WP4 Final

Dear Mr. Adams:
It’s been a crazy semester. You’ve gone from caveman to chemo patient. I’ve branched out into interesting new fields of study and decided to change my major. Then of course there’s this class. Some of it I couldn’t stand, as a lot of the information I’d heard before. Most of it, however, was a big learning experience. I’ve never put together a writing project so long and complex before, and I’m definitely better off for the experience. I’ve learned a lot, not just about my subject, but also about writing techniques and skills. I believe that over the course of the last few months I have accomplished all of the course competencies.
First, I learned about the rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, author, context, and topic). All of them I’d heard before but I hadn’t looked into them as an interactive system. I’ve learned that by making different combinations you can produce papers of many different subjects, purposes, and structures. I used the Rhetorical situation to construct my research question and thesis statement for WP3. “Based on the Current Situation in Iran; What Are Some of The Likely Outcomes, And How Will They Effect The American People?” This is the final version of the statement. It went through several changes as I toyed with different combinations within my Rhetorical situation to set myself up for a paper that could accomplish what I wanted. I want to specifically point out my analysis of the audience in D3HW5. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/09/deadline-3hw-5audience-analysis.html This is where I realized that my paper applied to not just the American people but to the international community as a whole. I eventually decided to focus primarily on Americans however, as I wanted to narrow my subject as much as I reasonably could. One problem that I ran into was that when I realized that I couldn’t accomplish my purpose with a standard essay format I was slow to figure out how to change my rhetorical combination so I could find some equilibrium between what I wanted and a persuasive piece of work. My knowledge of the Rhetorical situation will be sure to come in handy in future papers, especially when it comes to finding my research question.
Second, I learned about sharing a central idea through unity, coherence, and logical development. The biggest thing I found here was the advantages to using outlines to get a blueprint for my writing. For example, I made two different outlines before writing this letter. I made a vague one based on the different course competencies and a more complex one using the requirements for each of the competencies that I have to write about. In D9HW5 I learned the value of clustering the research I’d gathered to help me think about how I could present it to achieve my purpose. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/10/d9hw5-cluster.html One problem I ran into here is that I should have begun this much earlier in the writing process. As it was, I only started the week I had to write the draft WP3 and that caused a bit of a rush. This method, I think, will be useful in any writing project I undertake.
Third, I looked at conventions such as voice, tone, diction, grammar, and mechanics. The big thing I realized here was that review, especially by peers, is a key step in catching a lot of errors in these fields. I used that practice, at your insistence of course, in all three WP’s and found that errors in these areas were one of the chief things I discovered. In D5HW3 I noted that self-review was very important because it makes you look at not just your mistakes, but also the comments of others and allows you to take all these factors into consideration and come up with an end result that accomplishes what you wanted it to. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/09/d5hw3-peer-review-reflection.html I think one thing that I could work on here is using different combinations of these conventions to most effectively accomplish different combinations of Rhetorical situations. These lessons are important in any kind of writing project and I don’t think we’ll ever escape them.
Fourth, from this course, several books I’ve read recently, and a philosophy on life I’ve tried to use for a while, I’ve reinforced my belief in the importance of looking at all problems from multiple perspectives. If you limit yourself in your thinking you only end up weakening your position and living in ignorance. In WP2 you can see the wide variety of sources I used in my effort to look at my subject from all the relevant angles I could think of. For example, in D2 Annotated Bib I read an article featuring the interview of the head of the Iranian-American council. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/09/hw-assignmentdeadline-2-annotated.html This interview featured viewpoints that I hadn’t really considered before and showed me a few new areas that I needed to look into for my research. This idea is hard for everyone, as it’s difficult to get used to the idea that other people’s opinions may be just as relevant and logical as our own and I think we always have room to grow in this area. That lesson is relevant to everyday life as it’s important to keep an open mind in all things.
Fifth, we learned to integrate our sources to develop and support our own ideas. The big discovery I made here was that it is important, especially in a project as big as this, to review our research and refresh ourselves before making final conjectures for our research arguments. Before writing WP3 I went through my research database and made a condensed version to use when constructing my outlines. This not only allowed me to be more organized, but gave me a opportunity to review my research and start tying things together for my final paper. In D9HW4 I used this condensed version of my notes to construct my final outline that incorporated all my arguments and the cited sources, which I used to back them. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/10/d9hw4-outline.html I think I did pretty well in this area and learned a lot. The only thing I can think of doing differently is creating a second research database where I put all of my thoughts and opinions and revise them as I do more and more research. This is another lesson I think can apply to everyday life as in any argument you need to learn to support yourself with facts.
Sixth, I have been able to refresh and increase my knowledge of correct citations and documentation. WP2 forced me to do a lot of work with and on my MLA citations, as I knew right off I was lacking in this area. I used this opportunity to look at several sources to help better the format and structure in my citations. In D6HW7 I took advantage of the grammar assignment to review the section on MLA at the OWL site. Here I brushed up on the order and structure of the citations and it was my primary learning tool in this area. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/10/d6hw7-grammar-assignment.html I doubt I got them perfect in the end and I’ll need a lot of practice with them before I’m completely confident. This will be useful primarily when I need to do citations, specifically with MLA though some of the basics can apply to APA as well.
Finally, we focused on using peer review, instructor comments, and other sources to make final revisions to our projects. One thing I discovered here was that you shouldn’t limit yourself to just classmates. I found a knowledgeable friend outside of class that I knew was good at this sort of thing and had her review my WP3 before I made my final revisions. I noted in D12HW8 the value of this in that you can gain a lot of insight by having outside, knowledgeable sources review your work. http://teufelheunden.blogspot.com/2007/11/d12hw8-peer-review-reflection.html Something I think I could have done better here is taking problems or successes I saw in papers I reviewed and applying them to my own. The lessons learned here could be helpful in all walks of life as it puts us in an open-minded mentality and teaches us to consider other people’s opinions.
All in all I think that I’m a pretty strong writer with a decent eye for details. I think I’m good at putting thought into the research I find, coming up with logical conclusions, and presenting them in an order which makes my writing easy to follow. However, I also think that I can get a bit cocky in my writing. To counter this I plan to focus a lot on peer reviews in order to catch anything I might not think of. Also, as with about 99.9% of college students I’m a bit of a procrastinator, though not nearly as bad as some. I need to work on that.
I thought most of the technical sources you showed us this semester were very useful. Del.ic.ious was the first thing that really hit me. I realized the full extent of the usefulness of this site when I started collecting web URL’s for sources I wanted to research. Google Docs is also very useful. Primarily for the ease with which you can do peer review using this application. Citation machines, I think, are also a lifesaver. Though most of them aren’t completely correct, the right ones at least give you a good starting point when doing your MLA citations. This semester’s work has also increased my conviction that computers and spell/grammar check are great.
As you can see I’ve learned a lot this semester. I’ve made strides in all of the course competencies though some were in ways that I wouldn’t quite expect from just looking at them in the syllabus. I think my biggest strides this semester were in organization, structure, and research techniques. Right now though I’m just filled with an acute case of semester-itis. I’m looking forward to finishing this semester and getting some down time before I deploy.

