Although President Jimmy Carter, who passed away on December 29, 2024, served just one term in the Oval Office, he left a mark on U.S. policy that is being remembered decades after he left office in January 1980. The former governor of Georgia had limited foreign policy experience, but he was supported by qualified senior aids that included National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.
“Jimmy Carter’s impact on national security was shaped by his idealistic approach to foreign policy, his emphasis on human rights, and by the international crises which took place during his presidency,” explained geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president of Scarab Uprising.
“He saw the U.S. Constitution as a blueprint for how the nation should respond as a bright light to the world,” added Dr. Robert Sanders of the National Security Department at the University of New Haven. “Sometimes that conflicted with the ‘realpolitik’ and the world changes at the time.”
Latin America and the Middle East
Core among Carter’s beliefs was that of human rights, and at times that may have even been in contrast with what may have been the best interests of the United States. Critics of Carter’s policies note that he cut support for the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, hoping that a moderate pro-Western government would emerge but instead, the Sandinistas took power.
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union provided full political, economic, military, and diplomatic support to the left-wing government of Nicaragua.
An even worse scenario played out in Iran.
While Carter may have hoped that regimes that had bad human rights records – but were friendly to the U.S. – would be replaced by friendly nations that supported better human rights, the result was anti-U.S. regimes that still had bad human rights records.
“We have often laid down with the dogs and come up with the fleas,” Sanders told ClearanceJobs. “We have done that even when human rights are violated. We have done that when we thought it was in our best interests. For Carter, he felt it was a better route for us to follow the Constitution to push human rights policies. He wanted America to be the beacon of that.”
Instead of pushing the Shah of Iran to take a more liberal direction, he attempted to crack down, and without U.S. support, he was alienated from his people.
“Carter shifted U.S. foreign policy towards an emphasis on human rights, advocating for the protection of individual freedoms in countries around the world,” said Tsukerman. “This was in contrast to the realpolitik approach of his predecessors. Carter assisted in the making of the Islamic Revolution, amidst the general Cold War approach of bringing Islamists to power to oppose the spread of Communism.”
Instead, the Islamic Revolution resulted in the 1979 siege on the U.S. embassy, and the hostage crisis.
“Carter was severely criticized for a misguided and muddled approach to resolving the crisis, and for his contribution to bring a much more hardline and outwardly hegemonic regime than the Pahlavi monarchy,” added Tsukerman.
The Iran Hostage Crisis
That failure in Iran resulted in the hostage crisis that proved to be a major blow to Carter’s national security record when Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, a situation that profoundly damaged his administration’s credibility and reputation.
“The very Islamists took advantage of the U.S. allowing the deposed Shah of Iran to seek medical treatment in the U.S. after he had been overthrown by the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini and claimed that the attack was in retaliation for the U.S. policy,” said Tsukerman. “In reality, however, the Islamic Republic was looking for a pretense to push the U.S. out of the country. In later years, the top echelons of the Islamic Republic were openly hostile to the U.S., directing attacks by Hezbollah on U.S. Marines in Lebanon even as the lower ranks cooperated on anti-Communist operations with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.”
Despite attempts at diplomacy and rescue missions – including the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw – Carter was unable to resolve the crisis before he left office. The hostages were only released on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.
Yet, the approach wasn’t fully without merit.
“While his focus on human rights led to tensions with authoritarian allies –such as the Shah of Iran – it also helped foster a more diplomatic approach in dealing with many nations, such as the negotiation of the Camp David Accords,” Tsukerman told ClearanceJobs.
Dealing With the Soviet Union
During his term in office, Carter faced Soviet aggression including its invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. He adopted a policy of containment that earned both praise and criticism. That infamously included the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games.
“As a symbolic protest against the Soviet invasion, Carter led a boycott of the Summer Olympics. This gesture was met with controversy, although Carter’s justification for it was an important moral and information warfare/strategic communication position not to give legitimacy to Moscow’s actions,” suggested Tsukerman.
“Pulling out of the Olympics was controversial, but Carter did it to show the world what America stands for,” said Sanders. “If we are a proponent of certain ideals, we must back it up with actions. There is the case that the athletes were punished, and that was a harsh consequence, but presidents have to make harsh decisions.”
Yet, at the same time, Carter further increased defense spending to prepare for potential Cold War escalation, which Tsukerman noted defied the traditional left-wing positions. It was a shift from his initial efforts to reduce military expenditures. He also supported the Afghan Mujahideen – and in both ways paved the ground for the work that was accomplished during the Reagan administration.
“Carter authorized covert assistance to Afghan resistance fighters setting the stage for U.S. involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which would later be a key aspect of the Cold War,” Tsukerman continued.
“He also did well in trying to bring us out of the Cold War bipolar view of nuclear non-proliferation,” said Sanders. “But he didn’t have enough time, and he was faced with other distractions.”
Carter and China
While former President Richard Nixon famously made a trip to the People’s Republic of China in February 1972, it was Carter who formally recognized the PRC.
“That was more pragmatic than anything,” Sanders told ClearanceJobs. “The U.S. had dealt with two Chinas and how they could play in a multi-polar world. Carter was able to juggle that.”
By shifting the recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the PRC, it helped improve relations with Beijing and set the stage for increased economic ties.
“While most historians credit or blame the Nixon administration for launching U.S. relations with the PRC, Carter’s end of formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan was and is still seen as a significant capitulation to the Chinese Communist Party, which undermined U.S. leverage on China, led to distrust of its ability to stand by democratic allies, arguably empowered authoritarianism and human rights abuses in contrast to Carter’s rhetoric, and helped a foundation for Beijing’s broader hegemonic ambitions in the South China Sea,” argued Tsukerman. “Carter’s ‘One China’ policy was a significant step in redefining U.S. national security interests in Asia, emphasizing the importance of China as a strategic partner in global security.”
The Military Shift
Tsukerman also questioned Carter’s stance on military spending, which as noted, had called for reducing military expenditures and improving arms control, yet, by the end of his presidency, in response to the Soviet threat and other international challenges, his administration agreed to increase defense budgets, including funding for new weapons systems.
“Because these steps were so belated, they failed to satisfy critics from either side,” she explained. “On the left, many criticized him for betraying his ideals and strengthening the ‘military-industrial complex’; on the right, his legacy was seen as fundamentally weak on defense and the very fact that these steps were made under pressure and out of necessity reflected poorly on his early years which may have contributed to the factors that fueled that necessity later.”
Perhaps, had Carter positioned the U.S. as a strong and viable military power from the onset, the deterrence value of a strong posture may have prevented some of the crises.
“As a result, it is easy to see why Carter’s presidency is considered one of the weakest on national security in U.S. history,” said Tsukerman.
Yet, Carter will also be remembered for his good intentions, and his attempt to address human rights abuses around the world.
