President


​Trump 

Whether you hate him, love him, or don't care, President Trump provides a great chance to secure that elusive last point on the AP US History exam's essay rubrics.

Trump and Iran

This is a golden chance for ​“synthesis” (Connections Across Time and Perspectives), connecting America's experience with Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s to Iran today.

The College Board rewards demonstrations of argument complexity and showing that history doesn’t happen in isolation.

COMPLEXITY OUTLINE OF TASK:
     1. Establish argument (Vietnam era)
     2. Add a tension or contradiction (limits of presidential power)
     3. Extension to another time period (modern example-Iran)

        This aligns directly with the rubric:         
        "Connections across time; Multiple perspectives; Cause/effect
        or continuity/change."

SCRIPT OUTLINE:
     “While ___ demonstrates ___, ___ reveals ___; this pattern
      continues into ___, where ___ suggests       ___.”

CONNECTIONS INVOLVED (Expansion → backlash → attempted limitation → continued tension):
     >Vietnam War
     >Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
     >War Powers Act
     >Trump & Iran (Expansion → backlash → attempted limitation
     → continued tension).

STUDENT STRATEGY: “PAST → PUSHBACK → PRESENT” (3Ps)
​     Build a 3-part paragraph or conclusion:
     1. PAST (Vietnam)
          Tonkin Gulf Resolution = After claimed attacks by North
          Vietnam on American ships operating in support of South
          Vietnam, President Johnson got permission from Congress
          (the Resolution) to use force in Southeast Asia and
           Vietnam, expanding presidential power in an undeclared
           war to stop the spread of Communism during the Cold War
          (see Containment).
     2. PUSHBACK (1970s)
          War Powers Act = By the time Richard Nixon became
          president, American involvement in Vietnam had escalated
          to controversial proportions. Congress finally decided to
          limit the power of the President to wage war (the Act),
          which required congressional approval (after 60-days)
          to maintain the engagement of American military forces.
     3. PRESENT (Modern Example)
          Trump & Iran = President Trump used Iran's threat of
          having a nuclear and ballistic missile program to attack
          Iran, in coordination with Israel, with no declaration of
          War.   

PRACTICE PROMPT:
     Evaluate the extent to which presidential war powers expanded
     from 1964–1975.
          Grading Expectations:
          Level 1 (Basic): Vietnam & Gulf of Tonkin mentioned
          Level 2 (Some Analysis): War Powers Act added and shown
                     as a result
          Level 3 (Complex!!!): Modern connection with Trump and
                     Iran included

SENTENCE ANSWER SCRIPT:
​     “While ___ demonstrates ___, ___ reveals ___; this pattern
      continues into ___, where ___ suggests  ___.”

     Example: While the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution demonstrated the
expansion of executive war powers, the War Powers Act revealed congressional resistance; this pattern continues into
the 21st century, where President Trump’s actions toward Iran
suggest that presidential authority in foreign policy remains
dominant despite legal limits.

NON-SCRIPT ANSWER EXAMPLE:
     Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution expanded presidential war-making power during the Vietnam War, the War Powers Act represented an attempt by Congress to reassert authority; 
however, later actions such as President Trump’s decisions regarding Iran suggest that executive power in foreign policy has continued to expand despite these limits. 

     This sentence shows continuity and change, connects multiple periods and introduces tension/qualification--the very essence of a top argument (I almost said paper).

NON-SCRIPT EXAMPLE USING MULTIPLE PERIOD EXAMPLES:
     The escalation of the Vietnam War—especially through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution—marked a major expansion of presidential war-making authority, as Congress effectively allowed the president to conduct a large-scale, undeclared war. In response to the perceived abuses of executive power during Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act in an effort to reassert its constitutional role and limit unilateral military action by the president.
     However, this attempt to restrain executive authority has proven only partially effective. In the 21st century, actions taken by President Trump toward Iran—such as ordering military strikes
without a formal declaration of war—demonstrate the continued dominance of presidential power in foreign policy. For example, the 2020 strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani was justified by
the administration under existing authorizations and the president’s constitutional authority, despite significant debate in Congress over whether such action required approval.
     More broadly, recent events show that presidents can still engage in sustained military operations without formally calling them “wars,” avoiding congressional constraints while exercising significant military force.