Sincerely,
Alex Williams

P.S. For full WP4 including all WPs with thoughts for review see google docs.

D15HW2 Peer Review Reflection

So...close....to...the end! Nothing much new to report. Pretty much the same as the other peer reviews I've done for this class. A trend I noticed when reviewing other people's papers was a tendency to write WP4 more as a list than a letter. The peer reviews of my project basically consisted of mostly grammatical errors so I'll be using those and a last run through myself to hammer it out before submitting.

I reviewed

Paulette Estrada
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dg3c2vjz_13dvf9zw&hl=en#

Justin Winter
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dd7rj2d8_16f47d88&hl=en#

D13HW7 Deadline Reflection

This week was crazy. Not specifically this class but a combined effort between all my classes, work, and a end-of-semester-itis. My main focus was getting my WP3 finished and turned in. One thing I found that was very rewarding was finding a knowledgeable friend outside of class and having them peer review my paper. Find somebody who is good at this sort of thing and get their input as well. Right now my main focus is figuring out how I want to format WP4. Definitely looking forward to getting it done and finishing up with class.

I Read and Replied To:

Kathy Lacey
D#13, HW#7 Deadline Reflection

Jared Zucker
D13, HW3, Writing Reflection

Stephanne Parizek
D13HW5 reading refections

Justin Winter
Deadline #13 HW #3 WP #3 Reflection

D13HW6 Deadline Reflection Assessment

Looking through the deadlines was interesting because it was like peer reviewing my entire research and writing project. In the earlier deadlines I began to get a feel for the pace I needed to set and I learned how to organize my research and how to use that organization to my advantage. As we moved on into the writing projects I started reaping the benefits of that organization as well as learning how to use organization to put my research and thought into a logical order. I also learned some of the intricacies of things such as writing for a specific audience, writing to accomplish my project goals, and revising my structure to do so. In the most recent deadlines I saw a growing emphasis on review and revision as well as learning a lot of methods on how to do that.

D13HW4 WP Review Assessment

There are several main points I'll hit up for each of the first three writing projects. For WP1 the main emphasis is on ensuring you have everything you need, peer review, and showing enthusiasm for the project so that people will want to read your paper. Go through the requirements before, during, and after writing the proposal to ensure you have everything. Write it in a way that your happy with and which can show your audience that you are passionate about the subject. Finally review it and have peers review it as well to fix structure and grammatical errors as well as getting their feedback. For WP2 the key is organization during research. Ensure that as you research new sources go ahead and do the Annotated Bibliography so that when the time comes to put together your entire annotated bibliography the meat and potatoes of the work is already done. After that just make sure your annotations have some guts to them and make sure your MLA format is correct. For WP3 the key is an outline and peer review. Before writing the paper write a detailed outline so you don't end up lost and vegetating in front of the computer. Ensure the outline is formatted in a logical order and you put information from your sources in wherever you can with your own analysis. After that review review review. Review it yourself, have classmates review it, have a person who's knowledgeable on the subject review it. After that final tweaking you should be good.

