The Prince 10-18

Chapter 10 and 17
"...it is impossible not to foresee difficulties in attacking a Prince whose town is strongly fortified and who is not hated by his subjects" (27). This quote goes along with the idea in chapter 17; better to be loved or feared? A strong fortified town, where the ruling Prince is admired, is something worth fearing. When it comes to times of strife or wartime, "men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared" (44). Meaning strong countries, such as the U.S., are less likely to be the victim of an attack from a foreign force. This idea relates to the situation in Iran; if Iran is to develop nuclear bombs the U.S. isn't likely to be the victim of an attack.

Chapter 10
"...since human affairs are so variable that it is almost impossible for any one to keep an army posted in leaguer for a whole year without interruption of some sort" (27). When a country has an army it suggests that they will seek military action if needed; these armies will not remain uninterrupted when the human affairs in today's world vary.

Chapter 14
"For with contempt on one side, and distrust on the other, it is impossible that men should work well together" (38). This quote sums up the U.S. relation with Iran and their nuclear programs. Iran is the side with contempt and the U.S. is the other side with distrust of Iran's motivations; it is impossible for the two countries to have any form of alliance or work together with this situation.

Machiavelli and the Mullahs

This article is about how Machiavelli's masterpiece offers advice on how to handle situations during times of "heightened peril". He wasn't concerned with man's moral perfection but survival in this sometimes violent world. Machiavelli argues that through careful actions leaders can actually shape the outcomes of events to their advantage by "snuffing" out danger. The Mullahs are using Iranian money to concoct their terrorist trade in Iraq. Machiavelli also makes reference to the idea that if you wait to hear big news it could be too late; which could suggest the U.S. taking action against Iran before something big happens.

President Bush could be guided by three principles of Machiavelli's novel: self-reliance, the importance of being feared and the need to take the initiative once conflict is inevitable. This idea in the article makes sense. President Bush can't and doesn't rely on others when reaching decisions because "the arms of another will fall from your hand, will weigh you down, or restrain you". However, at the same time leaders need the people to back them up, that's why the U.S. is a Republic and elects their leaders. Another idea mentioned is there is "greater security in being feared than in being loved" and that mutual interests make alliances, not affection. This idea makes sense if Islam really does fear the loss of power.

One final idea Machiavelli leaves us with, a nation "will always have to choose between risks...prudence lies in knowing how to distinguish between degrees of danger and in choosing the least danger as the best". Taking action and using force against Tehran's nuclear operations make be the path with less danger.

The Prince

Chapter IX Of the Civil Princedom
This chapter had the best advice for achieving the role as a prince or leader of a country.
"I come now to the second case, namely, of the leading citizen who, not by crimes or violence, but by the favour of his fellow-citizens is made Prince of his country" (24).
This seems to be the best way for achieving this role because the people support you as the leader and to me a great leader is one who is supported by the people.

Chapter VI Of New Princedoms Which a Prince Acquires With His Own Arms and By Merit
This chapter had an idea included that would represent the worst advice.
"The wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great, and imitate those who have most excelled, so that if he cannot reach their perfection, he may at least acquire something of its savour" (12).
A wise man wouldn't need to follow the actions of previous leaders or imitate those who have excelled. A wise man would have his own ideas and goals to pursue that might not be the same as great leaders of the past but could make him an even better leader.

Time Article Iran

The National Intelligence affirms that Iran is a threat

The Bush Administration: Plan is to pressure Iran in order to stop them from gaining the intelligence to complete nuclear bombs. They believe that easing up on the pressure would be a "tragic mistake".

Iran policy is a compromise between the hawks, who believe military action is needed, and Washington realists and European allies, who believe negotiating between the U.S. and Iran is the way to go. Iran can't be trusted and President Bush will not speak with Iran until they stop their production of enriched uranium. He is continuing to push coercive sanctions while leaving the option of military action "on the table".

Washington Hawks: This group doesn't want to risk failure to notice nuclear threats or intelligence that happened with Iraq. They believe military action should be kept on the table along with coercive sanctions to further pressure Iran.

Democrats and Republican 'Realists': This group supports negotiations with Iran. The administration's claims on activity in Iran has been "inflated" and there is no reason to seek military action. This group wants to attack the Bush Administration for inflating the threat of nuclear attack and push a new approach for diplomacy.

Israel: Recognizes the threat reported by the NIE and thinks that if the U.S. doesn't react on the information Israel will face mortal danger by an Iranian bomb. Israel will push the U.S. to take coercive action and persuade Europe to back up stronger sanctions.

Europe, China, Russia and Arabs: These European countries believe we should keep pressure on Iran to meet the UN demands but don't believe the NIE gave any threatening report. China and Russia don't see the need to strengthen sanctions against Iran.

