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? 

"Historic Mistake"

Iran has reached an interim agreement with world powers over its nuclear program after days of negotiations in Geneva. (Refer to my last post)

Under the deal, Tehran has promised to reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium, which can be used to build nuclear weapons; in return, some sanctions will be relaxed.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called the agreement a "historic mistake".

This video shows us Israeli's view on the matter and how strongly they are against Iran nuclear program agreement. He talks about how important factors are left out of agreement and how Israeli is "not bound by this agreement." 

After I watched the video and analyzed it, I started to read the comments. If you have time give them a look. People from all over the world with different view and beliefs chime in on what they think. Some are useless and prejudiced, but most really very interesting. 

Iranian Nuclear Program Grows by 74% Since Obama Took Office

This video is a clip from Fox News discussing a statement made by John Carry. Carry had stated that if the former administration would have done the right thing when Iran had made an offer when they only had 164 nuclear centrifuges than they might not have had advanced so much. Carry was referring to George W Bush in his time in office. The statistics from this clip show that advancements have made more of an increase in Obama’s administration. At the end of Bush’s administration there were 5,000 centrifuges but as of now there are 19,000 centrifuges, which proves that more centrifuges were built during Obama’s time in office then when Bush was in office. Iran’s nuclear power program had grown by 74% since Obama took office. Is it really necessary to bring Bush into this issue, he is no longer in office or can make decisions to prevent any more advancements from happening. Obama is our leader now and I feel as if we should focus on the present and the future of the situation.

Refer to this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GHwuw9oV4Y

Iran to Build New Nuclear Power Plants Video

This is a video that I had found on Youtube and it is a news report translating the major ideas of a meeting of Iran's Nuclear Industry managers that was held about Iran's plan to build 16 new nuclear power plants in Iran. The men of the meeting reported that Iran has already identified and designated these new locations. Their long-term objectives are to build their new nuclear power plants along the coastal regions of the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman, and the north western regions. These managers claimed that Iran has installed hundreds of advanced centrifuge machines for the purpose of enriching Uranium, not for nuclear weapons reasons. With this nuclear power they are able to supply other countries with fuel. One man by the name of Fereydoun Abbasi bluntly stated that they are using advanced centrifuges and for those who are unhappy about this should get in line with the new realities.

Refer to this link for the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwVmGYVuBY0

Zarif Speaks to the Students of University of Tehran

Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javid Zarif delivered a speak to the students at the University of Tehran to tell them about the nuclear program that their country is evolving. The nuclear agreement between Iran and six other world powers (US, Russia, France, China, Britain and Germany) understands Iran's right to enrich uranium.  He explained to the students that without the enrichment program, there will be no solution to the nuclear issue.  Again, the article states that Iran seeks no interest in nuclear weapons. They believe that the weapons will be detrimental to their security.  

I found this article to be interesting, given that we are all college students.  For the foreign minister to come give a speech to the student population of University of Tehran is compelling.  Although as a student in the US, hearing about another country wanting to create this huge nuclear program is questionable.  I think it would be very interesting to hear what the students of Iran's opinions are on this matter.  

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/12/03/338090/iran-to-maintain-enrichment-program/

Historic nuclear deal: The art of delicate Iranian diplomacy

    After the recent Geneva deal, this opinion piece was published on the Tehran Times website.  For the first part of the article the author summarizes the details of the deal but in the later part he talks about what this means for Iran.  From the author's standpoint it seems that this deal was a great success for Iran.  Their nuclear program is still intact and some of the sanctions will be lifted.  He also says that this is a good first step for future agreements.  One thing that I noticed from reading this article is that people's view on the Geneva deal is dependent on if they believe Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.  From the US and European standpoint the deal did not go far enough to stop Iran's nuclear capabilities.  This worries them because they are afraid Iran could still make progress towards building a weapon.  From the Iranian standpoint this deal is great because some sanctions are removed and they still have the possibility to create nuclear energy.  By the end of the article I was left with the question, "why would a country that wants to develop nuclear weapons be so willing to give concessions?"

Link to article: http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/52-guests/112363-historic-nuclear-deal-the-art-of-delicate-iranian-diplomacy   

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.