D13HW3 WP3 Reflection

To start this project I took all the notes I had taken thus far and made a condensed version of my notes and reviewed it. Then I constructed several drafts of an outline for the paper until I settled on one I liked. After than I wrote the paper. For the most part I stuck to the outline but I made changes and additions where I deemed them necessary. After that I began the review and revision project ending with me submitting the final draft of my paper after having a good friend do a final peer review. For the course portfolio I'm thinking that I'll make a outline for the letter and then get right into it. I'm proud of many parts of my paper. Specifically I'm proud of the structure I settled on as my paper is different than most of my classmate's in that it is mostly an exercise in educated speculation. For a while I was concerned that I might have to much speculation and not enough hard facts but after going through it I decided that it was actually fairly well balanced so I'm not so worried about it any more. During this project I practiced a lot in the area of evidence analysis, structure, and prediction and I'm proud of what I came up with though under no impression that it's perfect. This helped me achieve the second course competency which was to organize writing to support a central idea through unity, coherence, and logical development appropriate to a specific writing context. For my next project I'm going to have to work on the basics of a project portfolio as I've never constructed one before. During this next writing project one of the main course competencies I'll be working on is the Assessment of my own writing strengths and identifying strategies for improvement through instructor conference, portfolio, written evaluation, and/or other methods.

D12HW9 Deadline Reflection

I enjoyed this weeks work. It wasn't too bad, though I didn't see the Peer Reviews till this afternoon which made for a bit of a last minute scramble. From reading and replying to my classmates blogs I got all the usual perks. People resubmitting their drafts several times to Google Docs is kind of agitating as someone is bound to review the wrong revision and their work goes for naught. I wish I had more people peer review my paper though as I'd like more input than just Mr. Adam's when he grades it. I think it's also a shame how many people have dropped as there were several papers I was looking forward to reading about. We are the few, the proud, the survivors of Mr. Adams ENG 102 class! so far...

I read and replied to:

Mike Whipple
D#12, HW#5, Figurative Language

Coralee Harding
D#12, HW#8, Peer Review Reflection

Stephanne Parizek
D12HW5 Figurative Language Proposal

Kathy Lacey
D#12,HW#9 Deadline Reflection

D12HW8 Peer Review Reflection

(See previous post for reviewed papers)

Reviewing my classmates papers was very interesting. I enjoyed looking at their arguments, not just to see what they had, but because it forced me to think about the subject myself. It is to bad a lot of the people who's papers I was looking forward to reading have dropped out. In any case I found some of the paper's very impressive as far as addressing the opposing side's argument. This is perhaps what worries me the most about my paper. I have tried to throw in alternative viewpoints where I can but it's difficult because my paper is written differently then most of my classmates. Most of their papers are clean cut arguments while in mine I'm basically looking into my crystal ball.
NOBODY has reviewed my paper. This makes me very sad. I understand that it is long but COME ON people. I want and look forward to any constructive criticism you may have. Do not let it's length scare you away.
Wait. Waaaaiiiit. Mike Whipple is editing it as I type. Hoorah. Unfortunately, it's late and I'm not going to wait for him to finish. I need my sleep.

D12HW7 Peer Review

I reviewed:

Coralee Harding
WP#3 Final Rough Draft

Justin Winter
WP #3

D12HW5 Figurative Language

1.
As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.

I used this sentence to describe the way that small-scale strikes or skirmishes between coalition and Iranian forces could spiral into a large-scale military conflict. I thought it was a creative way to relate international politics back to the human tendency to allways want vengence to the point where it gets very ugly.

2.
Many Arabs could be "pulled off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel).

Here I used the figurative language, "pulled off the bench." It's a term I have heard in several places now including my International and Domestic Terrorism class. It refers to a situation which causes moderate people, who till that point had been neither largely liberal or largely conservative, to move "off the bench" and into one of those more extreme categories.

D12HW4 Style

Word Choice:

Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country.

First, In the first sentence I ended up using the word "Persian" after changing it from "troublesome." I decided I didn't want to use "troublesome" because it came off as being to biased and I wanted to keep my tone as neutral as I could. I first considered changing it to Iranian but decided against it because I'd already used the word "Iranian" in that sentence. So I finally settled on "Persian" because Iran is in fact a Persian country and I hadn't mentioned that in my writing yet.

Sentence Structure:

a. Initial: However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.

b. Revised: However, the flipside is that hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to gain substantial material support for military operations in Iran.

First, I got rid of "the finding of" because it just didn't seem like proper english to me. Second I changed the structure of the second half of the sentence because I thought it sounded better and I added the word material because I wanted to convey the need to gather support in the form of material and human resources.

Punctuation:

Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran, it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war.

Initially there was not a comma after Iran. I decided to put it in there because I decided the flow of the sentence needed to be paused at that point. It sounds better than going straight into, "it is possible that..."

D12HW3 Second Revision

Once again I caught some more grammatical errors and played around with some different structure. In terms of evidence/analysis I definetely didn't have a problem with to much input from me. By the nature of my research question a very large portion of my paper is my personal opinion, guesswork, and analysis. I was actually a little worried about not putting in enough data from my research but after going through and crossing everything out I realized that I actually had a decent amount of evidence straight out of my research. I also caught a piece of evidence that I forgot to cite back to it's source so I took care of that.


For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective (Masci). The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.

D12HW2 Large Scale Revisions

For the most part I was pretty happy with the introduction, conclusion, point sentences, and the structure of my argument. What I found that I didn't like I changed but for the most part it was just some awry sentence structure. I also caught a few more gramatical errors this time around. The major revisions were that I added a new point to a part of my argument complete with evidence and such, and I added a sentence to my conclusion to cover a point I had wanted to add there.