Iran: Will not be "bowing" to any foreign power trying to weaken their uranium enrichment and nuclear programs. They insist on maintaining their current research rate.

It's hard to say what group has the best method of action when we don't know whether or not the Bush Administration is inflating the NIE reports or not. It is also hard to know whether or not Iran would use a nuclear bomb if it was concocted.

Iran: Struggle for Democracy

Citizens of Iran are demanding democracy after twenty-five years of Islamic theocracy. In the 1950's Mossadeq was the prime minister that gained control from the Shah. Shah's pro-Western regime was reinstated but portrayed as benefiting Western powers, the United States. Opposition arose against Shah and Khomeini was founded the new influential cleric. He declared the country the Islamic Republic of Iran and called for a new religious government based on the strict principles of Shi'iah Islam. He died in 1989 and lower-level clerics controlled everyday political operations. Members of the opposition could expect imprisonment, torture and even execution. The ruling clerics possessed the countries wealthy while citizens experienced unemployment with a rising cost of living. Young people, three-quarters of the population, couldn't listen to Western music, criticize rulers or be involved with the opposite sex.

Mohammad Khatami was elected president in May of 1997. He was a moderate cleric that represented a voice for the young people, university students, and women in the demand for increased democratic freedoms. Reformist newspapers began to circulate as the opposition movement had begun. The conservatives tried to stop the advancements of reform; a clerical regime sent police forces to attack the Tehran University dorms leaving three dead and many injured or arrested. Clerics were moving to protect their conservative ideas by closing reformist newspapers, torturing opposition leaders and having Bassijis break up student demonstrations. Reform seemed to disappear. "The growing political crisis in Iran garnered worldwide attention" and has grabbed the attention of the United States specifically. The citizens and some officials in Iran are torn on whether or not they want U.S. intervention leaving our country to face the difficulty in compiling a strategy for facing the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After reading this article it seems obvious that the first step in solving any problems would be for Iran to figure out their governmental situation. With political crisis occurring throughout the country that remains the number one priority before solving problems with nuclear factories.

Should the U.S. Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?

When deciding whether or not the U.S. should preemptively attack Iranian nuclear facilities I believe Edward N. Luttwak made a better "no" argument. The issue summary in the beginning of the article tends to provoke the no opinion by listing three possible outcomes which creates negative outcomes. The use of force "could alienate the Iranian public, further incite Muslim opposition to the United States around the world, and lead Iran to retaliate by working to stimulate attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq by Shiite groups linked to Iran" (129). To forestall anticipated outcomes by acting first will not lead to anything positive. In the yes argument, Mario tries to say the U.S. is "given up on a vital element of its national defense" (130). However, According to Edward, these efforts to build nuclear weapons began over thirty years ago and are still years away from producing a single bomb. This shows that a preempt attack will not be effective; how can there be such "uncertainty" on whether or not Iran will attack when they have yet to produce a bomb? What would be the chance of an attack on the U.S. when we have been allies with Iran in the past? Most Iranians except for the very few extremists admire the U.S.; we need to gain our future allies back. Also, the engineers and scientists working on the nuclear weapons are more sensible people and not necessarily nationalists who promote their leaders. Overall, the situation hasn't progressed enough to ignite the fear and "uncertainty" to provoke action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

H of D Quote Response

“In seasons of pestilence some of us will have a secret attraction to the disease--a terrible passing inclination to die of it. And all of us have like wonders hidden in our breasts, only needing circumstances to evoke them.”

In times of plague some will have the disease—an inclination to die of it.
All of us have hidden wonders in our hearts only needing situations to cause them to appear.

I think the quote is trying to state how humans are inherently evil; relating the hidden wonders in our hearts to secret attractions to diseases that are both evoked by circumstances. This quote relates to a theme in Heart of Darkness, human nature. In the novel Joseph Conrad uses rivets as symbols for laws and restraints. As Marlow made his journey into the heart of Africa he was exposed to a less civilized culture, lacking restraints, allowing circumstances to evoke wild, savage, and evil behavior in Africans and Mr. Kurtz. The main idea, without some kind of restraints humans will express their inherent evil. This compares to both White Fang and Lord of the Flies. In White Fang, Jack London’s idea is that humans are clay and behavior is molded by one’s environment. Humans can be evil if their environment causes that behavior but they aren’t inherently evil. Conrad and London have opposing ideas on human nature while Conrad’s theory is similar to William Golding’s. In the Lord of the Flies we learn that living in a utopia doesn’t create perfect behavior to match. These boys had food, shelter, and nice weather but their utopia didn’t prevent the inherent evil of mankind to surface. While not all of the boys expressed evilness (attraction to disease) they all are considered inherently evil (all of us have hidden wonders).