Limited Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement

Iran’s Leaders Seen as ‘Not Serious’ in Addressing Nuclear Concerns

http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/09/limited-support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement/

This article done by the Pew Research Center is a poll done on what percentage of the American public agree/disagree with the nuclear deal. According to Pew the majority of Americans (2,001 were polled) disprove with the deal 43%, 32% approve, and 25% do not have an opinion on the issue. Some of the more detailed numbers anyone could have guessed such as the majority of Republicans disapprove of it while the majority of Democrats approve of it. One thing that I found interesting about the survey is that it seems according to the numbers that the more educated a person is the more they seem to approve of the deal. Another big portion of the survey is do the American people think that Iranian leaders are serious about addressing issues about their nuclear program 62% seem to think their not. While this article probably won't have any impact on Iranian nuclear policy it is still an interesting tidbit of information pertaining to where the American public stands on the issue.

Iran Nuclear Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KjIJ3Ct6Kc

I came across this YouTube video that mocked the ability for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by just calling a number and making purchase.  Once the Iran terrorist made the call weapons were delivered to him by what it appears to be President Obama.  Unfortunately, I could not recognize what character played the woman who took the call but I am sure the other character was an image of President Obama. Please take a moment to share your views about the video and declare a sense of meaning to what it may represent to you.

Iran, From Enemy to Ally

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/iran-from-enemy-to-ally.html?ref=nuclearprogram&_r=0

This article discusses how the nuclear deal with Iran could be a starting point for friendlier relations between them and the U.S, but that it would take time to develop a friendlier relationship with Iran. After reading this article I found it interesting that after the cold war the former allies/friends in the Middle East seem now to be our enemies. Iran was once on friendly relations with the U.S and formed along with Saudi Arabia President Nixon’s “Twin Pillar” Strategy to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East According to the article. Another interesting thing that the article points out is how Israel and Iran are both in the religious minority, Israel of course being a Jewish state and Iran being a Shiite state; while the majority of the Middle East are Sunni. Iran could also be an important ally against Al Qaeda because they too are opposed to them, which could make another good case to be on friendlier relations with them. The article points out that a barrier to a friendship between the U.S and Iran is Saudi Arabia and how they would react. Saudi Arabia is a major supply of oil and they could if a friendlier relationship with Iran develops limit or cut off the supply of oil to the U.S, which could be a road block to potential warmer relations. While this would not cripple U.S infrastructure it would raise the price of fuel. The author of the article states that this really would not hurt the U.S due to our new investments in the fracking industry. While I do agree that fracking is becoming a major source of U.S fuel I do not believe that the industry is strong enough to offset the lack of Saudi oil.

Hypocrites

http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/us-nuke-tests-expose-us-real-intention-analyst-2472194.html
This cartoon was actually really amusing. It shows how we have double standards. We as a country have nuclear weapons and yet we are telling another country that they cannot. In the article that it talked about how just days ago the US actually conducted a nuclear test in Nebraska. I just think it is so crazy how little we know about what goes on in our own country. I think that the US is being very hypocritical when they tell Iran that they cannot have nuclear weapons and they are watching  every detail about what they are doing with their facilities. Yet, here in our country we are testing our weapons in underground facilities.

Timeline of Iran's nuclear programme

Major events in Iran's development of nuclear power since 2002.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241410645752218.html



This article is pretty straightforward it lays out a time line of important events from January 2002 - November 2013. I found it helpful to use as a quick reference for events and a good play by play of what went/is going on. The article does not go into any great detail about any of the events most points are a sentence or two i.e “US President George W Bush describes Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil", warning of the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed in these countries. The speech causes outrage in Iran and is condemned by reformists and conservatives alike.” However, it is a good starting point for a refresher course in Iranian nuclear development history. I found it funny how much I forgot or did not know about what was going on with this topic during the Bush presidency.

Cartoon View

larger view

This cartoon was drawn prior to negotiations being agreed upon. I just found it online and felt it was worth sharing because of who drew it. It was drawn by an Iranian who has been exiled. In this cartoon he is warning the US to be cautious and think before shaking hands on a deal with Iran. He reminds the US and everyone else of the human rights abuses that Iran has inflicted on it's people. Iran's foreign minister may look like someone that can be dealt with and maybe trusted, but the US should think twice and remain cautious when making negotiations. 