For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective. The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.

D11HW3 Deadline Reflection

This weeks work was blessfuly quick. I made use of the extra time to run through my paper correcting grammatical and structural errors and making other revisions. I also added the annotated bibliography and added some new sources. Reading and replying to other classmates work was interesting as it showed me some things that my classmates did differently than I as well as showing me some interesting information they've found on their topics.

I read and replied to:

Coralee Harding
D#11 HW#2, Intro's and Conclusions

Justin Winter
Deadline #11 HW #2 2x Introductions and Conclusions

Stephanie Parizek
D11HW3 Deadline Reflection

D11HW2 Intros and Conclusions

My two intro's:

1. Based on the current situation with Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. Evidence and rumors of Iran's support of terrorist groups worldwide as well as concern over their fledgling nuclear program has combined to create an international situation which could, if not handled carefully, spin out of control. Adding this to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and it could become a crisis which could prove disasterous for American's at home and in the international community. Could the United States be headed for the same fate as previous great nations? Could we be the next Rome, Byzantium, or Troy? In a present which is wrought with uncertainty particular care should be taken so that we can secure the best possible future.

2. For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.

My two conclusions:

1. Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.

2. We have discussed likely outcomes and occurences of the Iranian sittuation as well as made some suggestions as to what needs to be done based off the current situation. This is a key phrase, the situation as it is could change drastically in the blink of an eye. International situations such as these envelope a wide range of factors of which just one has the potential to majorly impact all the others. What does the future hold for America. Amidst social reforms, conflict around the world, and presidential elections the future is on the brink. Whether it is the brink of disaster or of victory will soon be decided. We must take care to play an active role in working to secure our nations, and our world's, security

D10HW7 Deadline Reflection

Another busy week. Actually writing the paper was an interesting experience. I didn't strictly follow my outline but I used it as a foundation and made some changes where I thought they'd work out well. The paragraph review assignment was useful in that it gave some important lessons which we can apply during peer reviews. From looking and replying to my other classmates blogs I gained some interesting ideas into some new sources I can use for HW assignments as well as get a look at what everyone else is struggling with. It's been a tough week and that's reflected in the lack of posts I found for this deadline.

I read and responded to:

Brennan Dardis
Deadline #10 HW#6

Stephanne Parizek
D10HW2 Annotated Bibliography

D10HW5 Revised Paragraph

Here is the revised work:

Before:

There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.

After:

There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he stated that the issue of his countries nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retalliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.

This was interesting exercise which I think will be useful especially when done before we start peer reviewing each other's papers. It makes you look past simple structure and grammatical errors and focus on the meat and potatoes of the paper.

D10HW6 Grammar Assignment

For my grammar assignment I reviewed the quick comma usage tips at the OWL site < http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/01/ > to make sure I wasn't doing them wrong. Most of what I read was stuff I already knew but it was interesting seeing some rules that I hadn't seen before such as if you use commas to sepparate more than three clauses in a sentence your grammatically incorrect. I'd never seen that limit before. Anyway I reviewed the conclusion to my research paper and made the following corrections:

Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes(took out a comma here) and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran,(replaced semi colon with comma here) military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities,(added comma here) and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful. The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.

D10HW3 Draft WP3

Here it is. Don't scared cause it's long.

For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus we find ourselves, today, embroiled in conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. My question is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possible occurrence that we will focus on in terms of possible results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. First is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, specifically in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S. and it’s allies with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of goodwill with the troublesome country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until they cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers.” As this lack of communication continues both sides become more stubborn and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are critically important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict as with Iraq it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of the U.S.’ resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, took take years. However there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. A conflict with Iran could easily be seen as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq. It would probably follow much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in dwindling resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not see in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admit defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. It is not a matter of pride but a matter of, at the risk of sounding tyrannical, political power. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Finally, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful resolution. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. It’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution. There are several requirements that much be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution.
The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. They key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and would likely repeat itself in Iran (Ricks). Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better border operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and
Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies too not only back them politically but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus on everyone doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective while U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog, at least more so than the U.S. and Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons.
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people.

D10HW2 Annotated Bibliography

"A Brief Biography of the Life of His Eminence Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran." khamenei.ir.10 July 2006. Institute for Preserving and Publishing Works by Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. 31 Oct. 2007 < http://www.khamenei.ir/EN/home.jsp >.

This is a website I found using google. It was built and maintained by a institute in the Iranian government and as such alot of the information I found in it I consider unreliable. It is a website on the Supreme Leader of Iran. He is essentially a shadowy dictator. The man behind the curtain. Most of what we see is the President, Mahamoud Ahmadinejad. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, is a heavy religious figure as his title of Ayatollah implies and he has a history with the Islamic Revolution serving under Khomenei. What I ended up picking out of the biography were statements of his activities with the Revolution as I figured they would be reasonably trueful. One thing I read that struck me in the biography, and which really pushed home to me the fact that this is a big propoganda website, was a sentence equating satanic activities to American.

Khamenei, Sayyed. "Ayatollah Sayyed Khamenei's Statement."25 Feb. 2006. Aspiring Shia. 1 Nov. 2007 < http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-IjbSK44icqKEbe9dJuBBUbA-?cq=1&p=42 >.