World Powers Reach Nuclear Deal With Iran After Grueling Talks

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/world-powers-reach-nuclear-deal-with-iran-after-grueling-tal

       I found this article while I am browsing through one of my favorite websites. It talks about the agreement came to in Geneva between six world powers. They reached an interim deal with Iran on its nuclear program. Iranians agreed to cease uranium enrichment beyond five percent. Iran will be required to dilute or convert to oxide its stock of 20-percent enriched uranium and is not allowed to install new centrifuges. 
       The article says that in a press conference taking place after negotiating parties signed the agreement, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that the deal would result in the “removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” 
I don't understand how any nuclear program could be "peaceful" or how peace is associated with nuclear power.
      Thoughts??  

The "Truth" about Iran Nuclear Deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPl_1vzz2Y0

I found this video on youtube and thought that it was quite interesting not quite sure who the guy speaking is or what AMTV is but it does seem like it is a pro-American group. This video the guy speaking, Christopher Greene, is very kind of in your face as he says in the video and I believe he is really giving his own opinion throughout the video about what he thinks is the truth about the Iran nuclear deal. He talks about how he really doesn't believe that this whole deal is a peace keeping deal and that the United States is basically teeing Iran up for war, and mainly against Israel.

Human Rights vs Nuclear Program

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iran-human-rights-and-nuclear-security-go-hand-in-hand/2013/11/29/e131a7dc-578b-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html

This article in the Washington Post that I found I thought was very interesting. It seems that there is a lot of disregard for human rights in Iran. Apparently Iran has the world's highest per capita rate of executions. With this dealing with nuclear power, Iran and its seems the world as well is almost completely ignoring the human rights problem that is going on in Iran in order to go on with the new nuclear program. There is persecution of many religious minorities and ethnic groups such as Christians, Kurds, and Ahwazi Arabs. It looks that if human rights are being sacrificed for this nuclear deal.

Iran's Nuclear Program: Cause for Concern, But Not Alarm

    I found this article from Al Jazeera to be very interesting because it has a different viewpoint from most of the other articles already posted here.  A majority of the articles from Western news sites firmly believe that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon.  The author of this article, titled "Iran's Nuclear Program: Cause for Concern, but Not Alarm", basically says that Iran has done some things to cause concern, but that does not mean they intend to build a nuclear weapon.  The author gives three reasons why Iran would not want to build a weapon.  His first point is that no country has ever built a weapon while under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  With inspectors in the country it would be virtually impossible to hide all of the evidence of building a weapon.  His second point is that Iran cannot afford to try to build an arsenal of weapons and then get caught.  It would cost Iran millions of dollars to create nuclear weapons and the chances of getting discovered are so high that it would just be a waste of money.  His last point is that according to some intelligence officials Iranian leaders have not actually decided to build a bomb.  He says that there is little evidence to suggest that leaders have made a final decision to create a bomb.

    I think the author of this article raised some great points as to why Iran would not consider building a nuclear bomb.  Most of the articles I have read only give reasons for why Iran wants to build a weapon, so it was interesting to see the opposite viewpoint.  I hope to see an article with counter arguments because there may be some flaws with the author's reasoning's that I did not see. 

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

Nuclear Threat Initiative

          In an article from the Nuclear Threat Initiative website, there is an overview of the issues at hand with Iran and their nuclear power programs. This article reviews the current issues on Iran and its nuclear power and the information that has been made known from Iran. Iran had become a party of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons also known as the NPT since 1970 and declared themselves as being a non-nuclear weapon state.  Since then they have still made advances in their nuclear power program, but they say it is only for peacefully purposes only. Due to Iran's failure to mention some of the details of their nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency, other countries are wondering if they were being truthful with their intensions for their nuclear power and suspect that they may make advancements in nuclear weapons.
         
          This article also refers to the known status of Iran's advancements in not only nuclear but also biological, chemical, and missile progress in Iran. Iran's nuclear power plants have been said to be for uranium enrichments, mining, milling, and conversion. Suspicions had risen when Iran had announced that they were in the talks of a second nuclear power plant and they were already looking for new grounds to build on. President Obama and President Rouhani had discussed the details on the issue and were hoping for some negotiations. Iran had suffered due to chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war so Iran had opened up their chemical facilities and destroyed their program because of these effects. The United States had accused them of having their program and having access to chemical blood, blister, choking, and nerve agents but Iran denied having any access to chemical power. This website was a great way to get a general understanding on the issue and to view the nuclear threat information on other countries in addition to Iran.

Link to the Article: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/

Would Iran having a nuke change anything?

