Overview of Night by Elie Wiesel

Written by Elie Wiesel, Night is a concise and intense account of the authors experience in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust. The memoir provides a good starting point for discussions about the Holocaust, as well as suffering and human rights. The book is short—just 116 pages—but those pages are rich and lend themselves to exploration. Use these 10 questions to keep your book club or class discussion of ​Night  challenging and interesting. *Spoiler Warning: Some of these questions reveal important details from the story. Be sure to finish the book before reading further in this article Night Discussion Questions These 10  questions should start some good conversation. Many of them include mention of pivotal plot points, so your club or class may want to explore those as well.   At the beginning of the book,  Wiesel tells the story of Moishe the Beadle. Why do you think none of the people in the village, including Wiesel, believed Moishe when he returned?What is the significance of the yellow star?  Faith plays an important role in this book. How does Wiesels faith change? Does this book change your view of God?How do the people Wiesel interacts with strengthen or diminish his hope and desire to live? Talk about his father, Madame Schachter, Juliek (the violin player), the French girl, Rabbi Eliahou and  his son, and the Nazis. Which of their actions touched you the most?What was the significance of the Jews being separated into right and left lines upon their arrival in camp?Was any section of the book particularly striking to you? Which one and why?At the end of the book, Wiesel describes himself in the mirror as a corpse gazing back at himself. In what ways did Wiesel die during the Holocaust? Does the memoir give you any hope that Wiesel ever start ed living again?Why do you think Wiesel titled the book Night? What are the literal and symbolic meanings of night in the book?How does Wiesels writing style make his account effective?Could something like the Holocaust happen today? Discuss more recent genocides, such as the situation in Rwanda in the 1990s and the conflict in Sudan. Does Night teach us anything about how we can react to these atrocities? A Word of Caution   This is a difficult book to read in several ways, and it can prompt some very provocative conversation. You may find that some members of your club or your classmates are reluctant to wade into this, or conversely, that they get pretty fired up about issues of genocide and faith. Its important that everyones feelings and opinions be respected, and that the conversation prompts growth and understanding, not hard feelings. Youll want to handle this book discussion with care.

The Theme Of Death In Othello and A Dolls House Essay...

nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The theme of death is present in many works of literature. It is given metaphors and cloaked with different meanings, yet it always represents an end. Every end signifies a new beginning, and every death gives rise to a new birth. Physical death â€Å"...is mere transformation, not destruction,† writes Ding Ming-Dao. â€Å"What dies is merely the identity, the identification of a collection of parts that we called a person. What dies is only our human meaning† (49). Figuratively speaking, death symbolizes a change, an interruption or cessation of regular routine. In this sense, death can be viewed as a more positive occurrence, because change leads to new experience, which, in turn, leads to knowledge and a better†¦show more content†¦Thus, when confronted with a mental battle, his logical defense isn’t strong enough. Othello loses because sentiment beats his rationality. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The final scene in Othello is loaded with deaths. Every character that died in the play was a victim of Iago’s fraudulent plot. Iago slew Roderigo and Emilia to maintain the frame around his scheme. He killed to keep them silent, thinking that he could still retain his cover. Iago was foul, because he did harm to others only to satisfy his own appetite. His plot ended in the most unfortunate way, and it’s end didn’t justify the means, because he got caught. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Othello slew Desdemona for honor and justice. Although he was wrong, his action can be somewhat justified, as his purpose was understandable. Othello was already dead inside before he committed suicide. The difference in his character before and after the temptation scene is remarkable. Iago literally tore Othello apart and rebuilt him, instilling in him a whole new set of facts and ideas. Othello killed himself when he realized the truth, because his old self was already gone, not to mention the love of his life. His suicide followed the instant that he stepped out of delusion, and his death was an awakening, because it shattered the misconception of truth. Othello’s death concluded the play, clearing up every lie that Iago had woven. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The theme of death in Henrik Ibsen’s AShow MoreRelatedShakespeare Sonnet 291485 Words   |  6 Pagesexaggerating his love as being last a long time. I feel this is an exaggeration because the sun can’t melt rock. If so, it will take an extremely long time. Symbol/Theme/Metaphor †¢ In the poem â€Å"Mother to Son† the writer uses objects to show obstacles in her life that she had to overcome and never gave up. This ties into the theme that reminds me to never give up despite the obstacles in life. This is shown in the quote, â€Å"So boy, don’t you turn back.