This is a speach that the Iranian Supreme Leader gave last year comenting on fighting that occured in Iraq which affected two holy Shiite shrines. I found this source backed up alot of things I found elseware. Particularly, Khamenei's anti Western and Israel leanings game out in the speach. He never refers to the U.S. directly instead refering to us as "occupying power" or "dominance seeking powers." In his speach the Ayatollah does call on Muslims not to combat each other and he states that Muslims should not be fighting Muslims. It's interesting seeing these words which came out of the horses mouth. When I look at pictures of the Ayatollah you might think he was just a sweet old Grandpa when in reality he is a Islamic revolutionary with a heavy background in military force and anti American leanings.

D9HW7 Deadline Reflection

This week was pretty crazy. It was the first time I was really forced to pull my head out of research gathering and start to think about how I'm going to fit it all together. The biggest difficulty I found was putting it in the format of a pursuasive essay as opposed to an encyclopedia on the wide variety of topics I've been looking at. What it finally came down to was I looked at my research question, "Based on the Current Situation in Iran; What Are Some of The Likely Outcomes, And How Will They Effect The American People?” All my research has been into the first part, the current situation. This weeks assignments forced me to take a comprehensive look at everything I'd gathered and start putting it together into the second part of my question; what are the likely outcomes and how will they effect the American people. I realized that though I could go on forever about the various factors that make up the current situation that wouldn't really answer my research question. The format I finally settled on was going straight into what I think is likely to happen and what it will result in and using the current situation to explain my reasoning. Looking at other people's blogs and replying to them helped me get an idea of how my classmates were dealing with similar issues. I looked primarily at their outlines as that gave me the best overall view on how they were structuring their arguments.

I replied to:

Kathy Lacey
D#9, HW#6 Outline

Jared Zucker
D9, HW6, Outline

Coralee Harding
D#9, HW#6, Outline

Stephann Parizek
D9HW6 Outline Info

D9HW4 Outline

I. Introduction

II. Two Basic Possibilities

1. Military Conflict

A. Likely Causes
- Hard Evidence of Iranian Foul play
• Specifically either evidence of nuclear weapons development or evidence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups in Iraq and else ware
• Hard evidence would give U.S. ability to muster U.N. and other support
- Lack of communication allows situation to deteriorate
• Currently U.S. and many other nations are largely refusing to meet with Iranian officials until they suspend uranium enrichment.
• Both sides getting more and more fed up with each other will eventually lead to conflict. No talking= conflict.
- Small scale strikes spiral out of control
• Troop buildup occurring in Persian Gulf preparing for possible military strikes. Same is happening on Iranian side
• Iran states they will return any aggression
• If punches start flying things will get out of hand and the region will be drawn into conflict

B. Likely Occurrences
- U.N. and Arabic Nations will likely stay largely out of conflict unless evidence of severe hard play
• GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) wary of Iran but warier of joining a conflict which could destabilize the region. In the event of conflict will likely hunker down and hold on for the ride.
• U.N., while more united than usual, still suffers from splits on this issue primarily due to Russia and China’s close economic ties to Iran. U.N. military operations have rarely worked out well.
- Primary reliance on U.S. troops and resources
• Without large-scale assistance from U.N. or other Arabic states the conflict will likely rely on U.S. with perhaps some assistance from coalition and possibly EU or NATO.
• If just a brief conflict could be fine but if turns into longer, larger scale situation like Iraq it will cause problems
- Stretching of U.S. resources
• Still bogged down in Iraq and economy is already suffering. Similar situation in Iran could overstretch our resources.
• Likely large bulk of military would have to be put on deployment until conflict resolved. (Could be years)
• Could result in a draft

- Influx of Insurgents into Iran
• Many middle of the road persons drawn into extremism by massive western based conflict
• Iranian military, specifically Basij and IRGC, geared to fight an insurgency

C. Likely Outcomes
- Both Iraq and Iran Operations likely unsuccessful. Mass pullout. Situation much like Vietnam. All following consequences.
• List various consequences
• Overstretching of military forces and general resources would add up and result in the U.S. pulling out. All other coalition forces would follow.
• Vietnam
- Would result in massively reinforced and funded extremists now free to focus on West.
• Lots of pissed off and angry Arabs, with all their experience, newfound numbers and backing
• Though many would likely be caught up in following struggle many would be available to refocus attacks in Europe and U.S.
- Region likely destabilized.
• Withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces will leave power vacuums, which could result in bloody conflicts.
• Would result in chaos in which terrorism would thrive

D. Important to note
• Possible that coalition occupation in Iran could be shorter and more efficient due to lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan
• This is situation as is. Thousand different things.

2. Requirements for Peace

- Open communications and keep them open
• The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful talks backed by a threat of violence
• Lack of communication was disastrous in Iraq and would repeat with Iran
• Current situation getting nasty because two sides aren’t talking
- Better border operations
• Sincere joint effort by both governments to secure Iranian border and crack down on weapons
• Stepped up operations to counter Iranian support for insurgencies
- Increased Cooperation
• The Iranian and U.S./Coalition Governments need to work closely to resolve issues
- Sincere effort on both sides to resolve outstanding issues could do wonders
- No observed effort on either side will result in increased perceived conviction of guilt
• Iran isn’t doing something behind our back. If they are it must stop.
- Any hard evidence of Iranian guilt in the areas of nuclear proliferation or insurgent support operations will make everything a new ball game.
- If evidence is found and Iran doesn’t immediately cease said operations then military conflict is pretty much assured.