A Narcissistic US, An Anxious Saudi Arabia And A Hysterical Israel

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02122013-narcissistic-us-anxious-saudi-arabia-hysterical-israel-oped/

This is an opinion piece that I found on the eurasia review website. Pretty much, the author of the article relates the US, Saudi, and Israel to mental patients, ie. diagnosing each country with a psychological disorder. It's actually kind of funny, and makes you think about each country's role a little bit differently. The article personalizes the countries, making them human and relatable.

The US is diagnosed as a narcissist. Everything that the United States does is for power and control. It's all about their ego, whether it's a positive or negative decision. The US wants economic and military power over the rest of the world, another trait of narcissism and being power hungry. In addition, like a narcissist, the US gets easily bored with what they have, taking it for granted, and then finding another issue to concentrate on or another area to control or destroy.

Saudi has abandonment issues and an anxiety disorder. They are constantly worried about being dropped by the US as an ally and that the US will one day soon make amends with Iran and make them their strongest ally in the Middle East. This paranoia that Saudi has stems from the US narcissism, wherein the US is regularly lying and keeping things from the Saudi's. These fears of abandonment will manifest themselves in self-injury, which the Saudi's showed by not accepting a seat in the UN security council, basically throwing a tantrum.

Israel is hysterical. They are taking the Iran negotiations really hard and truly to heart. They are known to react emotionally to most situations, and this one is no different. They believe that their relationships with other countries, such as the US, are extremely intimate. Therefore, they feel like they have been betrayed by the interim deal. They feel highly threatened by an Iran nuclear program and continue to speak out against it in all forms of media, even going as far as asking American Jews to oppose their government for it's decisions.

Q&A: Iran nuclear crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

This article clarifies why Iran believes the delay is considered a crisis, what led to the crisis, and the view of the United States government. Iran has deemed their nuclear program as being a peaceful advantage that will help their country as well as exercise their personal right to have nuclear energy. Even though Iran continues to state that the nuclear program is completely harmless, the International Atomic Energy Agency was unable to confirm that the program was without a doubt; platonic. With Israel being one of allies to the United Sates, President Obama stated that path’s leading to Iran creating nuclear bomb would be demolished. While the U.S. ensures a supportive comfort to better alleviate the ongoing threat that Iran continues to empower Israel with, the nuclear plan is still being developed. Regardless of intentions, Iran will continue to advance their country to enhance their ability to stay current with rest of the world.

Delay for Nuclear Project in Iran

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25133824

As soon as I read the heading of the news article that BBC publicly released to the media, I could not agree that this should be labeled as an “Iran nuclear crisis.” As the underway of the inspection will began over a 6 month period, Iran is receiving a very comfortable $7 billion sanctions relief to sustain temporary hold of nuclear activity. A mere delay is hardly a crisis or a hefty price to pay for proper inspection to help influence the citizens in different countries who pose Iran as a threat. This inspection may allow more comfort to others in a sense of knowing that the program is under intense surveillance. The initial alarm of Iran building a nuclear plant would hold an uncountable stigma of terror due to the enormous violent history that has affected several countries. I sincerely hope that Iran complies with their agreement to not create weapons of mass destruction and the inspection will take place frequently to ensure the safety of all in fear.

Unrest in Israel

     http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-netanyahu-iran-nuclear-program-20131208,0,1184232.story#axzz2mvCFiBuF

     Although many people's worries have been assuaged, there is still a lot of unrest about Iran's nuclear program in Israel. This article talks about Israel's prime minister insisting that Iran's nuclear program can and should be shut down by using heavier sanctions and military threats. He has threatened to take military action in order to protect Israel. I feel that the prime minister is taking the situation too far. The six world powers who made the deal with Iran have access to monitor the program in order to prevent bombs from being produced. If anything seems awry, the powers can step in and take action.  Israel, however, is so uneasy and fearful of being bombed that it is willing to attack Iran. I do not understand why Israel is saying it does not want Iran to create nuclear weapons because Iran would attack Israel, but Israel is willing to start a conflict, resulting in Iran retaliating. Although it is very likely, it is not a definite fact that if Iran did make nuclear weapons Israel would be the first to be bombed. Israel is causing tensions with the Obama administration and could possibly cause problems in the near future when no problem needs to occur at all. Iran and the six world powers have made a peaceful first step and whether there is a winner or a loser in the deal, people are at ease for now. We learned in class that Israel is, for the most part, a nation that lives for the moment because the people do not know what could happen within the next minute, day, or week. I think they need to utilize this way of living right now because now is a time of peace, so they should enjoy it while it lasts. I feel that Israel has nothing to worry about at this point in time because there is a temporary deal in place with Iran preventing them from making nuclear weapons. I am sure Iran wants to keep their economy "markedly improved," so it will keep to it's promises. In my opinion, Israel should calm down.    

