Iran And Weapons Of Mass Destruction Essay Example for Free

Iran And Weapons Of Mass Destruction Essay Iran is a signatory to the international treaties that prohibits production and keeping of weapons of mass destruction. These treaties are; the chemical weapons convection, the biological weapons convention and the nuclear Non-Profiliferation Treaty (NPT). Despite its ratification of these treaties, Iran is currently believed to be possessing weapons of mass destruction. After the Iraq-Iran war in early 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini resolved to pursue nuclear research after he lost about 100,000 soldiers and civilians due to chemical weapons attacks by the Iraqis. Controversy has surrounded the Iranian nuclear weapons program for decades now. While the country maintains that its uranium enrichment program is solely meant for peaceful purposes and the current international atomic energy agency director general, Yukiya Amano claiming that there are no evidence in IAEA reports that Iran has plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, the United States through its congressional research paper believes that Iran had long finished developing nuclear weapons in 2003. The world is equally divided over the Iranian nuclear weapon program. Only a few European countries are siding with the United States and countries like Russia do not believe in the allegations that Iran has or has plans to develop nuclear weapons. Most countries from the East like China, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, the Arab League as well as Gulf Cooperation Council, have expressed their full support for Iran to pursue what they call a peaceful nuclear energy. But what are the implications of a nuclear energy in the hands of Iranians? The Iranian nuclear program has earned many foes and allies in almost equal measure. One of the greatest critics of the Iranian nuclear energy is the United States. The strain relationship between the countries dates back to three centuries when the Islamic revolution in Iran swept the US strong ally Shah out of power. When Ayatollah Khomeini came to power after the revolution, he driven the country’s foreign policy away from the United States and the two countries have ever since been polar opposites in virtually every foreign policies. Diplomatic relations between the two nations was broken in early 1980 and the Swiss government took over representation of American interest the following year. While in the United States, the Pakistani government assumed representation of Iranian affairs. However, the Iranian government has its own representative to the UN in New York City. In 1981, following the Algiers declaration, the US-Iran Claims Tribunal (situated at The Hague, Netherlands) was formed to resolved issues between the nationals of the two countries. However, this engagement has always remain and dealt with legal matters only . The Iranian nuclear program has only worked over the years to strain the diplomatic relations further. American government by executive orders made by its president and also by the congressional legislation bars any form of trade with Iran. These sanctions were imposed because of Iran’s continued pursuance of its nuclear program and its noncompliance with the IAEA demands. Iran is further accused of sponsoring terrorists and terror activities as well as of having poor human rights record. However, the American government has always maintained that these sanctions only target the Iranian government engagement with the US and not the citizens of Iran. The US therefore permits certain trades that would help the nationals of Iran. Such engagement as relief donations by the American nationals and NGOs, export of medical and agricultural products from US to Iran and import of foodstuff from Iran are permitted. The American government has at times lifted the trade sanctions especially in times of humanitarian crises like was the case in 2003 during the Ban earthquake. Obstacles to diplomatic relations between the countries however, still remain unresolved. The United States is mainly concerned with the Iranian authorities’ lack of compliance with the IAEA and accused their counterparts of pursuing a risky ambition that would threaten peace in the world. The US fears over the Iran’s nuclear is connected with their allegations that Iran has been sponsoring terror activities. Iran has always objected to the peace deal favoring the Israel and has been accused of undermining the Middle East peace process through its continued arming of militia and terror groups like Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Hamas. The risks a nuclear Iran would subject the world to through its continued association with militia and terror groups is one of the reason sanctions are being imposed not only by the US government but also by the European union and the United Nations security council. The Iran nuclear program would not be a threat to Israel but also the world at large. Analysis of the frosty relations between Iran and Israel would shed more light on how the world would be threatened by Iran as a nuclear power. Iran is the second largest country with a Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel and some notable figures in Israel are known to have originated from Iran. The two countries had had good relations when Iran was ruled by the Shah, but after the Islamic revolution of Iran, Israel and the Iran’s ruling clergy have had hostile ties with Iran refusing to recognize Israel. However, even during the hostile relationship, Israel helped United States sell arms to Iran as part of the infamous Iran-Contra scandal. In recent times, the United States has been very much vocal against the Iranian nuclear program. Israel on the other hand has always been ready to disarm the Iranians of their missiles and other weapons considered destructive. They have even considered tactically deploying their nuclear weapons to clear off the Iranian nuclear facilities. Although Israel has never officially confirmed the number of its nuclear weapons, it is whispered in the international security circles that the country has about 200-400 weapons of mass destruction and is the only country possessing a nuclear weapons in the Middle East. And it is not lost to many that Israel had bombed the Iraqi facility believed to have been part of its nuclear programs. The perennial conflict between Israel and Palestinians has not help matters either. The Palestinians continued migration to south Lebanon led the formation of militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad among others. Although these groups have been considered terrorists groupings by many countries, Iran disagrees. It has not only offered these groups material support in terms of weapons but regard the groups as organizations fighting for a justified cause and publicly offer them moral support. These groups especially the Hezbollah regard the Iran spiritual leader as their ultimate authority and the groups themselves have confirmed that all political decisions concerning their affairs are referred and made in Iran. For example, the Iran spiritual leader himself is said to have favored the Hezbollah’s participation in the Lebanese politics. In light of these revelations, it would be appropriate to say that Iran is sponsoring suicide bombers at least indirect to fight the Israelis. The Iranians and the leaders have always denounced Israel and more often pronounce death of Israel in different forms. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on record claiming that Israel ought to be wiped off from the face of the earth and even questioned why the holocaust did not perform it once and for all. We may argued that the Iranian president does not wield so much power and that the spiritual leader who at some point sought ceasefire and normalized relations with the Israelis, is the real source of power. But the ruling clergy is up to no good if his agitations to have Hezbollah become a full political outfit which was objected to by the United States is anything to go by. Looking back at the recent events in Lebanon where Israel suffered a humiliating defeat in the hands of Hezbollah, the influence of Iran and its militant group, Hezbollah in the Middle East was just given a shot in the arm. We may argue that Iran never started its nuclear weapons program with Israel in mind. But going by the unrelenting anti-Israel rhetoric by its leaders, it would be quite in order to say that Iran’s number one enemy right now is Israel and given opportunity would go ahead and wipe out the entire nation. Only nuclear weapons would put it at par with Israel and make it achieve the mass destruction they would love to see. Again, sorting out Israel as its number one enemy, Iran is simply creating more enemies. With the United States leading the pack of countries associating and supporting Israel, Iranians would declare war with any nation oppose to their policies against Israel. Diplomacy and Alternatives President Bush’s efforts to halt the Iranians’ uranium enrichment program had been focused on building a strong international coalition that would impose tough sanctions against Iran intended to punish and isolate until it abandons its plans to develop nuclear weapons program. The country on the other hand, maintains its nuclear program is intended for peaceful uses. When president Obama came into power, the first thing he announced regarding his foreign policy was to negotiate with Iran and talk it out of its nuclear weapons program. So far nothing tangible is coming from the Iranian side. The major problem in this whole process is that Iranian leaders are simply not willing to talk and even as Washington tries to pursue diplomacy, Tehran is determined on carrying on with its program. The Obama administration should not just explore this option without understanding their Iranian counterparts. From the developments so far, it seems Tehran is not about to make a compromise on its program. But where does this leave Obama with his pledge for a more engagement with Tehran? Besides diplomacy, are there other options left for Washington? The present world security situation is quite disturbing. The world and more specifically the United States national security is currently threatened either directly or indirectly by the developments in Iran and this should