III. What we need to be doing now.

- Repeat keep communications open
- Stepped Intel operations
• This is almost certainly already being done
• Many difficulties with getting good intel on Iran
• Open communications would likely make intel gathering easier
- Gather resources/allies
• It is critical to be prepared in the case of conflict and the sooner preparations are begun the better
• Efforts are already being made in U.N. and other International organizations
• Gathering support internationally critical to taking some of the burden of U.S. in case of conflict.
- Let everybody do what they do best
• The U.N. is likely our best shot at a watchdog for Iran’s nuclear intentions. The IAEA is pretty much the only inspectors the Iranians will put up with. They do however need to be monitored.
• U.S. and coalition forces need to start operations specifically to counter weapons and support coming into Iraq and Afghanistan from Iran.
- Operations to secure weapons and other support coming across Iranian border
• Specifically U.S. and Iraqi forces
• Iran ally of many parts of current Iraqi government
• Balance needs to reached
• Heavy customs and security operations on Iranian border
• Joint operations preferable
• Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence
- Watch for hard evidence
• If conflict occurs hard evidence of Iranian foul play could be the key to gathering support for military operations.
• U.N. and Coalition need to focus on their respective areas.
• Critical: hairline trigger. Especially concerning nuclear weapons.

IV. Conclusion

D9HW5 Cluster

I've ragging for awhile on the complexity of the issue I'm dealing with. Now, once again, it has become apparant to me. I've divided my paper into several sections in order to attempt to answer my research question. As I began listing the applicable areas of my research to each one I realized that pretty much every area applied to every section. An international situation like this consists of thousands of factors all interwoven together to create our present day reality. Just a few changes in the weave can have an astounding effect on the reality. As a result as I clustered the information I found that it was hard to pindown just particular areas to use to answer my various questions. I found that the conclusions I was reaching were the result of the combination of my aquired knowledge on the subject. A big theme in my conclusions was simply looking at international politics. I looked at past actions by the U.S., Iran, and the rest of international community and from those made a good deal of my guesses as to what their future actions would be. I also looked into the reasons for their past decisions and from those decided on some ideas as to what could be changed to positively influence their future decisions. Another difficulty that I found was fitting in opposing arguments. I've looked at alot of opposing arguments in my research. The problem I think is that these arguments were on smaller issues and since what I'm doing is pulling together all these small issues to get a look at the big one I'm leaving alot of these arguments in the dust. I'm going to have to take special care throughout my paper to refer to opposing viewpoints wherever I can.

D9HW6 Research Outline

Current Situation in Iran

I. Iranian Government
A. Structure
Faqih/Supreme Leader (Chief of State) (Essentially elected dictator)
- Must be religious but more importantly politically capable
- Elected by popularly elected religious nationalist “Assembly of Experts”
- Appoints Chief of Judiciary and controls directly

Assembly of Experts (Kind of like electoral college)
- Popularly Elected
- Tested for religious learning and commitment to Islamic Republic
- Must be approved by Guardians Council

President (Replaced Prime Minister) (Second Man) (Public spokesman)
- More power than before
- Subject to faqih in all critical state, security, and foreign policy matters

Guardian Council (just under faqih)
- Religious overseeing council
- 12 appointed (supreme leader) members divided equally between clerics and lay scholars.
- Judicial review and veto power
- Conservative religious watchdog
- Judges the qualifications of those who stand for election to legislative bodies

Discretionary Council
- Resolves disputes between Guardian Council, parliament, and executive branch
- Thirty members appointed by supreme leader
- Resolves issues between ruling powers
• Supreme Leader has enormous power
• Remarkably kin to U.S. in that checks-n-balances and democratic. Chief difference non-separation of church and state and great power to one person.
• Very doubtful anything happens without faqih go ahead or he would crack down on it.

Current Leadership
President → Mahamoud Ahmadinejad
- Extremely anti-West and anti-Israel
- Very overconfident
- May not have support of Iranian government

Current Government
Four Professed Goals at Start
1. Social Justice (opinion)(likely no)
2. Economic Self Sufficiency (failed)
3. Good Economy (opinion/not much change/likely worse)
4. Freedom from Influence of Foreign Powers (Likely succeeding but causes other areas to suffer.

Main View From Revolution: Militant
- Political and cultural revolution
- Theocratic state ruled by and for the clerics
- Violence legitimate means to the ultimate goal
- Supreme Leader
• There are liberal minds which would likely support westernized society but repressed by government.
• Possible Dual reality: Public rigid/Private western

II. Iranian Military
* Roughly Four Branches
* Estimated around 550,000- 600,000

1. Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
- Established by the clerics, first loyalty to the clerics
- Transformed zealot revolutionary militias into military force accountable only to clerics

• 125,00 Strongish
• Secures revolutionary regime
• Provides training support to terrorist groups abroad
• Formed in 1978 revolution
• Operates independently of Regular Armed Forces (though lots of joint operations)
- Constitution gives IRGC responsibility of “preserving the Revolution”
- Also serves as enforcers for Islamic codes/moralities
- Iranian SS
- Runs certain businesses and social institutions

