Jr., “Planning for the Navy’s Future.” Proceedings, (vol. 105, no. 920, October 1979), p. 2. Retrieved from: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1979/october/planning-navys-future

[37] IBID, page 15.

[38] Robert Novak and Roland Evans, “Sinking the Navy,” The Washington Post, May 20, 1990. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/05/21/sinking-the-navy/de5849f5-d145-49a8-9d9f-27a95bae3bd1/