Iran nuclear crisis: UN warns process will 'take time'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25133824

This article talks with the head of the UN’s nuclear agency, Yukiya Amano. He presents a very valid point regarding the deal that was made with Iran concerning their nuclear program. The point that was made is that it will take time. I agree I think everything concerning this deal will take time. I think it will take time to start the various parts of the deal, it will take time to see if Iran will follow the deal, and it will take time to let the deal work if it is going to work. The first step in following through with this deal is happening on December 8^th when Amano will visit the Arak heavy water plant. There is a lot of concern regarding this Arak heavy water plant because it has the capability to make weapon grade plutonium. The IAEA has not been able to inspect this site even though they have tried since 2011. As a result, no one is exactly sure what is going on here. I think that this visit will mark the beginning of the deal really happening. I think the concept of time is very important in this situation and needs to be taken into consideration. Regardless of what the outcome of this deal will be it is going to take time to happen. I think its interesting that while the deal was made there is still enough things that need to be worked out that the six month period will not begin for another couple weeks. However, only time will tell.

Opposition to the deal

     In an article I found on the CNN website, it became clear that there are many people that oppose the current nuclear deal with Iran, and the article provides 5 reason.  The first reason is that "it's Iran."  Former Senator Joe Lieberman said that "Iranians have American blood on their hands" and that Iran has a history of not complying with other prior agreements.  Another said that Iran is our enemy and that there should be no agreements with them.  It has been declared rather publicly that Netanyahu believes the deal is a "historic mistake."  The second reason was labeled "sanctioning sanctions."  Under this category was the argument that the sanctions that were previously set on Iran seemed to be working and that maybe that was all that was needed.  Why free up $7billion dollars to the Iran without a guarantee that this new deal will even work?  Sanctions were set in place to deter nuclear build-up so why ease sanctions?  The third reason was the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear ambitions.  In this argument it claims that nothing it actually being done to disable current capabilities.  This means that Iran will be able to keep all its facilities and all its enrichment technology, so without taking the means for enrichment, how can it be guaranteed that nuclear weapons cannot be created?  The fourth reason places Iran as a new higher power in Iran.  Oil rich nations such as Saudi Arabia fear that in the end should oil sanctions be fully lifted, a new oil competitor will arise.  Middle Eastern nations still fear that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons.  The last reason listed was the Israeli argument.  That Israel is our greatest ally in the area and that we should back them in their views on nuclear programs in Iran.  There are also complaints from politicians that has a large Jewish constituency.  These politicians are voicing the opinions of their constituency about going against Israel by accepting this deal.

     In all of this I found some truth, however I have a much different opinion.  While some of these opinions simply cannot be ignored, I feel as though this deal addresses much larger issues.  The first being that a deal is a deal.  With little or no progress in nuclear talks with Iran, a small step forward is still a step forward.  This could be the stepping stone to a much larger deal.  There is also the factor of diplomacy in play.  Many feel as though US military action and interference in the Middle East in not essential.  I happen to agree.  So why would diplomacy, through a deal such as this, not a positive thing?  Should Iran make nuclear weapons the US would eventually undoubtedly take, or be involved in some type of military action.  This type of diplomacy should be views as a good thing.  It is much cheaper to come to an agreement than to fight another war.  It also saves countless lives.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/politics/iran-deal-opponents-5-things/index.html
    

UK to leave no stone unturned

   In an article I found on the BBC news website, there was some information I found in an article that pretty much sums up the purpose of this initial agreement.  The UK recognizes this as only a first-step toward a more permanent agreement.  Outlined in this article is the fact that Iran has agreed to scale back uranium enrichment for a six-month period.  In return, an easing of sanctions will take place and Iran will gain $7 billion in section relief.  Given that there has been little to no progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran, a small step should be viewed as a step in the right direction.  Some critics claim that Iran simply took the money and ran, and there is no real guarantee that in  six months time anything will have really changed.  That is, that no progress will have been made with Iran, and that Iran was simply looking for an ease of sanctions.  Should this first agreement prove to be a genuine sign of progress, it should be welcome with open arms in the international community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25092228

The Write Up!!!!!