† Then Hughes uses the metaphor, â€Å"And life forRead MoreEssay Prompts4057 Words   |  17 Pagesyour understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary. You may select a work from the list below or another novel or play of comparable literary merit. Alias Grace Middlemarch All the King’s Men Moby-Dick Candide Obasan Death of a Salesman Oedipus Rex Doctor Faustus Orlando Don Quixote A portrait of the Artist as a Young Man A Gesture Life Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead Ghosts TheRead MoreFacilitating Learning and Assessment in Practice3273 Words   |  14 PagesI was exposed to a bevy of literary compositions such as Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, Huxley’s Brave New World, Dante’s Inferno, Hawthorne’s House of the Seven Gables and The Scarlet Letter, Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Death of a Salesman, Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Shakespeare’s MacBeth and Hamlet, and numerous examples of poetry by Whitman, Wordsworth, the BrowningsRead MoreHumanities Test4641 Words   |  19 Pagesare dangerous to society. False 13.   Shakespeares five great tragedies include: Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, and: Romeo and Juliet. 14.   The plays of Chekhov feature: Naturalism pg 247-249 15.   Which of the following conventions is seldom found in Elizabethan theaters: Soliloquy or Elizabeth’s Sonnet 16. Know the plot summary of Oedipus Rex. Antigone: Creon condemns both Antigone and Ismene to death. Haemon, Creon’s son and Antigone’s betrothed, enters the stage. Oedipus the King: Oedipus naturallyRead MoreEvolution or Revolution - Recurring ideas in Ibsen, ONeill and Shepard3024 Words   |  13 PagesEvolution or Revolution? Recurring themes, ideas and conventions in the dramas of Ibsen, ONeill and Shepard. Throughout the history of drama, playwrights have appropriated the ideas of their predecessors for their own use, sometimes building on them and making the idea their own. American drama is no exception. American drama has its roots firmly entrenched in modern European drama, this is illustrated through the influence of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen on American playwright Eugene ONeillRead MoreHow to Read Lit Like a Prof Notes3608 Words   |  15 Pagesuse what is common in a culture as a kind of shorthand. Shakespeare is pervasive, so he is frequently echoed. b. See plays as a pattern, either in plot or theme or both. Examples: i. Hamlet: heroic character, revenge, indecision, melancholy nature ii. Henry IV—a young man who must grow up to become king, take on his responsibilities iii. Othello—jealousy iv. Merchant of Venice—justice vs. mercy v. King Lear—aging parent, greedy children, a wise fool 7. †¦Or the Bible a. Before the mid 20th century

What extent is it accurate to claim that Australians Free Essays

Australians are committed to a ;fair go’ and that they belong to a classless society? Since Australia opened its doors to the rest of the world it has been widely regarded as a land of ‘golden opportunity well endowed in resources with a small population; it appeared to be an escape from the rigid aristocratic ruling of European nations (Furze, 2008: 349). For such a long time many Australians have been reluctant to recognize that social classes do in fact exist within our society and that these classes perpetuate inequality. To claim that all Australians are committed to a fair go’ would be ignorant, and I will explore in this discussion the barriers that prohibit Australians from being equal. We will write a custom essay sample on What extent is it accurate to claim that Australians or any similar topic only for you Order Now I will begin by providing an understanding of class constructs and stratification, I will then go on to highlight the Inequalities Inherent in different spheres of Australian society and how these Inequalities are products of a class hierarchy. I have chosen to concentrate on healthcare; education and the legal system for these are resources that all citizens should have equal access to. Class is a significant force in all societies, understanding class is crucial if we are to see how groups of people within our society have different experiences. Social stratification refers to the way society is organized within hierarchical layers (Furze, 2008:320). It is impossible to live in Australia without coming to realize that these different social classes are employed in deferent types of Jobs, live in different suburbs, attend different schools, receive different incomes and experience crucial differences in privilege and inequality (McGregor, 1997: 2). As we begin to investigate how social, lattice and economic resources are distributed the disparities between groups becomes apparent- the nature of stratification creates a systematic and enduring pattern of Inequality. (Habits Walter, 2009:2) The Inequalities that arise from class differences are largely based on constraints to access of resources; one of these resources is healthcare. It is evident that health disparities within Australia are linked to different income groups. Lifestyle factors attributed to ill health such as poor diets, drugs and alcohol are most prominent in low income groups and minorities such as the Indigenous. These groups are socially disadvantaged and therefore have limited access to resources such as housing, health information and education. For these reasons, studies have found that pregnant aboriginal women are at a high risk of birthing underweight