inform president Obama to realize that shunning any further contact with Iran is a luxury American cannot afford. But then the issue is complicated with the popularly-driven opposition that may be demoralized if American approaches the matter with high-handedness. A continued engagement with Tehran therefore would call for clear understanding of the nature of Iran politics and policies. My first and last option has always been engagement and engagement. The America should keep this door of dialogue wide open. However, it would be careless of us if we are only concerned with the nuclear issue. Apart from addressing the other security concerns such as Afghanistan and Iraq which Iran is threatening, the Obama administration should embark on holding the regime accountable for human rights violations. Iran has always had a problem adhering to international standards of justice. Although the word is quite commonly used by the Iranian leaders it lacks any respect at all among the Iranian officials. I have a strong belief that raising the human rights issue would make the Tehran regime think twice about using brutality and repression against its people. Failure to address the human rights issue, Americans would be creating an impression among the people of Iran that it is a cynical superpower out to cut deals at their own expense. All said, we must understand that dialogue was never an end in itself but a means to halt Iran’s nuclear plans and to check its regional policies. We should hope that dialogue bare fruits and we must believe in our secretary of states Hillary Clinton and her undersecretary Bill Burns as skilful diplomats. However, my greatest concern is that the Tehran regime is not willing to reach a compromise with Washington. In essence, the problem in Iran is in their present leaders rather than the country’s nuclear ambitions. This does not means that we overthrow the current regime through the pro-active democracy utterances of the president Bush and his administration. We should believe in the Iranian as being capable of shaping their destiny. And therefore, Americans should refrain from using policies that would jeopardize the current momentum of opposition movements in the country. This would call for a skillful and careful â€Å"engagement† that would broaden the dialogue beyond just nukes and treading away from military confrontation. I believe Ahmadinejad and the spiritual leader would most welcome a US military strike; it may offer them a lifeline to crush popular dissent and right internal political rifts. Finally, obama may be thinking of tougher sanctions going by the statement made by his secretary of states Hillary Clinton in late May. The problem with trade sanctions is that they have been there for almost 30 years now but nothing much has changed and I have a belief that Iran is used to it now. If they refused the carrot and stick of President Bush, what tells us now that Iran would play ball? Our option must be a change in approach in our engagement. Conclusion For over two decades of dialogue, diplomacy and sanctions have achieved a little impact in the Iran’s nuclear plans. They have delayed such a program, made its operations and nuclear programs more covert and have continuously highlighted the risks Iran is posing to itself and the world. Such policies however, have never stopped Iran from acquiring long-range missiles, the technology as well as production facilities for making nuclear weapons. The United States therefore needs to change tact in its dealing with the Tehran regime and in containing its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Is Antigone A Tragic Play Essay example -- essays research papers

Is Antigone a tragic play as defined by Aristotle?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Antigone is not a tragic play. Rather it is a theological debate spawned by Sophocles, a debate that is still raging today, the debate of who holds the higher law, the Gods or the State. While this debate has slowly twisted into Church versus State, which is a very different argument, the highest questions still remain the same: Which one is held higher in men’s (and women’s) hearts? Antigone answers this question with shocking clarity in her admission of guilt to Creon, â€Å" I should have praise and honor for what I have done. All these men here would praise me, were their lips not frozen shut with fear of you. Ah, the good fortune of kings, licensed to say and do whatever they please! C: you alone are in that opinion. A: No, they are with me, But they keep their tongues in leash.† By saying thus, Antigone is proclaiming all everyone holds the laws of the Gods higher than the laws of the State, unless the State is the more immediate threat.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But this all raises another question, does the law of the Gods really matter? Will the Gods truly beseech you and seek to bring you harm for not following in their ways? One who is not so religious would say no, it is not the Gods who hold the sword at your throat but a man, who at that moment cares nothing for the Gods. But in the case of Antigone, the Gods do act out their revenge. Tireseas spake:...