     This response connects multiple time periods (1960s to 1970s to the modern era), shows continuity AND change, highlights a tension (law vs. reality), and uses a modern example to extend the argument. Near perfection.

COMMON MISTAKES:
     Just “name-dropping” modern examples or tacking on a random sentence (i.e. This is just like Trump and Iran). You must explain any connections you make and tie them into your argument.

REMEMBER:
     Using “Complexity” is not a separate skill. Rather, it is just another layer in your essay. Always consider "what changed," "what stayed the same," and if there is a pattern that repeats in US
History.

PROTESTS
Under Construction.

US BLOCKADES!

You could really nail a connection here by linking the blockade of Iran with the following:

 1. The Cuban Missile Crisis
    (1962) Closest parallel

• The U.S. imposed a naval “quarantine” (blockade) to stop Soviet missiles from reaching Cuba.
• It was designed to pressure without immediate full-scale war.

Similarities to Iran:

• Coercive diplomacy: Both aim to force policy change (Cuba → remove missiles; Iran → nuclear/military concessions).
• Limited war strategy: Avoid direct invasion while still applying major pressure.
• High escalation risk: In both cases, a single misstep could trigger broader war.

Key idea: A blockade as a middle ground between diplomacy and war.

2. The Union Blockade (Anaconda Plan) (1861–1865) Classic U.S. blockade strategy

• The Union blocked Confederate ports to cripple the Southern economy.

Similarities:

• Economic strangulation: Both aim to cut off exports (cotton then, oil now).
• Long-term pressure: Not immediate victory, but slow weakening.
• Targeting trade routes: Control of key shipping lanes is central.

This is the template for using blockades as economic warfare!!!

3. The Blockade of Germany
   (1914–1919) Total economic
   warfare

• Britain (with U.S. support later) blockaded Germany to restrict food and supplies.

Similarities:

• Civilian economic impact: Both affect entire national economies, not just militaries.
• Global ripple effects: Then → European food shortages; now → oil markets and shipping disruptions.
• Legal controversy: Questions about international law in both cases.

Shows how blockades can reshape global systems, not just wars.

4. The Berlin Blockade (Cold
   War)Different type, same
   logic

• The Soviet Union blocked land access to West Berlin; the U.S. responded with an airlift.

Similarities:

• Strategic chokepoints: Berlin = land corridor; Iran = Strait of Hormuz.
• Symbolic confrontation: Superpower pressure without direct war.
• Testing resolve: Each side probes how far the other will go.

Even though it’s not naval, it reflects the same pressure-without-war strategy.

5. Long-term U.S. sanctions on Iran (1979–present)

• The U.S. has used economic isolation for decades against Iran.

Similarities:

• Same goal, different intensity:
  • Sanctions = slow economic pressure
  • Blockade = immediate, physical enforcement
• The current blockade is basically a militarized escalation of sanctions policy

6. The Barbary Pirates
During the First Barbary War, the United States did impose a naval blockade of Tripoli (modern-day Libya), but it was limited and inconsistently enforced.

7. Big-picture similarities across all cases

a. Economic warfare instead of direct invasion Blockades let the U.S. apply pressure without committing ground troops.

b. Control of chokepoints

• Cuba → Caribbean access
• Confederacy → Southern ports
• Germany → North Sea
• Iran → Strait of Hormuz

Control the route → control the economy.

c. Coercion for political goals Blockades are rarely about territory—they’re about forcing:

• policy changes
• surrender
• negotiation leverage

d. Risk of escalation. Every blockade carries the same danger:

• One ship resists = military clash = wider war

APUSH-style takeaway (useful framing) You could frame this as:

The U.S. blockade of Iran reflects a long-standing American strategy of using economic and naval power to achieve geopolitical goals without immediate large-scale warfare, similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Civil War-era Union blockade.