babies- contributing to a higher infant mortality rate, high rates of morbidity with 20 years less life expectancy than non Indigenous Australians and higher rates of alcohol abuse and self harm (Furze, 2008: 314). Health risks are not just limited to minority groups however, blue collar workers also experience significant occupation related Issues; mining and Intensive Barbour as well as exposure to toxic substances Is likely to cause subsequent Illness. Contested due to its inaccessibility. The Federal, State and Territory governments share the responsibility of publicly funded healthcare and also provide Medicare- a healthcare system that all wage earners pay a levy toward. Recently however, there has been a growth in private health care investment illustrated by a rise in private hospital beds from 24439 in 2003 to 26988 in 2006 (Furze, 2008:317). Citizens are being encouraged to take out private health care for better and quicker treatment, forever, this causes an ethical debate as public waiting lists are profoundly long and yet private health care is unaffordable by many. It is evident then, that class placement determines opportunity and creates barriers to achieving equal access to healthcare. Another sphere of Australian society divided by class stratification is education and schooling. In many ways education and knowledge are the keys to a prosperous and successful life; however it is not possible for everyone to access this valuable resource (Habit’s and Walter, 2009:149). The shift of government funding room public schools to private schools means that a child’s class background easily distorts their educational path. As private schools began to emerge, upper class parents would send their children to private school due to the preferred prestige and elite status they were associated with. More recently however, the decision to enroll children in private educational institutions reflects the decline the educational quality provided by public schools. The government have turned to ‘economic rationalism’ where their focus is no longer on committing to maximizing general elf through the development of public resources but by operating on economic efficiency (Furze,2008:255). For this reason, private schools have been advantaged and public schools left behind. What is most significant about this change is that it generates socioeconomic inequality; parents with lower incomes cannot afford to send their children to private school and this subsequently reproduces the stratification system. Socioeconomic status has further implications within the education system; this is particularly evident within the low socioeconomic groups and indigenous community. Education attrition rates for these groups are as low as 14. 5%; this is significantly low compared to a 76. 4% obtained by higher socioeconomic groups (Furze, 2008:252). Students are sorted by ability and performance indicators through standardized testing; these tests routinely consign Aboriginals to a hard competition for Jobs, income and social mobility (Furze, 2008:261). Aboriginal children concentrated in rural areas suffer inequitable access to education, particularly as schools in remote areas have low achievement levels and staffing problems. In 2004 only 39. 5% of Aboriginals progressed to year 12 whilst 6. 8% of non indigenous students did (Furze, 2008: 263). Social inequalities and class implications are reproduced academically as wealthy schools continue to be subsidized and children of lower socioeconomic status remain disadvantaged. Substantial evidence of class related inequality also exists within the political sphere, lower socioeconomic groups and minorities possess limitations to accessing and actively participating in this sphere in comparison to upper class citizens who are able to actively participate. Great controversy surrounds the overrepresented of Indigenous and lower class citizens in Australia; discriminatory attitudes are prevalent toward these groups due to their higher rates of unemployment. Low levels disenfranchisement and a lack of knowledge (McGregor, 1997; 76) Relative poverty, poor health standards and a lack of educational and social opportunities have underpinned greater Aboriginal representation amongst criminal offenders. â€Å"Aborigines, it is said, make up one per cent of the general population, but nearly 30 per cent of prison in mates,† (Wolcott Dowse, 2004: 253). This statement is echoed by statements of the Australian Law Reform Commission which claims the Aborigines re 29 times more likely to be imprisoned that non Aborigines. Wolcott Dowse, 2004: 256) As laws of a society are connected with the dominant cultural attitudes of society, it seems the inherent bias of Australian Judicial system is ethnocentric. The ALARM have also alluded to the, ‘many instances [that] exist when Aboriginals have been imprisoned, fined or otherwise sentenced without having understood their rights,’ (Wolcott Dowse, 2004: 259). This can be attributed ag ain to the lack of education available to this community and the lack of access to legal aid due to financial constraints. For Australia to be committed to a fair go’ all citizens should possess the same standard of access and equity in the legal system, however, the implications of class inequality prevent this from occurring. We can be certain that class divisions do exist in Australian society, and that these divisions limit one’s entitlement to a fair go. ‘ Myths of equality aside, the evidence is quite clear that in Australia, as in every other capitalist system, success depends very strongly on one’s socioeconomic status (Hillier, 1981 :214); it plays a pivotal role in determining access to political, social and economic resources . How to cite What extent is it accurate to claim that Australians, Papers

