Subtle Iran-US diplomacy at Mandela's funeral

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/12/9/world-leaders-couldusemandelamemorialasvenueforsymbolicgesture.html

About half way down the article under the subtitle "A Handshake at Most" this article talks about the delegations being sent from different countries to Nelson Mandela's funeral service. It's interesting to note that the Iranian government decided not to send their President, but instead one of Iran's 12 vice presidents, to the service. The article stated that conservative viewpoints in Iran thought the service could be a diplomatic trap by the Americans, cornering their president in a setting unfavorable for their diplomatic gain. This opinion reflects that many in Iran are just as hesitant about the recent nuclear deal. If the Iranians truly thought that they were getting away with metaphorical murder, then why not highlight the improved relations between Iran and the USA at this informal, but highly publicized event? The reservations shown by the Iranian government reveal an interesting insight into the thoughts of some Iranian officials.



(Iran's 12 VP's  )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_Iran

Timeline of Iran's nuclear program

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

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

I know some of you have already posted overviews of Iran's nuclear program, but I found this one from Al Jazeera. I think this is a good add to the mix of articles and helped me tie everything together. The website says the sources for the article are from Al Jazeera and Agencies.

                                         The first thing thing that caught my eye was:

September 2003:

The UN nuclear watchdog, called the International Atomic Energy Agency, gives Tehran weeks to prove it is not pursuing an atomic weapons programme.

Adding the word "watchdog" into the line starts to take away from facts and goes towards opinion. 

Give this article a look!

Political Cartoon/Pinocchio

This political cartoon that I found I thought was pretty funny. It is clearly an anti Iranian nuclear program cartoon but it really does show what the United States and probably even Israel. The cartoon depicts Iran as Pinocchio, with Iran saying that OF COURSE their nuclear facilities are for peaceful purposes, while its nose begins to grow out more and more as a nuke with death to America and Israel written on it. Another thing that was interesting about this cartoon is that it is from 2005 and that we still basically the same view about Iran's nuclear program 8 years later.

Political Cartoon

http://yearof1989.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/6a00d834523d5069e200e54f4660398833-800wi.gif

This political cartoon originally published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette perfectly exemplifies the wariness of the UN and other world powers in their trust of Iran and how they use their nuclear program. While Iran insists that the program is working on nuclear energy, there is always the mistrust that has been a part of the "us" vs. "them" issue for decades. Of course any country possibly developing nuclear weapons is a reason for worry, but because Iran is a Middle Eastern country, people automatically assume that "terrorists" will develop weapons as soon as possible so they can bomb us all. That mistrust of Iran is was this political cartoon is conveying. By having a blatantly pro-nuclear war Iranian try to make their nuclear program seem innocent, it assures anyone who disliked the idea of Iran even having such a program that they are correct in their wariness.

Iran Nuclear Talks (CNN)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/20/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks-11-things/

This article is really important because, like other "Iran nuclear 101" articles that you guys have posted, it is extremely important to know the background knowledge of any situation before you pass judgement on it. While some people may feel that the deal restricting Iran's nuclear power in return for some economic relief was unfair to the country's overall program, may feel differently after knowing any happenings in the past that have led to this deal. Knowing that should the program operate at full capacity -be it allowed by other world powers or not- Iran has the ability to produce enough uranium for a bomb within a year. Knowing this may make others think twice before calling the new deal "unfair".

Implementation of the deal

Iran, world powers to meet next week on nuclear deal implementation - Middle East Israel News | Haaretz

So... a deal is in place, economic sanctions will be loosened, and Iranian nuclear advances are halted-short term. What does that all mean. The ramifications of Iran being an oil rich state is highlighted, as well as manufacturing and trading relief and a whole heck of a lot of money. But while a pact is in place the finer details must still be "ironed out" and can lead to yet another stalemate. However, it is anticipated that come January the the finer points may be in place that could  ultimately alleviate the nuclear tensions. It is thoroughly important to identify that Iran has to be compliant, and up hold their end in order to feel the loosening and benefits.

 Found on a Haaretz.com it the audience differs from much of the US and BBC outlets Simple phrases, like "Western diplomats" really makes this evident since CNN or FoxNews would name known important/popular US names i.e. Kerry etc. Moreover, I found the fact that the author found a place within his article to point out that "Iran, a major oil producer, says its nuclear program is designed solely to produce electricity and isotopes for medical and farming purposes."  It is written with cynicism and easily read that way as well. 

Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News source

www.haaretz.com/‎

Haaretz.com is the world's leading English-language Website for real-time news and analysis of Israel and the Middle East.

A Briefing on Iran's Nuclear Program

This video is very resourceful. It gives a great background of the history of Iran's nuclear program and its involvement with both the IAEA, Internatil Atomic Energy Angency and the NPT, Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclaer Weapons.  Iran signed the NPT after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagaski, so did majority of the world as well.  But there was still four countries who didn't sign the NPT, India, Isreal, North Korea and Pakistan.  The NPT states disarment, non- proliferation and the right to peacful nuclear programs.  Iran sign the NPT, is being overseed by the IAEA and has no nuclear weapon program.  But the 4 countries who did not sign the treaty, are not beeing overseed by the IAEA and DO have nuclear weapons.  So the question is shouldn't we be looking into those countries?