History of Management

Without any doubt, the question of work, roles and skills of a manager gets a mixed response. Some believe that these features are the shared by managers all over the world, while others maintain that there are significant differences in management of different countries that have given rise to such a notion and a process as the intercultural management. Which one of the above-stated arguments has an element of truth and could they be both regarded as authentic?First of all it cannot be denied that the science of management has a long history and perhaps all modern mangers employ principles and theories that have been introduced earlier. To start with, it was the Industrial Revolution that established big business and created the need for professional leaders. Furthermore, years of military and church rule added management models and terminology that are widely used today. Let us only recall Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory or that of Frederic Taylor who is commonly regarded th e Father of Scientific Management and proposed some ways of increasing workers’ productivity.On the basis of his research at Bethlehem Steel Company (Pittsburgh) he drew conclusions that the job can be split into minute parts and its performance can be improved by timing performance of each part separately. Furthermore, he suggested rest periods of special interval and duration and a differential pay scale that can be found in the practice of today’s managers (1). The famous method of overlapping tasks during the period of working day in order to avoid workers becoming tired easily was offered by Henry Gantt and displayed in the form of his ‘the Gantt chart’.Though not all of the managers may know the name of inventor of this tenet, but, for sure, most of them are acquainted with its expression and benefits it can provide. Moreover, it was Gantt who stressed the significance of the leadership and management qualities and skills for creating successful indu strial organizations. The man who is dubbed as the Father of Modern Management is Henri Fayol, a French industrialist who developed a framework for studying management and wrote General and Industrial Management (1).He distinguished five functions of managers, such as: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling. As we see, all theorists and pioneers of management theory originated from various countries (England, France, United States, etc. ); however this did not impede the principles they have set out from becoming universal. Times are changing and so are doing the people but some essential things and useful hints are immortal and not subject to ageing. Let us take a closer look into the work of a manager disregard of the geographical location of his working place and language he speaks.Nobody would argue that the better we understand the management role; the better it will be performed and more qualitative services will be provided. Some people wrongly consid er managers to be emotionless and cold fish and claim something like: â€Å"managers see work as something that must be done or tolerated,† â€Å"management focuses attention on procedure,† and â€Å"management sees the world as relatively black and white† (2, 2005:25). Yet, from our point of view, such standpoint is biased and far from being impartial.One should keep in mind that managers are also humans but the best among them have that gift for organizing and feel themselves capable of being at the head of other people and controlling not only their work but their lives in a way. Nevertheless, the manager’s work is not restricted to the above-mentioned issues only. Putting it by words of Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, leadership is just one of the numerous facets of management, â€Å"just one of the many assets a successful manager must possess† (3).Therefore, it would be easier to determine the aim of a manager, which can be expressed as maximizing the output of his company with the help of effective administrative measures. This brings us to the definition of management itself that for short can be rendered as â€Å"the process of attaining organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, controlling, and directing organizational resources† (2). Therefore, any manager must undertake the already mentioned above functions:? organizing ? planning ? commanding ? coordinating ? controlling Note, that leadership is covered by the single function of controlling. Planning comprises development of company strategies and goals. To put it differently, on this stage a manager has to define the direction of his business and some milestones to be taken into account. Moreover, planning involves also defining budget and plans of operation, i. e. methods of achieving previously fixed goals.In brief, on the phase of planning a manager proves to be a good forecaster capable of determining the far-r eaching objectives. The following function and stage is organizing, which means right people on the right working places. In other words, this function presupposes that a manager must objectively consider knowledge and skills of his employees and offer them jobs that are most appropriate. Remarkably that some theorists of management call this function as â€Å"staffing† but to our mind, this notion is an element of organizing.Admittedly that â€Å"given the high levels of discretion enjoyed by knowledge workers, managers' decisions over work distribution, content and resources become more critical for commitment and knowledge creation† (4, 2005:383-424). To sum up, organizing function covers establishing superior/subordinate relationships, as well as determining the scope of staff’s obligations and responsibilities. The ‘controlling’ function means checking that