Is Patient Diplomacy the Best Approach to Iran’s Nuclear Program free essay sample

The idea of Iran developing a nuclear weapon has undoubtedly sparked up an international debate on both sides of the isle. While many in the west debate about which actions to take to prevent the development of the bomb or if Iran is even developing the bomb other countries like Russian and China have been reluctant to criticize. From a western perspective we have to decide whether or not a patient diplomacy is the best approach to Iran’s nuclear problem or not. The consequences of attacking Iran could prove to be just as disastrous as not attacking Iran and being threatened by ban attack. In â€Å"Taking Side† two scholars on this issue debate this very question. Christopher Hemmer, from â€Å"Responding to a Nuclear Iran† and Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large for the opinion journal â€Å"Commentary† argue on both sides of the issue. This is a general overview of the situation, a summary of each authors main points and a conclusion based on my own opinion. The Non Proliferation act of 1968 was created to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. 5 percent of the world’s countries signed it. Non nuclear countries agreed to not make or accept nukes from anyone. Countries that had them could not build or share them. The International Atomic Energy Agency was created by the UN to inspect countries to ensure nuclear facilities were operating under peaceful terms but the NPT hasnt been entirely successful. India and Pakistan tested nukes in 1998 and Israels nuclear capability is an open secret. None of those countries signed the NPT in 1968. North Korea did sign the treaty in 1970 but violated it in the 1990s when it started developing nukes and more recently in 2006 when they tested one. Iran also signed the NPT in 1970 but was ruled by a pro western monarch named Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He was overthrown in 1979 and fled the country. Soon after the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomiena who rejected western values and influence came into power and immediately began to purge the state of all western influences. Iraq and Iran went to war for around 8 years in the 1980s. In that war Iraq used chemical weapons which triggered Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They believed Iraq had nuclear ambitions and feared western domination from the US. These fears coupled with their long term goals of becoming a global powerhouse and hegemonic force in the region fueled them to start thinking about attaining nuclear weapons. Bush labeled Iran as one of the axis of evil who promoting terrorism. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The US asked for cooperation from the global community to help prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon. The EU-3: France, Germany and the UK tried to work with Iran in order to dial down their ambitions. Iran insisted that their nuclear program was a peaceful one and they had a sovereign right to develop nuclear power. The IAEA overwhelming voted to refer the matter to the UN Security Council. The EU-3 has become increasingly critical of Iran and their nuclear ambitions and tension is increasing. Christopher Hemmet believes a militaristic strategy to disarm Iran would damage the USs position in the region and that the consequences would outweigh the benefits while Norman Podhoretz believes that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would set the stage for the outbreak of nuclear war. Yes, â€Å"Responding to a nuclear Iran† Hemmet believes that Iranian nuclear attainment would certainly pose several different problems for the US but military action and doing nothing at all are not the only options on the table. They can be met through sanctions, containment, engagement, an active policy of deterrence, and the reassurance of American allies in the region. America has 3 strategic interests in the Persian Gulf: maintaining the flow of oil into the world markets, preventing any hostile state from dominating the region and minimizing any terrorist threat. A nuclear Iran must be addressed by a policy that minimizes any damage to the oil production, transportation infrastructure and negates an Iranian bid for regional hegemony. It must be weighed against the potential damage it will do to the US anti terrorism network the US has built in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hemmet states that it should also minimize any threat of nuclear attack on the US. Hemmet suggests the â€Å"end state solution† for Iran should be one that makes Iran an integral part of the global economy, at peace with its neighbors, and not supportive of terrorist organizations. Though, at the moment, America isnt looking to directly establish a democracy some form of democratic structure would be inevitable for reform. The Islamic republic is becoming increasingly anti-American and anti-Zionist so a regime evolution would have to happen if American long term interests are to be achieved. An attack on Iran would damage American interests in the region. Though, an attack would deliver a great blow to Iranian nuclear ambitions, Hemmet warns that the costs would outweigh the benefits. An attack on Iran would send seismic shock waves through the global economy at a time when