Military Capabilities
- Consists of ground, naval, and aviation troops (well rounded)
- Air forces negligible, most new aircraft go to regular Air Force
- Navy mostly small guerilla patrol boats
- Political influence as well
* Essentially Iran’s Proxy Training and support force

2. Regular Army
- First loyalty to country and government
- About 350,000

Composition
1. Four Corps
2. Four Armored Divisions
3. Six Infantry Divisions
4. Two commando brigades
5. One Airborne Brigade
6. Other smaller independent formations:
- Several small armor units
- An Infantry Brigade
- An Airborne Brigade
- Two or Three special forces brigades
- Five artillery brigade/regiments
- Coastal defense units
- Air Defense Groups
- Between four and six army aviation units
- Logistics and supply units

- Different organization in each division
- Some not well equipped
- Decent Number of Tanks
- High Number of combat helicopters

3. Iranian Navy
• Smallest service
• About 20,000 men mostly riflemen and marines

• Five Major Zones
1. Three on Persian Gulf (Main)
2. One on Caspian Sea (tiny)
3. One on Indian Ocean
• Three battalions of marines
• Entirely of Foreign Origin
• Largest Hovercraft fleets in the world (shallow Persian Gulf waters)
• Suffered a great deal after withdrawal of Western suppliers (spare parts and maintenance)
• Mostly supplied by Eastern sources now: Russia, China
• Mostly small, high speed boats

• Poorly equipped and largely out of action
• Large number of sea mines

4. Iranian Air Force
• Also hard hit by military sanctions
• Around 100,000 personnel
• Started with decent air force but heavily degraded
• Most planes and equipment come from Russia and China

Defense Industry
• Small: mostly ground force equipment
• Growing Air production
• Still Largely Reliant on Foreign Market
• New turn toward Russia and China markets for arms (big demand)

• All services negatively effected by withdrawal from western resources specifically Air Force and Navy

• Considered Unorganized

• Attempts to make up for lacking areas with good missile and rocket capabilities

• Basij- Essentially National Guard. Trained by Revolutionary Guards so would probably fight like insurgency. Could be very dangerous in an occupation.

Supreme National Security Council
• Institution established with an aim to watch over the Islamic Revolution and safeguard the IRI’s national interests as well as sovereignty and territorial integrity.
• Iranian Constitution lays out three responsibilities of SNSC
1. Determine defense/security policies within the framework of general policies laid down by the faqih.
2. Coordinates all activities related to defense/security.
3. Decides how all resources will be used for facing threats (international and domestic.
• President is Chairman of council and subcommittees
• Faqih makes all final calls

Members of SNSC
1. Heads of Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary
2. Chief of the Supreme Command Council of the Armed Forces
3. Official in charge of the Plan an Budget Organization (head treasurer)
4. Two representatives of faqih
5. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of Intelligence
6. A minister concerned with the subject and the highest authorities of the Army and the IRGC

• Reports show that military commanders are not idiots and have been known to ignore unsound advice from inexperienced religious/SNSC reps.
• Two chains of command below SNSC
1. Admin
2. Operational





III. Relationship Between Iran And Nearby Countries

Tension with Israel
Reasons
1. Support of Hezbollah
2. Promised Destruction
3. Stated no intention to attack Israel

Recent War Between IDF and Hezbollah
1. Iran emboldened. Seeing tactics work. (Other Arabs see as well)
2. Might be pissed because Hezbollah fired off most rockets

Arab Resentment Toward West
1. Israel
- Basic eviction of Palestinians and emplacement of Israel is very unpopular amongst Arabs
- Continued Western support of Israel seen bitterly by many Arabs
- Blame on U.N. for creation
2. Perceived Social Corruption of West
3. Western Attempts to Control Middle East
- 1953 coup in Iran of prime minister seen with hostility by many Iranians
4. Perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by U.S. and allies.

Arabs Toward Iran
• Many Arab Neighbors of Iran do Not See United States as a Threat
Gulf Cooperation Council (Kind of a Middle East NATO)
- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
- Weary of Iran for several reasons
1. History of Exporting Revolution makes governments nervous
2. Nuclear capability would give increased leverage in regional policy, intimidation
3. Environmental Concerns involving destabilizing nuclear disasters
4. Don’t want a Israel-Iran conflict. Can’t demand stop to Iran when Israel
5. U.S. military action unpopular with nationals. Possibility of lashing out at neighbors
• Israel will not likely allow Iran to gain nukes without fight
• In case of conflict other Arab states likely neutral, at least officially
• Fall of Taliban and Saddam creates power vacume
• Danger of Israeli and Iran conflict

IV. U.N. Attitude Toward Iran

September 25- Iranian President Vows to Ignore Security Council Measures
1. Stated agreement has been reached with IAEA and matter is now closed. (Definitely Not)
2. Stated will not follow resolutions of Security Council claiming it is a pawn of the “Arrogant Powers”
3. West seeking broader sanctions
4. Ahmadinejad makes big attack on U.S. culture.
5. Still wishes to see Israel gone though claims through peaceful means. (yeah right)