For the reflective write up I would like each of you to analyze what happened within the blog as a whole. This analysis should include 2-4 ‘themes’ or ‘categories’--preferably, though not necessarily exclusively, themes from class. Trace your chosen themes through the posts on the blog. You can quote from the posts, or the media itself, but please cite it in the paper. Please discuss posts that are not just your own! Using comments as well as primary posts to support your themes is encouraged. In many ways I picture this project as a research paper without the final product. What I mean by this is that online you are discovering and interrogating sources—analyzing them as raw pieces of data. In this written (and more formal) portion, I want you to create/impose order on the chaos that is data collection. This write up is just the analysis or discussion portion of a ‘normal’ paper, with some ‘conclusionary’ remarks for good measure. This essay may include personal observations and will definitely show what you thought most interesting. The essays should be between 3-5pages long and are due on BB by 5pm on December 16, 2013 (our final period). If you need some help likely categories might include geopolitics, individual perspectives, Al-Jazeera vs BBC, how the US is involved, role of oil, regime change..... These are *just examples* you do NOT need to use these!!! I wanted to give you some clues as to the possibilities so it would be easier to see the themes for yourselves.

Cause for concern, but not alarm

     I found a very interesting article on Al Jazeera America.  In this article, I found a lot of information that downgrades the actual threat that an Iranian nuclear program poses.  It states that the uranium being enriched in Iran is enriched at levels of 5% and 20% at which levels electricity and medical isotopes are produced.  A nuclear weapon would require a level of 80% enrichment, and would require a long process of re-enrichment.  The stockpiling of this enriched uranium has also not reached levels considered threatening to Israel.  Currently, Iran has stockpiled 185 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and the "red line" set by Netanyahu is 250 kilograms.  Not only is the actual amount of enriched uranium currently posses by Iran too low to be considered a real threat, there are also weekly inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The IAEA is an agency that inspects nuclear facilities to ensure enrichment doesn't reach the required levels and production of nuclear weapon necessity.  So far, under IAEA inspections, no nation has ever assembled a nuclear weapon without their knowledge.  This is not to deny that Iran is completely incapable of creating a nuclear weapon.  It is to say that under the current monitoring by IAEA, it would be nearly impossible for Iran to create a nuclear weapon without the world knowing.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/9/iran-nuclear-programprimer.html

Iran nuclear situation background

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/Iran%20nuclear-1.476777

This article actually gives some background on Iran going back to 1979. From there it moves to 2002 when Iran was noticed by the U.S. even more for trying to use nuclear energy for various purposes, be it weapons or energy. The part of the article that stuck out to me is towards the end of the article. I learned that in February 2010 the world wanted Iran to send its uranium abroad to be returned to Iran as fuel rods, so they they could truly only be used for energy. However, then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected this idea and it never happened. I think some people might take that as a sign that Iran really does want to create nuclear weapons, while others see it as a move to show Iranian independence. I think only time will tell what the reasons for rejecting the fuel rod idea were. Regardless of if Iran is planning to use uranium for weapons or energy, or a combination of both, I feel that the materials within Iran's borders, should be controlled by Iran, and not by the U.S. or the U.N. If Iran is only using the uranium for energy, I think he and Iranian leaders chose to not partake in that 2010 idea because it might have made them look like a pushover nation in some forms.

More Nuclear Power Plants to Come in Iran

 http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Rouhani-Iran-to-start-building-2nd-nuclear-plant-in-Bushehr-333628

     