oil prices are already too high. Because Iran relies heavily on their oil exports and would be unlikely that they would withhold them from the global markets, however, they could disrupt transportation between the Strait of Hormuz and attack US allied oil structures. Hemmet claims a direct attack on Iran would verify Osama Bin Laden’s doctrine about how the US is at war with Islam. It would damage Americas war on terrorism because it would seem like Osama was right because America supports Israel and its nuke, recognizes India as a nuclear state and is negotiating with North Korea on theirs. Hemmet believes an attack on Iran would undermine Americas nation building attempts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iranians haven’t been very helpful during this time but an attack on Iran could encourage Iranians and their sympathizers in Lebanon and Hezbollah to make Americas nation building increasingly difficult. An attack on Tehran would damage the US long term goal of reform within the regime. History teaches us that direct military attack only bolsters the position of the current regime. To think that an attack on Iran would encourage Iranians to overthrow the government is, in Hemmet’s opinion, delusional. A Preventative attack option would only produce a temporary result, according to Hemmet. The attack would and could only be on known nuclear sites. There could be others we dont know about. An attack might halt current efforts but they might just begin to rebuild what was damaged and the US would have to face the same threat years later. Though a regime change could, in theory, bring about a plethora of positive results it is not currently within US capacity to do so. With US funds already spread out over Iraq and Afghanistan a nation building attempt in Iraq would be the epitome of overreaching according to Hemmet. Iran is much bigger and has a stronger sense of nationalism than Iraq. It would be too costly. Hemmet exclaims that if Iran was going to nuke America it would be because they attempted a regime change. The rule is that once a country obtains the nuclear weapon capabilities regime change is out of the question because of the threat of nuclear retaliation. This is why countries like North Korea and Iran want the nuke. The overriding concern about Iranian nuclear attainment is the threat of an attack on America or its allies. But the threat of annihilation by nuclear retaliation as served as a powerful deterrent in years past with Russia and America in the past and more recently with India and Pakistan. According to Hemmet, the question is whether or not the regime in Tehran is deferrable. If it is, then deterrence is far more beneficial than a preventative attack. Supporters of preventative measures claim Iran is a nation of religious zealots who would accept apocalyptic demise before being deterred. Many believe, based on Iranian foreign policy history that Iran is smart enough to understand that a nuclear response would be problematic without going into all the details of their ideology. Though the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad is cause for concern but, in the context of history, it is very similar to the rhetoric of Russian and Chinese leaders of the past. Hemmet explains that people believed these leaders would be impervious to the affects of retaliatory attacks but eventually nothing happened. President Ahmadinejad has no power over the military, that power is given to the Supreme Leader and Ayatollah Ali Khameni has distanced himself from Ahmadinejads rhetoric. To counter those outbursts one would just have to look at Iran’s pragmatic approaches to foreign policy. Khameni has said that nukes are UN-Islamic. Iran has made many pragmatic decisions to ensure their national interest. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran did not attempt to export its revolution to parts of the broken state. They understood it would be more beneficial to them to work with Russia. They even dismissed the war in Chechnya as an internal Russian matter. Similar calculations led Iran to support Christian Armenia over Muslim Azerbaijan. After the 1991 Gulf war, Iran did not push for a Shia revolution in Iraq fearing the outcome would be too dangerous and destabilizing. Hemmet also highlights that following its isolation during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran worked vigorously to improve its relationship with its gulf neighbors. Hemmet believes Iran’s â€Å"antipathy towards the America and Israel is not great enough that they would risk nuclear war. † Iran has reached out to America with its dealings in Afghanistan and even offered their airfields and ports. While they showed distain for the Iraq war they have recognized the importance of overthrowing Saddaam Husseins regime. Hemmet claims that, â€Å"all of this is said not to discount the policy differences between Washington and Tehran but to reveal that Iran is not run by religious zealots rather by pragmatists who have Israels national interests in mind. † Some claim Iran would give nukes to terrorists but Hemmet explains that the fact that Iran deals with terrorist indirectly, directly reflects their understanding of deterrence. They wouldnt risk losing control over their nukes and being blamed by the global community. Making sure Iran does not use its nuclear power as a tool of coercive diplomacy on US allied interests in the region is very important. They will be emboldened to spread their influence throughout the region but coercive diplomacy has not proven to be successful when applied