September 27- Iranian-IAEA agreement details.
- Essentially this agreement states the plan and order for the IAEA and Iran to resolve all of their outstanding issues in terms of unanswered questions.
- The agreement states that after the process outline within is finished the IAEA will have no further problems with the Iranian nuclear program.
- This essentially means, assuming the Iranians follow through and/or aren’t doing something behind the IAEA’s back, that the U.N. and U.S. lose their credibility in attacking Iran economically, militarily, and politically.
- Report might not hold back U.S. claiming rumors of foul play

• Prior to IAEA found Iran to be holding back and behaving suspiciously
• Fear that other countries will follow example
• Split in support between economic supporter of Iran, primarily Russia and China, which has traditionally paralyzed U.N.
• However, Iran’s cheating of the NPT has created a more unified opinion within the U.N. (treaty)
U.N. Structure
General Assembly
- All nations have 1 vote.
- Overseeing Operations
- Considering non-binding resolutions on international issues
- Elects members of Security Council (not nations)
Security Council
- Maintaining International Peace
- Authorizing Economic and Military Sanctions
- Approving Use of Force to restore peace
- Choices of nations to ensure that every council decision was supported by globe’s strongest nations.

Large Reasons for Ineffectiveness of U.N.
- Different Superpowers supporting opposing sides
- One superpower vetoes parts of intervention and missions become to narrowly defined.
- Many Instances of American or NATO led aggressive plans getting the job done where U.N. doesn’t: Kosovo, Bosnia,
- Going into Iraq without U.N. approval severely discredited
- Many peacekeeping missions are abandoned after minimal losses

More Effective Method of Peacekeeping
1. Superpower goes in and puts down opposition
2. Peacekeepers come in after to keep the peace

• Suggestions for Permanent Peace Keeping Force to make peacekeeping operations better funded and more able to rapidly respond.
• Opponents state wouldn’t work unless backed by superpowers and when superpowers are aligned it’s unnecessary anyway.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (UN Nuclear Watchdog)
- Nations seeking nuclear capabilities must follow certain safeguards and allow IAEA inspections to ensure lack of weapons development.
- Many nations doing it in secret or in spite of.
- Too openhanded.


V. U.S. Attitude Toward Iran

• U.S. policy of not negotiating with those it considers terrorists has not always held true.
• Important to bear in mind that radicals are a minority
• Past attempts to resolve issues indicate that some Iranians at least wish to go into talks with the U.S.
• Current situation in Middle East has emboldened Iran

Intelligence on Iran
• Difficult do to atmosphere in Iran
• Several Methods Known
1. Iranians in other Arab Countries
2. General Intelligence from other countries
3. Intelligence from American Allies in and around region
4. Captured Insurgents or Iranian detainees
5. Iranian Exiles (Chalabis)

Criticism
• Scattered
• U.S. Intel failure in Iraq
• Closely resembles said lack of intel
• Difficulty Understanding Iranian decision making apparatus
• Hard to tell who has a hand in what

• Important is officials making good policy decisions based on limited intelligence



VI. Iranian Influence on Iraq

Iranian Goals in Iraq
- Iran has close ties to many prominent Shia militias in Iraq

5 Theoretical Iranian Goals for Iraq
• Prevent the emergence of an Iraq dominated by Arab-Sunnis that might threaten Iran.
• Promote Iran’s economic and religious interests in Iraq (several Shia holy shrines are located in Iraq). 

• Prevent the emergence of a separate independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Such a state might encourage the Kurds in Iran to follow suit. 

• Prevent a decisive US victory. Such an outcome would improve the US image in the Middle East and could encourage Washington to repeat the experience of “regime change” in Iran. Keeping American troops fighting in Iraq reduces the chances of a US attack on Iran. 

• Prevent a full-scale civil war in Iraq. Such a war would threaten the Shia influence inside Iraq, destabilize Iran, and antagonize surrounding Sunni-Arab states.

• Iranian President states chaos in Iraq is bad for Iran as it is their neighbor and Shiite government already in place. States U.S. is looking for a scapegoat.
• Iraq severely uncomfortable with tensions

VII. Iran’s Nuclear Program

• See Iranian-IAEA agreements in U.N. view of Iran section
• Iran has shown a tendency to defy U.N. and IAEA mandates as well as a history of supporting terrorist groups which combines to make everyone nervous about their nuclear intentions
• U.N. waiting on November IAEA report
• Development of nuclear weapons is not strategically very intelligent for Iran right now which makes their behavior all the more troubling
• Iran has defied the NPT treaty which it signed which demands that countries seeking nuclear power must be transparent


VIII. Effect of International Pressure on Iran

• Hard to tell with lack of knowledge of life in Iran

Several Possible Theories
1. Iranian government fully committed to winning international standoff
2. Reemergence of liberal power in response to failure of current government
3. Iran being backed into corner makes more dangerous and prone to rash action

Possible Outcomes

I. Conflict (Could become necessary)
II. Peace (Obviously preferred option)

Effects on American People

I. If peace not much of effect. Focus still on Iraq
II. Many consequences if conflict such as
- Higher deficit
- Suffering of Economy
- Draft
- Increased international anger towards Americans

This will be difficult to read, but the syllabus said post it so here it is. My word version is a lot prettier and easier to look at. This was a useful step because I had to go through my research notes so far and start pulling out the main points. The result is this condensed version of my research notes which are more than twice as long as this. My next steps will be structuring my paper's argument using this information.