The main use of nuclear weapons in recent times has been to serve as a deterrent against foreign aggression. The theory of mutually assured destruction has to an extent stabilized conflicts between global powers since WW2. On a regional scale, nuclear weapons have kept India and Pakistan from open warfare. So what makes the situation in the middle east different? Would the counterbalance of Israeli ( and US) military power with a nuclear armed Iran actually cause a decrease in tensions? If Iran did have a fully functional military arsenal, would they still resort to backing terrorist groups to exert their will? Or would the introduction of the bomb nullify their need for this lesser form of intimidation?

Furthermore, is it even necessary for Iran to HAVE a nuclear bomb in order to use nuclear annihilation as leverage? Even with the level of development their nuclear program has now, militant groups allied with Iran could be supplied with materials necessary to make a "dirty bomb". Is this significantly different from Iran being armed with a Nuclear missile? If Iran chose to do so, they could have a weapon of this sort on the way to Israel right now. The amount of damage possible with this less advanced weapon would still be devastating and destroy any chance of a peaceful resolution to Middle East conflict in the foreseeable future. The only reason I can fathom that they haven't yet unleashed such an attack, if their rhetoric is to be believed, is because they are rational enough to know that it would mean the destruction of their government / country. How would this situation change if they had a different form of atomic weaponry?

 It seems to me that in many ways it's almost preferable for Iran to just flat out have a warhead to tout. This way, negotiations within the region between Israel and Iran would have to be made on a more balanced level. If Iran had a bomb, then there would be much less need for them to actually use it. If the feelings of encroachment by western powers is lessened in Iran by possessing the bomb, then perhaps the domestic politics would move away from such militant rhetoric. The use of terrorist groups would not be as necessary a vanguard for the Iranian interests in the region.

The end goal when dealing with Iran shouldn't be the subjugation of the country, but rather the normalizing of relations with them. The fact that they are branded as outsiders by the western world only enforces these views among the ruling class. By developing nuclear technologies, Iran will become comparable in capabilities to the other regional actors, lessening the need for extremism as a tool of political will.


Related article: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb

Iran's Hard-Liners Keep Criticism to Themselves

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/world/middleeast/irans-hard-liners-keep-their-criticism-of-nuclear-pact-to-themselves.html?ref=nuclearprogram&_r=0

This article discusses Iran's signing of a nuclear interim agreement with the United States and other world powers. In accordance with the pact, Iran has agreed to freeze parts of its nuclear agreement in exchange for economic relief for certain troubled sanctions. Almost everyone in attendance agreed with leaders who signed the pact, with the exception of hard-liners who's "ideology will not be undermined by some negotiations." (Mohammad Reza Naqdi, hard-line head of parliamentary Basij force) Critics are saying that the hard-liners are just biding their time, essentially waiting for something or someone to mess up so that they can put a stop to nuclear deal. Hard-liners have been in charge of several sanctions of the Iranian government for years, and the freezing of parts of the nuclear program is just a way of giving into the "Great Satan" that is the United States. While younger citizens happily accepted the deal, the hard-liners sat back, and their silence said just about everything.

Personally, I think the deal is a good thing. Freezing parts of Iran's nuclear program gives the rest of the world some peace of mind that nothing drastic will happen while negotiations are still taking place. Not having the full power of their nuclear program will make any radicals within the Iranian government a little more cautious before taking and dramatic measures to ensure that their country does not fall to the "Great Satan" and other western governments.

Report: Iran Needs More Nuclear Power Plants

http://news.yahoo.com/report-iran-needs-more-nuclear-power-plants-135907384.html

In this article, Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi says that Iran needs more nuclear power pants.  Although the one the country holds already produces some 1,000 megawatts of electricity. In my opinion, I question the additional nuclear power.  Is this much nuclear power really necessary? Salehi says that the additional power would help Iran reduce its carbon emissions and its consumption of oil, which seems to be the positive of the extra power.  The country says the power is for peaceful purposes.  But there is always the thought in the back of your head asking, could they make atmoic weapons with all this power?  

This article displays Iran's purpose for the additional power but I can't help but wonder if there is any other intentions for all this nuclear power.  I believe that this is how most of the Western countries are feeling.  This article does a good job of showing Iran's purpose for the power but does not show other countries view points.  While learning more about Iran's nuclear program, this article allows us to add to our previous knowledge.  

