During the 1976 presidential campaign, the tension between the objective of transformation and the importance of coexistence became crucial. Conservatives criticized detente for not moderating the Soviets involvement in the Third World. In the United States, many saw accumulative series of Soviet interventions which involved military means; Angola, Ethiopia, Kampuchea, Afghanistan, as a pattern of Soviet expansion, which was not consistent with detente. Many actually believed that these expansionist moves were encouraged by detente. Ultimately, the expectations that detente would achieve more were held by both powers. It was the failure to satisfy these expectations which led to its demise. Kissinger suggested that "detente, with all its weaknesses, should be judged not against some ideal but against what would have happened in its absence. Detente did not cause the Sovi

Both the Soviet Union and the United States tried to increase their security through increased military weapons. The efforts by both countries to do this were seen as an attempt to gain absolute security, domination and superiority. Each presumed the other was trying to gain an advantage. America had the perception that the Soviets had a relentless drive for world domination. The Soviet leaders saw the American's in pursuit of military superiority as the basis for intimidation. Due to the lack of understanding by both parties, of each other's perspective's, ideologies and their inability to reconcile differences, associated in failing to understand each other's viewpoint, magnified the problems of detente.

But it would seem the height of the breakdown lied in the Persian Gulf region. For twenty-five years the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, pursued the modernization of their country. The oil revenues helped fuel the process of this change. Carter called Iran "an island of stability" (Ambrose 1997:291). The stability once noted in Iran crumbled under the pressure of the Islamic clergy with the Ayatollah Khomeini at the head forcing the shah to flee his country. The Ayatollah condemned the western world and the new Islamic Republic was declared. The US had lost a crucial ally.

Due to the nuclear parity of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union it meant there was some inability for America to maintain world order. It also meant that the Soviet Union had a relatively more important role than it previously did. Although both had different opinions of world order, which to some extent was understood, the implication on their diverging opinions were not. Soviet leaders wanted to make a historical change by replacing capitalism in the world with socialism. The Soviets believed a transition like this could occur in a peaceful way through detente. It would seem that they didn't want to use military force as a method behind such a change, contrary to some beliefs. American reactions to varying events may have been preempting conflict too early with Washington reacting too quickly to Soviet policy (Pipes 1980).

Some common words found in the essay are:
Soviet Union, Kampuchea Afghanistan, Nixon Kissinger, Union United, Kremlin Carter, SALT II, Jackson's Amendment, Ford Soviet, Third World, Helsinki Accords, salt ii, soviet union, carter administration, salt ii talks, diplomatic talks, ii talks, double standards, soviet leaders, jackson amendment, white house, persian gulf,
Approximate Word count = 2077
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)