work is carried out in a proper way and funds are spent with regard to their purpose. Th e coordinating function covers training, team building, etc.and refers mainly to work with human resources, but not the production process. It should be added that effective managers should be good communicators and analysts. They should â€Å"have guts† to resist constant stress and be able to operate under unfavorable conditions. Furthermore, managers are responsible for friendly environment within a company, which engages problem-combating, settling conflicts, searching for best solutions, etc. What is more they should be assertive enough to bring forward their ideas and convince the opponents to give preference to their views.Still, that does not mean that all managers should be inborn leaders, whatever. Even more, as J. P. Kotter wrote in his 1991 â€Å"The Best of the Harvard Business Review† article, What Leaders Really Do: â€Å"Leadership is different from management, but not for the reason most people think. Leadership isn't mystical and mysterious. It has n othing to do with having charisma or other exotic personality traits. It's not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it.Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment† (5, 1991:26). However, in spite of the fact that there are some common features of manager work found in different countries and irrespective of borders, such as the key principles of management in a whole and functions of managers, it has been stated above that managers are the same people. Consequently, their cultural and personal peculiarities are reflected on their work.The former has even given rise to the completely new theory – intercultural management. The most significant factors that have enabled the emergence of this theory are the following: continuous globalization of economy and merge of businesses, establishment of joint ventures, foreign representative offices, etc. As a result, people started to pay more attention to the intercultural diversity of managing styles and traditions along with all-nation values and convictions. Should to go, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, but in order to comply with this rule one should know it.Notably, that in her article in the Financial Times by Elisabeth Marx titled ‘Shock of the alien can sink a merger', for example, it was mentioned that â€Å"Research on cross-border acquisitions has shown that differences in management style (particularly in attitudes towards risk) have a negative effect on company performance. Sadly, very few companies consider the softer, cultural factors of mergers, which may be a significant contributor to their subsequent failures. Far too few companies even begin to consider the effects on staff or the human implication of a merger†.Furthermore, the article goes on to manifest that â€Å"it is easy to end up in a situation where the whole is worth less than the sum of its two parts†. Hence, the reasonable solution here may consist in following the statement and credo: â€Å"Managers' first task is to conduct more extensive business analysis before taking the decision to merge. In addition to carrying out traditional financial and commercial due diligence, they should complete a thorough examination of the cultural compatibility of the parties involved† (6, 2005:2).The same can be applied to all spheres where business is conducted and companies in any country. Yert, the most frequent use of intercultural management tenet is observed within such association as, for instance, international markets, by merging with foreign companies, projects involving multi-cultural teams, international negotiations and so on, and so forth. Other supporting the intercultural management view theories are three well-known analyses of intercultural management by Edward Hall, Geert Hofs tede and Philippe d'Iribarne that illustrate the differences between American and French management styles (7).Citing Edward T. Hall, intercultural differences in communication are based on the context, on time and on space: â€Å"Understanding between people results from the combination of information and its context. Some cultures have a rich context (close links between people, high level of the unspoken/unsaid): these cultures are highly † implicit†; other cultures valuing communication only when it is very clear in itself are said to be † explicit † (7).This can be exemplified by the French dislike of clearing procedures or by their creativity and flexibility, American productivity and utilitarianism etc (8, 2003:1333-1349). To sum up, there are common features that can be found among managers all over the world. Managers employ experience of earlier generations as well as coin modern ones. Today, theorists of management clearly define functions and goa ls of managing work and scope of their responsibilities and obligations. However, on the other hand, it remains disputable wither work of a manager is the same in different countries.Quite to the contrary, the intercultural management theory declares that every nation has its own management style that should be taken into account when conducting international negotiations and making business with foreign countries. The majority of businessmen can no longer escape the necessity to purchase, sell or communicate and work with people from different cultures and thus with different traditions and convictions. And we are strongly sure that our future is multinational one! Bibliography 1. History of Management. Retrieved on December 21, 2005 from: http://ollie. dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/1overview/management_history/mgmt_history. htm 2. MANAGERS; PERSONALITY; ENTERPRISES |AU| Welbourne, TM. ; Cavanaugh, M. A. ; Judge, T. A. |AD| U. S. A. ; Cornell University. Centre for Advanced Huma n Resource Studies, IRL School. Ithaca, NY 14653-3901 3. Leader or Manager? Which Are You? Which Should You Be? The Case for Being Well-Rounded by Dick Mooney. Bradford University Journal. Retrieved on December 21, 2005 from: http://www. amputee-coalition. org/communicator/vol3no2pg2. html 4. The difference a manager can make: organizational justice and knowledge worker commitment by Marc Thompson.International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 16, Number 3, March, 2005, pp. 383-404 5. The Best of the Harvard Business Review by J. P. Kotter, 1991. 