Q&A: Iran Nuclear Crisis

    In an article titled "Q&A Iran Nuclear Crisis" the BBC news site tries to give some background information on this nuclear crisis.  The main points of the article is why Iran wants a nuclear program and why Western powers disagree with Iran.  Iran claims that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and they have a right to nuclear energy.  The United States and other Western countries are afraid that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons so this is why they want to stop Iran's nuclear program.  After the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 talks between Iran and the Western powers were essentially halted.  Since then the UN has placed economic sanctions on Iran in an effort to stop their nuclear power.
    Based on this article it seems like Iran has other intentions for their nuclear program besides energy.  In the article it mentions how some parts of the program were being kept secret and how Iran did not fully comply to the demands of inspections.  The article however does not talk about Iran's viewpoint so it is difficult to see the whole picture of this crisis.  As a starting point to learn more about the Iran nuclear crisis I think this article does a good job.

Link to the article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428  

deal in place but threat still relevant

While deal has been made to loosen the economic sanctions on Iran, many still question Iran's intent for a nuclear program. Is it truly desired for alternate energy, or for geopolitcal power?  Seemingly a "non- western"  the illustrator has a unique view of the deal.(see his about segment pasted below and link to his page to see comments posted about this cartoon). I agree with his stance, that despite the "deal" that is in place, world power or at least a threat to be one is still very real, and Nuclear plans are likely to still in process and hidden. Additionally, the target remains Israel.

About Gado

Gado is the most syndicated political cartoonist in East and Central Africa, and for over two decades a contributor to the Daily Nation (Kenya), New African (U.K.), Courier International (France), Sunday Tribune (South Africa), Le Monde, Washington Times, Des Standard, and Japan Times.
http://gadocartoons.com/iran-nuclear-deal/

Iran/Russian Relations

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhcrce6P3nndOtngAos2BXFtGg0w?docId=68192b1e-dcd5-48a2-b394-453c131a12f0

This link shows an article about Iran and Russia having talks about Iran having a second nuclear power plant located in Bushehr where the country's only nuclear power plant is located. This plan of building this second plant with the help of Russia seems to be giving western powers and Israel unease foreseeing that this could possibly be a program that masks Iran making secretly making weapons. However, Iranian officials are denying these allegations and saying this this program is for peaceful purposes.

I think that this article is very interesting mainly because Russia is involved. Considering that the Cold War ended years ago and that we are on good terms with Russia, it is can still be suspect that the Russians are helping Iran whose government doesn't get along with ours and the Russians are helping them with a nuclear project whether it be for making weapons or even just a peaceful program that will help Iran in the long run, energy-wise; everything does seem to look suspicious over in Iran.

Don't Loosen Sanctions on Iran

This video simply titled, "Iran Facts" holds many truths..and opinions.Some of the videos first words include pro-west and anti-American, which identifies whom the message is directed to immediately-The West and Pro-Americans.Additionally the time-line narration of Iranian authorities and leaders is thorough and accurate but the story that accompanies their rise to power and their direct stance on nuclear technology (weapons or otherwise) is seemingly void. While I find the quotes to be incredibly threatening, concerning and blunt, I question the accuracy of the words within the quotations simply because they are well-so threatening and blunt-almost unbelievable. With all that said, the video incites an innate reaction of "they don't like us, so I don't like them." and  because of that "they shouldn't have a weapon that could hurt US!" The message, a list of facts (which is actually a sequence of Iranian dialogue)  and cool animations are merely a tool of an pro-sanction agenda. A push to call senators, expanding mushroom clouds and the word "fact" don't necessary coexist in reality.

The actual truth behind Iran's agenda to acquire nuclear technology resides strictly to Iran, and while the rest of the world should not take this lightly, videos like this only extend the back-and-forth rhetoric. Yet, despite the misleading title and the not-so hidden agenda, sanctions should not be lifted. The continuation of these economic penalties do in deed have a purpose and a need, surely justified by the very WORDS Iranian leaders chose to use. Depending on who is asked, they are not empty threats, but merely promises that have yet to come to fruition. And so action is required, but I question whether sanctions are the only means aside from military force that can or should be implemented.  

Program Outline and timeline

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 media sources

Some 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.

News Sources generally in region

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

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 Pete, Eric, Tara, Sierra, Tim, Olivia, Chris, Victoria, and Brandy