     This article was focused on how Iran is planning to expand their nuclear power program and build new reactor plants. The country has already talked to Russia in order to receive some aid in this project. I found this article interesting because the temporary deal to limit Iran's nuclear power program was made among Iran and six world powers on November 24, but Iran is in the process of expanding its nuclear power program. Iran has plans to build a second nuclear power plant in order to increase the nuclear energy within the country, and possibly more in the future. I am assuming that in developing the nuclear power program further Iran is not going against the temporary agreement, but it still seems like a sketchy situation. Although it may or may not go against the agreement, I feel that Iran should be allowed the opportunity to supply its people with nuclear energy if that is the energy source they want to use. After researching this issue and looking at the situation from Iran's point of view, I have decided that I feel Iran should have the capability to further their research. Iranians have stated that their nuclear power program is a peaceful one and they simply want to provide the country with a more positive energy source. Although it would be scary to see them develop nuclear weapons, I feel that it is their choice, just as the United States and many other nations have the choice to build or not build weapons. Many countries contain a vast amount of nuclear weapons, but they do not use them. They are simply there for defense and protection. Why should Iran not have this right as well? One other thing that I found interesting was how much this plant is going to cost the country over the next few years. Iran received a decent amount of aid from the interim deal because the economy was suffering so badly from the effects of the sanctions. However, now Iran is willing to invest in one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world. I do not understand how this is possible when Iran's economy is doing so poorly, unless Iran receives more foreign aid.      

History made as Iran agrees with world powers to freeze nuclear program for six months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512628/History-Iran-agrees-world-powers-freeze-nuclear-program-months.html
This article is a summary of some of the parts of the deal being made in regards to Iran. It gives the basic overview of what is to happen including: Iran must stop enriching uranium above 5%, and Iran must neutralize stockpiles of over 20$ uranium. In this article there are also photos of John Kerry and other world leaders involved with the deal including Russia's Foreign Minister. What stuck out to me about this article after reading about the neutralizing of stockpiles and the Russian foreign minister was how it's as if there was a Cold War shift. Obviously the Cold War ended, and Russia is no longer the grand enemy of the United States. Thirty years ago the U.S. and USSR were going at each other in debating nuclear energy and weapons, and now the U.S. and Russia are working together to get Iran to halt nuclear operations. Eventually the U.S. and Russia back in the day made deals to lower the amount of nuclear weapons and now the Iranians are being influenced to do so in a way. Iran isn't a superpower but I'm surprised the author didn't make some kind of comparison of Iran and Cold War Russia/U.S. relations.

The big deal about the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/11/iran-nuclear-deal-battle-spin-201311255301531860.html
This article was on Aljazeera under the opinion section and was written by a professor of Iranian Studies. I chose this article because the author really presented both sides of the deal and it seemed to me to be a fair presentation of the information compared to other articles that I had seen. Also, I wanted to get a perspective of someone who is very knowledgeable about Iran. One thing in this article that he even out is how the information concerning the deal that was made is already being twisted by different people to benefit them. For example, the article mentions how the U.S government presented the deal with it's own spin for domestic benefits. Also, the article mentions how Iran put it's on spin on the deal as well. Since the author presented how different sides have twisted the information concerning the deal for their own benefits I feel like the author presented both sides pretty well and did not leave much out. The author points out that he believes that the winner in this deal is Iran, and I agree. I think that Iran is the winder because as a result of the deal Iran now has no threat of military action for right now and has had some sanctions lifted that were really hurting the Iranians. A final point about this article is that it makes a connection to class because it discusses how geopolitics will be changed as a result this deal. We have discussed in class how other situations have impacted geopolitics in this region.

Israeli PM tweets prior to deal being reached

This tweet from the Prime Minister of Israel on November 20, 2013, is in response to ongoing negotiations concerning Iran's nuclear program. These messages were tweeted prior to a deal being made on November 24. Clearly, the PM is letting the public know that the overall Israeli position is that there should be absolutely no nuclear program within Iran. The chance of Iran having the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons is a massive threat to Israel. This viewpoint is understandable considering the closeness of Iran to Israel and also it's rocky relations. What I find most interesting about these tweets after the fact, is that the last one says "this must be a genuine solution." Knowing that a deal has recently been made, it's interesting because the deal is simply just a temporary solution, more of a first step rather than an end-all response. It's as if the PM knew that the deal that would be agreed upon would not be a genuine, final solution but rather one that eases present tensions. 

Iran is negotiating with the wrong US officials.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/11/us-iran-negotiationsnuclear.html

This article from Al Jazeera America is in the opinion section and focuses on the current talks between the United States and Iran on nuclear power and sanctions. As known by many already, there has been an ongoing conflict of interest between the United States and Iran over Iran's desire to have nuclear power as a source of energy. Many U.S. politicians and policy makers argue that nuclear energy isn't the true goal of Iran, but nuclear weapons are. This article's author argues that Iranian officials are discussing sanction talks with the wrong "arm" of the U.S. government. While Kerry is talking to Iranian officials and is a direct link to the U.S. executive department, the author seems to argue that the talks should be with Congress. The article points out that Congress largely wants to keep the tough sanctions and actually make them even tougher on the Iranian economy. The article goes on to point out that only Congress can change laws, since they are the ones who create laws. I personally agree with the author's argument to an extent. I think talking to the U.S. executive branch is important for negotiations, but I feel trying to talk directly with the U.S. Congress is equally important, as they are the branch tasked with creating and changing laws.