6. Shock of the alien can sink a merger by Elisabeth Marx. Financial Times, 5 April 2001 7. French management style. Retrieved on December 21, 2005 from: http://www. understandfrance. org/France/Intercultural3. html 8. Comparing business ethics in Russia and the US by Rafik I. Beekun, Yvonne Stedham, Jeanne H. Yamamura, Jamal A. Barghouti. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Volume 14, Number 8 / December 2003

Benjamin Franklin A Learning Lover - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 746 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/06/10 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Benjamin Franklin Essay Did you like this example? Benjamin Franklin loved learning and was always trying to get better. His autobiography proves that Franklin put effort into his writing and was always trying to work harder to get better at his writing skills. Throughout the book, Benjamin dedicated his time and most of his life to a list he made up of thirteen virtues. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Benjamin Franklin: A Learning Lover" essay for you Create order Out of the thirteen virtues, three will be talked about in this paper. Industry is the first virtue that will be discussed. Benjamin describes industry as, Industry loose no time; be always employed in something useful, cut off all unnecessary actions. (Franklin 65) The second virtue is frugality. Frugality is defined as, Frugality- Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; waste nothing (Franklin 64). Last but not least is humility. Benjamin says that humility is Humility- Imitate Jesus and Socrates (Franklin 65). In Benjamin Franklinrs life he strived to gain knowledge and improve himself, taking every opportunity that came his way using these three virtues. Benjamin Franklin made sure that he was always employed. He worked in different places and was always traveling around. Even though he would be employed somewhere he did not ever seem scared to leave that place and start a new adventure. He wrote, I then thought of going to New York, as the nearest place where there was a printer; and I was rather inclined to leave Boston (Franklin 16). While traveling for work Franklin also learned and experienced many new things that would help him gain skills he would need in the future. I was employed in cutting wick for candles, filling the dipping mold and molds for cast candles, attending the shop, running errands (Franklin 6-7). These quotes show the virtue of industry through his love for working and learning, Industry loose no time; be always employed in something useful, cut off all unnecessary actions, (Franklin 65). Out of the thirteen virtues that Franklin believed in industry is one of the biggest he devoted his life to. Franklin cared about others and not just himself. Although he showed the world a hard layer of self-worth on the outside, he cared about other peoples feelings as well. He wrote, In our way, a drunken Dutchman who was a passenger too, fell over board and was sinking, so I reached through the water and dragged him up (Franklin 64). There is not only one quote on his kindness in the book, there are many. Another time Franklin wrote, Let the Englishmen not only respect you, but to also love you. When the individuals enter in your native country, they will go nearer to thinking well of your country, (Franklin 59). In this quote Franklin is telling us that the way you live your life represents not only you, but also where you are from. These examples represent frugality as one of his thirteen virtues. In the times that others are in need, Franklin does not hesitate to help. In fact, he jumps right into action. He said, It was proposed to send a armored force immediately, into these counties with horses and carriages. That the service shall be necessary to chive and I shall take care of them (Franklin 108). Not only does Franklin jump in and help with wars, he also helps with other big things such as womenrs education. He wrote, Recommending that branch of education for our young females, are more likely to be more use to them and their children. (Franklin 77) Franklin proved that there were men who believed in women and girls. Franklin knew how smart girls were and how useful they could be in the world so he fought for their education. These examples show Franklinrs virtue of humility, Humility- Imitate Jesus and Socrates (Franklin 65). Throughout Benjamin Franklinrs life he strived to gain knowledge and improve himself, taking every opportunity that came his way. It is important to know the accomplishments that Benjamin Franklin achieved and how he achieved them by following his list of virtues. It is also important that mankind knows that he was very accomplished but he was also very kind, loving, and strove to help others. Throughout the book Franklin was always tying to get better at his list of thirteen virtues. Three of the thirteen seemed to stand out the most, industry, frugality, and humility. Even though Benjamin Franklinrs autobiography can seem to be boring, once you get to know him and what he has done to help the country he seems a little more interesting after all.