Post # 11: America Moves the Goalposts

Click here to read The New York Times article dated May 20th, 2010. John Limbert, an American previously held hostage in Iran, describes American-Iranian relations. He claims that Americans view Iranians as "devious, mendacious, fanatical, violent and incomprehensible," and that Iranians view Americans as "belligerent, sanctimonious, Godless and immoral, materialistic, and calculating." Limbert has spent his life attempting to build bridges between Iran and America, as he believes that the current enemies might be able to agree if cordial relations were established. The current state of mistrust was recently reinforced by the Brazilian-Turkish deal and the reaction of the United States. Cohen, the author of the article, claims that the U.S. has declined in its ability to solve global issues. Following last October's Geneva Conference and the failure to remove LEU from Iran, the Obama administration has remained infuriated. Obama's response to the recent deal between Brazil and Turkey is to merely impose more sanctions. Currently Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, is angered by the U.S. goading for the deal. Right now, the author seems to view Obama as a sort of hypocrite: he called for shared responsibility, yet snubbed Turkey and Brazil upon action. This relates to comparative government because it has to do with foreign relations between countries in the international society.



Click here to view a picture of John Limbert thanks to US Mission Geneva.





"Grade this post"

Post #5: Another Puzzle After Iran Moves Nuclear Fuel

Click here to read The New York Times article, "Another Puzzle After Iran Moves Nuclear Fuel," dated February 26, 2010. When Iran was discovered building a nuclear enrichment plant last September, no one would have predicted that Iran would transfer its entire stock of fuel to an above-ground facility. Two weeks ago, however, Iran moved the entirety of its fuel above ground, resulting in much speculation and debate regarding the country's intentions. Current theories suggest that Iran was trying to goad the Israelis into an attack or looking to win greater concessions in negotiations with the West. The Obama administration is subscribing to the idea that Iran had simply run out of storage space below ground. Much confusion continues to surround the issue. Since October, unexpected events have occurred beginning with President Ahmadinejad's move away from a deal with the West and culminating with Iran's declaration that it will soon manufacture 10 new plants, a number far exceeding its capacity, and its refusal to respond to inspectors about potential weapon development. In addition to evaluating Iran's technical abilities, the United States is trying to understand Iran's political goals. This whole debate was sparked by a sentence in the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report claiming that Iran had transported 4,300 pound of uranium to a small storage plant above ground for enrichment to 20 percent. Americans continue to remain distant due to the issue's reliance on three uncertainties: the possibility of an Israeli attack leading to a Middle Eastern war, or an end to enrichment via sanctions and diplomacy, and the question as to who has control of Iran's nuclear program. One speculation that has had much consideration is the idea that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is hoping for an attack to bring together the country after months of violence and protest by Iranian citizen's, culminating in the renouncement of the Nuclear Noproliferation Treaty. Others support the theory of brinkmanship and believe the Iranians are hoping to use threats to gain greater concessions from Western powers. Some claim that the move was just a mistake or that Iran had no other choice. Regardless of the cause, the Obama administration is set on preventing military action by the Israelis. This article is important because it deals with both international relations and diplomacy, as well as the legitimacy of the Iranian government.

Thanks to geographyphotos of flickr for the image!

"Grade This Post"

Iran's missile and uranium salvoes

Click here to read the Economist article "Iran's missile and uranium salvoes". This article discusses Iran's recent launch of a rocket into space, claiming to be for civilian purposes. The actions of Iran are continually in direct opposition to the international community, but suddenly Iran seems to be changing its mind on a deal it dropped out of in the past. Iran might be willing to hand some of its uranium over to be turned into fuel rods for creating electricity after a course of months to a year. Although the three quarters of Iran's stockpile previously sought after might not be how much is put into the deal. Many people now wonder if Iran is just continuing to buy itself more time. Iran could easily conjure up some impossible deal and then use that as the grounds for claiming the international community is being unagreeable and just continuing its pursuit of enriching its uranium. Considering how quickly some nations aquired the nuclear bomb, one can only wonder how much longer it will take or if they already have one, if that is Iran's intent. There is also the possibility that Iran is simply distracting the international community from imposing economic sanctions that China disfavors. This applies to things like supernational organizations, public policy, economic policy, and a country's rights to nuclear weapons. Grade this post.