A Deal Has Been Made

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/23/john-kerry-iran-nuclear-talks/3685425/

     This article by USA today announces that a deal has been made with Iran. Iran agreed to limitations on their nuclear power program in return for $7 billion in aid in order to help them recover from the effects of the sanctions that have been placed on them. Not only has this deal been made, but if Iran goes against the agreement the sanctions will be reinstated. It is only the first step in the process, but I feel that it was a good step. In a way, everyone gets what they want. The United States has new security in knowing that the nuclear plan is a peaceful one and that they can cancel the deal if Iran does not comply. Iran gets to continue with their nuclear energy research, at a more limited level of course, and gets economic help for their nation. The United States' allies, are relieved because they feel safer knowing that no nuclear weapons will be headed their way via Iran. This deal is a way to calm some very stressful situations in the Middle East as well as soothe worries in the countries in the west. I find it interesting though that Israel is not as content with this decision as other allies of the United States are. Most of what they wanted was achieved, but they still feel unsafe and threatened. They want nothing to do with the deal. I think Iran should have access to nuclear energy if that is the energy source they choose to utilize as long as the world is safe from nuclear weapons. It seems that Israel wants Iran to have nothing to do with nuclear power, which is understandable beings they are neighbors, but there has to be a middle ground to please everyone. I believe this first step is a step in the right direction because the United States and other world powers can now monitor the situation more closely and make the world safer.

Background/History

This video gives a really good overview of the history and issues concerning Iran's nuclear program. As a result, I thought that this would be a good video to start the blog with to give everyone some background information. I was interested to hear that the leader of Iran stopped the nuclear program but restarted it after the Iran/Iraq war in which Saddam Hussein attacked the people of Iran with chemical weapons. This attack as well as the Iran/Iraq war connects to class because it was something that we discussed in depth and the video showed how it was related to Iran's nuclear program.  One of the best things about the video is the part where it depicts how uranium is changed to be used for weapons which is something I did not previously understand. A major theme or issue that is involved with Iran's nuclear program is the fact that no one knows for sure if Iran is indeed using it's nuclear program to build weapons. I believe that it is definitely a possibility considering they said they were not building weapons in the past and then an underground facility that was capable of making weapons was discovered. Also, it is suspicious that Iran will not allow the IAEA to go to all of their facilities and test for anything they would like. I think that it is very important to take into consideration this situation from the Iranians perspective. Iranians could feel that the IAEA just wants to come into their facilities and start testing whatever they want and going to any facility they feel like to look for things that may not exist. When considering the situation from their perspective it seems justified to not allow the IAEA to go and do what they want to.

Program Outline and time lines

In this online blog project you are being asked to search the web for information related to the nuclear power program undertaken by Iran. I would like you to look at sources of media surrounding this particular issue to see how Iran, its neighbors, 'the Middle East', nuclear power/weapons, ‘nuclear countries’, oil, geopolitics etc were being portrayed. What can we learn about the place of Iran from this differing coverage? What can we learn about those who are writing about Iran from this coverage? In other words, how is media-even global media-place based? You will need to do 3 posts over 3 weeks. You can chose to structure your posts chronologically, or regionally, or just jump into whatever aspect excites you the most--this is YOUR blog. Timeline 11/14-12/05 post to the blog (original posts and responses) by 12/07 all posting and replies end 12/16 turn in write-up