to states that already have nuclear power. Containing Iranian influence in the region is the cause for major key. Hemmet suggests, advancing Americas long term goals of Iran becoming a part of the global economy, improving its relationships with its neighbors, and not supporting terrorism, America must develop a policy of direct engagement. America broke diplomatic ties with Iran in the 1980s during the hostage situation. Hemmet explains that diplomatic engagement should not be viewed as a compromise or as a victory for Iran, its part of conducting normal business in American foreign policy. Any victorious reaction from Iran would not and should not deter the US from advancing its long-term security goals. Hemmest suggests to those who would argue against diplomacy with hostile nations that diplomatic relations with hostile states is just as important as relations with allies. This was proven during the cold war. It would be harder to contain and deter Iran without diplomatic relations. Given the number of growing youth and the negative stewardship of Iranian government, the time is ticking on the leadership of that country. Though a democratic revolution isnt brewing the fact remains there are internal issues. Opening Iran to the global markets could minimize that threat. Including them in the World Trade Organization is one of the many incentives provided to Iran in response to their nuclear ambitions. Hemmet believes such incentives could advance America’s long term foreign policy goals in the region regardless if Iran gets the nuke or not. Iranian is a struggling state and they are acutely susceptible to sanctions. Sanctions in broad strokes would damage the Iranian economy and affect the entire country. This could increase nationalism and hurt America’s position in the Middle East. Such sanctions, if taken, would have to be calculated. At a minimum, China, Russia, the EU and the US would have to be involved. Hemmet states that it would have to target the regime only without damaging the rest of the economy and specifically attribute such sanctions to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Such sanctions would be difficult for many different reasons. China depends on Iran for energy and Russia depends on Iran for its market supplies. Sanctions would be a tough sell to Beijing and Moscow. Smart sanctions are difficult to apply to Iran because their domestic politics are not very transparent. Also, Iran has a history of external threats to its state and would view such sanctions as just another attempt to harm their nation. Hemmet is quoted as saying, Engagement has proven to be a surer path to regime change than economic isolation. Reassuring Iran’s neighbors that the US has their security in mind could help advance American goals beyond simple containment. It could strengthen the oil marketing infrastructure and encourage intelligence cooperation on the war on terror. Stronger security ties could prevent the proliferation of nuclear ambitions in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt are among those states that might be willing to increase their nuclear abilities if Iran developed the nuke. Egypt has tolerated Israels nuclear program for 30 years and Libyas weapons programs as well, so Cairo will be â€Å"less likely to change their calculations. Turkey wants to be accepted into the EU and is a part of NATO so Ankara will be less likely to pursue the nuke. Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council will most likely strengthen ties to the US in an attempt to bolster their position over Iran. Hemmet believes the US should increase security around Iran’s neighbors by telling them that as long as Iran is contained, a preventative military attack will not incur. Hemmet claims that, â€Å"although Iran’s neighbors would rather not see a nuclear Iran they would much rather see that than a US-Iranian conflict. Security should be architectures in the design of containment and deterrence. â€Å" No, â€Å"Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands† Podhoretz begins by explaining how no one believes the Iranian uranium program is peaceful. Iran has more oil and natural gas than it needs so it doesnt need to develop anymore to sustain its state. Iran has been named the â€Å"leading sponsor of terrorism† even by the state department. Since Iran wants to become a regional hegemon their attainment of nukes could turn into a grave and destructive nuclear-arms race according to Podhoretz. Nuclear weapons would, according to Podhoretz, give the Mullahs the ability to achieve their evil goal of wiping Israel off the map. Podhoretz explains that Iran isnt just a regional threat. They want to turn Europe into a Muslim state and he believes they would use intimidation to do so. Podhoretz states that Iran would also show greater ambition in their quest for a world without the united states not because they have the ability to wipe America off the map but because America would back down from Iran in an effort to prevent nuclear war. The universal decision of applying â€Å"carrots and sticks† diplomacy by the EU and the US was applied to and rejected by Iran. After this, Bush announced that air strikes on Iran were still an option as a last resort. Podhoretz explains that the world was split on this issue. French President Sarkozy was with Bush but German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown professed that more diplomacy and sanctions would eventually work. Podhoretz was unhappy with the NIE report in 2003 which stated that Iran was working on a â€Å"cost effective