Question Of Congress At Work - Coursework Example

Task Iran Contra Affairs The Iran Contra affair was described as scandal that involved American hostages which were being held in Lebanon by a group which was associated to Iranian revolution. The secret dealing which were occurring between the American government with the military group resulted in the Americans being held hostage by the group. The funds generated from the sale of weapons to the military group were aimed at ensuring that the government provided funding for the Nicaragua contras.

The government of United States hoped that the agreement to sale weapons would secure the release of the American hostages. This scandal can be described as to have escalated following the breakdown of diplomatic negotiations which were being conducted secretly. Undertaking the secret dealings in supplying weapons was assumed to enable the release of American citizens who were being held hostage in Lebanon (Sharpe, p22). The diplomatic breakdown between the involved groups contributed to the tension which occurred and resulted in the development of the issues to a scandal.

Some American government official were involved in the secret negotiation between the government and group, which can be considered an element of unethical political conduct. The authorisation of the sales of the weapons which was conducted in secret could have had significant influence in the development of the scandal. The element of secrecy in conducting the negotiations were fundamental in the political disconnection between the involved parties. The prohibition of funding for the contras, by the congress significantly contributed to the government seeking alternate source of funding.

With the government lacking sufficient funding it became essential to deliver the contras funding regardless of the source of funds. The entire scandal can be described as resulting from negligence by the government in delivering some of the promises made to the citizens.ReferenceSharpe, Kenneth E. “The Real Cause of Irangate.” Foreign Policy 68 (1987): 19–41. Print.