The Directions

One of the themes of this course is how do we learn about other places, and particularly places in the Middle East. In this blog you will be discussing the coverage of, assumptions about, and [expected] outcomes of the nuclear power/program in Iran. What can we learn about Iran? About geopolitics? Energy as a source empowerment or weaponry? And of course how our geographic imaginations of Iran are shaped by what is said about it in the wide world of media. Here is what I will be looking for in your online participation: Regular participation!– I expect you to contribute your thoughts to your groups’ blog regularly throughout the 9 days of the project. Don’t just drop in once or twice and expect a good grade. You are expected at a minimum to upload 3 items (with a discussion of what you see) and respond to at least 3 posts by your groupmates. This level of participation, if done well, can earn you a B, but more is needed for that coveted A. Interesting and diverse postings—are you only looking at CNN? Not that CNN is wrong, their articles should be on the blog too, but try also looking farther afield. This could be news sources from around the world, or different types of media (cartoons, Youtube, mashups, flickr, etc) Depth of reflection and analysis– once you have found an item to share with the group, don't just state an opinion and stop, develop your ideas, show why you view the item the way you do. Don’t be afraid to share experiences where relevant, but always keep your tone and content respectful; A willingness to examine your own assumptions –the best way for YOU to get credit for examining your assumptions is if others (graciously and respectfully) point out the assumptions you are making. Thus don’t be afraid to disagree with each other. Or even if you do agree, can you find a source that wouldn’t? What are the assumptions that separate the two? Direct references to reading material when called for. Here is what to avoid: 1. Attacking another point of view or person; disagreeing is fine, but be respectful and give your reasons, simple yes or no responses; 2. Long winded responses in most cases a few well developed paragraphs should do, 3. Late responses be sure to participate in the dialogs during the time period in which the topic is up for discussion.

What to do

For every post, you will need to complete one of two following types of tasks keeping in mind the directions above. TASK ONE - ORIGINAL THOUGHTS, ORIGINAL POSTS The first task is to create at least three new threads (starting messages) over the project timeframe that pose significantly different points than those already offered. This is where you upload or post your media source and your original analysis of it. These must be completed by April 15th in order for your peers to have an opportunity to reply back to your ideas. It will be to your benefit to contribute your first thought early (to avoid having to read all other messages in order to see what points have not yet been made). TASK TWO - CARRYING AN IDEA FARTHER The second task is to make at least three new replies to blog threads started by other members of your group. The responses to others can answer questions posed, amplify and support points (with evidence and observations), or question and pose counter-arguments to points made by others (with evidence and observations). You can make your replies in text alone or add media your replies. These responses can diverge, reflect or support other statements already offered. However, each contribution must offer significant additional information (i.e. -- an "I Agree!" message will not earn points). When you are presenting any media, fact, or statements that state a conclusion, you are responsible for properly citing your sources so that the statements can be verified or clarified. This is particularly important with the media—let us see it, even if you just upload a picture from a news story include the link so that we can follow it back and see the image in its original context. You can link this information to the title of your post and/or list it in the "List of our Sources" widget at the bottom of the page. If you are using yourself and your personal experience as the source, then you must make this obvious, such as "based upon what (Iranian) friend's father told me, the city of Tehran is full of coffee shops where people talk about politics. This helps explain this sentence in my article_________." Or "After my mom explained how she felt when the American hostages were taken, this __________ sentiment made more sense to me." You are encouraged to bring your personal experiences into the discussions. The purpose of discussions within the course is to share experiences and backgrounds, as well as perceptions and ideas, so that we can learn in a peer-to-peer manner. Please realize that my role as the instructor is to monitor the discussions but I will generally refrain from participating unless the conversation needs guidance into another direction. Comments to the class will reflect the entirety of the discussions observed and your grade will be based on your successful completion of the requirements (specified above).

Questions to ask of the media the sources

Come questions that you may wish to consider as you look at the various texts include: a) What are the primary concerns of each author as revealed in the representation/text? b) Who or what are the author’s sources? How did he/she obtain the information? c) For whom is the author writing and how does this affect the themes discussed and the overall presentation? d) What is the general impression given? Can you identify a master metaphor? e) What kinds of details are given, what details are excluded, and why? f) Are the various representations consistent with one another? If not, why not? g) How has the representation of this place evolved over time?

code of conduct: the rules

You are expected to treat your instructor and all other participants on the blog with courtesy and respect. Your comments to others should be factual, constructive, and free from harassing statements. You are encouraged to disagree with other students, but such disagreements need to be based upon facts and documentation (rather than prejudices and personalities). Students will need to contribute in intelligent, positive, and constructive manners within the activity. Unprofessional or disrespectful conduct will result in a lower grade for this assignment. Behaviors that are abusive, disruptive, or harassing will result in being denied further access to the blog and may result in further disciplinary actions. Warnings will not be given; part of the learning process in this course is respectful engagement of ideas with others.