approach rather than a rush to weapons approach. This report was debated by stating that Iran had no international pressure to stop in 2003, Iraq and Afghanistan had just been invaded by the U. S and Iran was probably just acting out of fear because they assumed they would be invaded next. Also, Podhoretz points out that Iran’s history shows that Iran’s theological ideologies far outweigh that of any cost effective approach. Richelson believes that some states cant be negotiated with and any talks about peace on the nuclear issue is just a â€Å"stall tactic† until they obtain what they profess to be reframing from. The point was made that if Iran was to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons how else could they accomplish the prestige, security and hegemonic influence in the region? Podhoretz explains that the climate of cognition when applied to Iran and the nuke shifted from John McCain’s stance that, the only thing worse than bombing Iran was Iran getting the bomb to the only thing worse than Iran getting the bomb was bombing Iran. This is attributed to inaccurate NIE reports and the concession by even some of his most critical opponents that diplomacy has failed in that region. Podhoretz would argue that deterrence wasnt possible when engaging with a regime run by islamofascist revolutionaries who not only believe in spreading their ideology over how they treat their own citizens but were also willing to die for it. Podhoretz claims that MAD, mutually assured distraction would not work as a deterrent to Iran. Iranian leaders in the path have suggested that they would bomb Israel even at the cost of suffering damages on their own end. Iran has been known to kill its own people in the future and would think they were doing their citizens a favor by providing them with a short-cut to heaven. Podhoretz believes that the two stances of we could live with an Iranian bomb and there may not be an Iranian bomb to live with has ruled out any possibility of militaristic action and would eventually put an end to any nonmilitary action as well. Podhoretz warns that something must be done now because Israel would have great cause to launch a Pre-emotive attack and so would Iran which would make nuclear war inevitable. He contends that George Bush had it right initially and was sold short by appeasing reports and diplomacy. Podhoretz believes that the next President should pick up where Bush left off and launch an attack on Iran lest the outbreak of war be as inescable then as it is avoidable now. Conclusion Many things have changed since these positions were taken but the overall theme has remained consistent. The EU and UN have continually pressured Iran to halt all nuclear activities pertaining to weapon manufacturing but Iran has reiterated their position explaining that they are only developing nuclear technology for peaceful means. Iran cooperation with the IAEA has been inconsistent. Iran will only allow the inspection of certain areas and claim sovereignty when asked about others. This has led to great frustration among the European global community which has, as a result, slapped sanction on Iran. The Security Council sanctioned a full embargo on the importing of weapons to Iran but these sanctions have proven to be unsuccessful in deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. China and Russian are on the Security Council with veto power and have not supported Americas sanctions on Iran. While the IAEA claims that Iran has enough enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons it is unwillingly to claim that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. Between the gridlock and the concern from the Israelis it is possible the America would back Israeli attacks on nuclear sites and facilities. Iran has begun to remanufacture its Shabab-3 Missile which would carry nuclear war heads an estimated distance of 1,250 miles which would put Israel within its range. President Barack Obama has tried to engage Iran much more than the Bush administration but even he has said that a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to the US and its allies and he would not take any options of the table. If it is a direct threat to America, its citizens and its allies then a militaristic option would become inevitable. While I believe that patient diplomacy is the correct way to approach the issue to Iran’s nuclear program, I also believe that a direct threat to American interests must be suppressed at all costs. Since Iran denies that any uranium enrichment is being pursued for peaceful purposes I agree with the strategy of providing Iran with the end result of whatever it is claiming to pursue in the area of energy in exchange for their shutting down of all uranium enrichment and nuclear power facilities. A solution endorsed by many is a complete ban of enrichment and reprocessing in Iran to build confidence, with a collateral benefit of demonstrating that noncompliance carries a price. † (Squassoni, 20 JUL 2006) If they continue to choose to reject this offer it undoubtedly shows an ambition beyond what they claim to be a peaceful pursuit of energy. I understand the reluctance to allow western control over a state reliant energy source, so I would suggest that Iran choose the nation they would like to import that energy from and with the approval of the UN and an agreement to full cooperation with the IAEA of all nations involved develop a solution to their energy ambitions. Any deviation from this proposal would carry military action for the purpose of securing US national security.