media sources to consider (links on BB and can be googled)

Partial list of resources (includes only Internet-searchable resources) General World newspapers (sources list) Local media around the world (sources list) Arab Net TradeArabia.com Om al-Dunya (Arabic and English) Country by country profiles Commentaries Café Arabica Mid East Web (Multilingual Israeli site) Arabia.com Selected institutions Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies L’Institut du Monde Arabe (Paris) Khalil Sakakini Cultural center (Palestine) Newspapers and news sources Regional Al-Jazeera (English) As-Sharq al-Awsat (Arabic) Arabic News (English) Middle East Online (Arabic & English) Al-Hayat (Arabic) Dar al-Hayat (English) Algeria Al-Khabar (Arabic) El-Moujahid (French) El-Watan (French) Al-Youm (Arabic) Horizons (French) La Liberté (French) Le Matin (French) La Nouvelle République (French) Bahrain Al-Ayyam (Arabic) Gulf Daily News (English) Bahrain Tribune (English) Akhbar al-Khaleej (Arabic) Djibouti La nation (French) Egypt Al-Ahram (Arabic) Al-Ahram Weekly (English) Akhbar al-‘Ummal (Arabic) Al-Gumhuriyyah (Arabic) Al-Wafd (Arabic) Middle East Times (English) Al-Ahali (Arabic) Cairo Times (English) Al-Masa’ (Arabic) Ash-Sha’b (Arabic) Iraq Electronic Iraq (English) Iraq Press (English & Arabic) Iraq Today (English) Baghdad Bulletin (English) BBC Iraq (English) Institute for War and Peace Reporting (English) Kurdish Media (English) Kurdistan Democratic Party (English) Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (English) Jordan Jordan Times (English) Ad-Dustur (Arabic) Al-Ra’y (Arabic) The Star (English) Kuwait Al-Rai’ al-Aam (Arabic) Al-Watan (Arabic) Kuwait Daily (English) Lebanon The Daily Star (English) As-Safir (Arabic) Al-Anwar (Arabic) Al-Liwa’ (Arabic) An-Nahar (Arabic) Al-Mustaqbal (Arabic) L’Orient le jour (French) Libya Al-Fajr al-Jadeed (English) Al-Fajr al-Jadeed (Arabic) Al-Fateh (Arabic) Al-Jamahiriyyah (Arabic) Al-Shams (Arabic) Al-Zahf al-Akhdar (Arabic) Morocco Al-Anba’ (Arabic) As-Sabah (Arabic) Morocco Today (multi-lingual) Palestine The Electronic Intifada (English) Palestine News Agency (WAFA) (English, Arabic, Hebrew, French) Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (English) Al-Ayyam (Arabic) Al-Hayah al-Jadidah (Arabic) A-Quds (Arabic) Al-Manar (Arabic) Fasl al-Maqal (Arabic. Israeli-Arab) Qatar Al-Rayah (Arabic) Al-Watan (Arabic) Gulf Times (English) Saudi Arabia Aj-Jazirah (Arabic) Al—Mojaz (Arabic) Ar-Riyad (Arabic) Arab News (English) Al-Yaum (Arabic) Muheet (Arabic) Okaz (Arabic) Sudan Al-Ra’y al’Aam (Arabic) Al-Mehairah (Arabic. Islamist) Syria Syria Times (English) Tishreen (Arabic) Al-Thawra (Arabic) Al-Ba’th (Arabic) Tunisia Akhbar Tunis (Arabic) Al-Hurriyah (Arabic) La Presse (French) Le Renouveau (French) United Arab Emirates Gulf News (English) Al-Khaleej (Arabic) Khaleej Times (English) Dubai News (English) Yemen Yemen Times (English) 26 of September (Arabic) Al-Thawrah (Arabic)

Think tanks to consider

Think Tanks that might have Policy Papers to look at: Stanley Foundation Media Think Tanks Poynter Institute World Journalism Institute Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Thompson-Reuters Foundation International Institute for Journalism World Press Institute (right in your own backyard!) Center for Public Media Non-Press Think Tanks Council on Foreign Relations Center for Strategic and International Studies Middle East Institute International Crisis Group Center for American Progress World Affairs Councils ISIS Woodrow Wilson International Institute for Strategic Studies

NAMES

This Blog is for Kyle, John, Sheena, Moira, Melanie, Andrew PAR, Christina SPAD, and Marcella.