"Iran Agrees to Draft of Deal on Exporting Nuclear Fuel," and write an answer to one of the following prompts:
a. What do you see as the three most important (separate, distinct) words in this article? Briefly explain in the case of one of these words. For example, if your three words are "timing," "suspicions, " and "weapons," choose just one and briefly explain your choice.
b. Can you find any passages that suggest that the author is trying to be as objective and balanced as he can? Cite one and briefly explain. Or can you find a passage that indicates that the author is biased, even if only slightly? find such a passage and briefly explain.
a. What do you see as the three most important (separate, distinct) words in this article? Briefly explain in the case of one of these words. For example, if your three words are "timing," "suspicions, " and "weapons," choose just one and briefly explain your choice.
ReplyDelete-The three most important (spearate, disticnt) words in this article that I thought of are "Dangerous", "Bomb" and "Pressure". My one word choicefor this article is "Pressure" because of the nuclear fuel. In the article, "Iran Agrees to Draft of Deal on Exporting Nuclear Fuel", Mr. Obama faces the difficulty and pressure of the situation because it says "With the clock ticking, Mr. Obama is under pressure to show that there have been early fruits from his decision to engage directly with Iran on the status of its nuclear program." This is "Pressure" because they are trying to figure out what to do with the nuclear fuel. Should the negotiators ship out stockpile of nucleaur fuel to
Russia for enrichment or not.
a) What do you see as the three most important (separate, distinct) words in this article? Briefly explain in the case of one of these words. For example, if your three words are "timing," "suspicions, " and "weapons," choose just one and briefly explain your choice.
ReplyDelete“diplomacy”; “uranium”; “military”
I find the word diplomacy to be important. After all, the way we handle our diplomatic relations in this situation will have a ripple effect world wide. In fact, a senior administrator from Washington states in the article that a huge part of starting to solve the problems is beginning our diplomacy with the Iranians.
a. What do you see as the three most important (separate, distinct) words in this article? Briefly explain in the case of one of these words. For example, if your three words are "timing," "suspicions, " and "weapons," choose just one and briefly explain your choice.
ReplyDelete"breakthrough"; "urgent"; "uranium"
I chose the word breakthrough, because I feel that it has an important meaning. A breakthrough, of any kind, signifies that it is the first of its nature or has never been successfully done before. To be able to stop Iran from building an atomic bomb, President Obama would definitely be having a breakthrough that would make the world a whole lot safer for everyone in it.
b) 'delay', 'deal' and 'draft'.
ReplyDeleteall three of these words help in expressing how this is not a final deal. I will choose the word 'delay' because this deal is only delaying the production of uranium. Iran is inevitably going to create and enrich the uranium even if this deal is finalized, (at this point it is still in the drafting stages!)
a) diplomacy, negotiate and nuclear
ReplyDeleteThese three words sum up what the whole article is about. The word I have chosen to talk about is the word "negotiate". I chose this word because that is what the United States is trying to do, negotiate a deal with Iran to basically get rid of the nuclear activity that is threatening to other countries, especially Israel.
Glenn Kim
ReplyDeletedelay, weapon, nuclear.
These words could emphasize entire of articles. However, the word I'm to talk about is nuclear. This whole article and even article from yesterday was about the negotiation for nuclear because it is dangerous for each other(countries). Every things are happening for nuclear because it is a big thing for entire of the world people they have to negotiate.
a. What do you see as the three most important (separate, distinct) words in this article? Briefly explain in the case of one of these words. For example, if your three words are "timing," "suspicions, " and "weapons," choose just one and briefly explain your choice.
ReplyDeleteThree word choice of for me is leadership, agreement, and decision. These three words talk about this situation that it is the actions between twho leaders making agreements with eachothers making decisions. Decision is my chioce of the workd to talk about becuase Iran has to udergo some pressure from other countries for them to make their own decisions which could result in many different solutions; it could be a war or peace. There for now, Iran's decision is most important.
A) “optimism”, “diplomacy”, “intentions”
ReplyDeleteI think intentions is important in this article because it has to do with what Iran intends to do with its uranium fuel. The U.S. is hoping that this agreement will help us to work out more of a peaceful solution, but it is still really unclear if Iran will live up to its end of the bargain. The article says that one of the concerns is that Iran might have more nuclear fuel in its stock pile than we know about. What are Iran’s intentions; peaceful or are they going to use their fuel to build nuclear bombs?
A) "Solution," "Balanced," "Doubt."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Dr. ElBaradei described the draft as "balanced" is very interesting (and important). By the approved draft, the West will watch the process of uranium enrichment, and what Iran does with it. It is advantageous to the West,though they failed to completely prevent Iran from enriching uranium. Iran, from this accord, will be allowed to produce enriched uranium for medical purpose. I think he meant this by "balanced," but we don't know how this draft will change its form and purpose.
A) Optimism, diplomacy, intentions
ReplyDeleteI chose "intentions" because that is really where the big question lies, what are Iran's intentions? Are they actually just using this for medical purposes, or are they trying to create a bomb? Along with "intentions" comes the word trust. Regardless of what they say, it is impossible to know what their intentions are if we dont trust them
diplomacy, cautious, threat.
ReplyDeleteI think that "cautious" is an interesting word in the article. I feel that a cautious approach is completely necessary when dealing with something so potentially destructive and forceful. I think that being cautious is necessary in order to try to come to a peaceful conclusion and that if everyone were to rush into things it would be unsuccessful. The word "cautious" should not be thought of in aligning with being scared, I don't think it is meant that way. It is a safer approach to an unsafe issue.
A. "Known" The question is do the U.S.A. actually have their facts right and know what Iran have? I know Iran is being not very dishonest about their nuclear program to date.
ReplyDelete"Or can you find a passage that indicates that the author is biased, even if only slightly? find such a passage and briefly explain."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the author seems to be a bit biased. It can be seen even in the opening line of the article, and also throughout the article. The first line is as follows:
"Iranian negotiators have agreed to a draft deal that would delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff."
Already, we see that the author is a supporter of "negotiation" with the Iranian government. He says we are "buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution." He is implying that Obama will successfully deal with the situation in a sensitive and effective way if only more time is bought. He is also implying that we should trust the Iranian government. If we get the time and Iran agrees, than perhaps the problem will be solved. However, we have no way of knowing that the Iranian government will stay true to their word, especially when we look at the leader of the country, who is ultimately a dictator.
Of course, like most liberals the author of this article must comment on the fact that everything that Bush administration did was wrong, and everything that Obama is doing is right. It is non-obvious, but it is seen in the line of the article, "Some White House officials argue that the Bush administration, by refusing to talk to Iran, never forced its leadership to make such a choice."
Here, the author shows his biased that favors Obama, by implying that the Bush administration did nothing about the problem by not communicating with the Iranian government. He fails to point out the fact that maybe this dictator isn't the most trustworthy guy, (which can be proved by the comments he has made about the holocaust not happening, and his belief Israel shouldn't exist). He also is implying that by forcing the Iranian government to make the choice, that the problem has been solved. However, a solution has not been reached yet, and assumptions cannot be made that a negotiation will prevent any problems in the future.
By commenting on Bush's failures the authors is showing is favoritism of Obama and his approach to the situation, and failing to make his article objective.
b. Can you find any passages that suggest that the author is trying to be as objective and balanced as he can? Cite one and briefly explain. Or can you find a passage that indicates that the author is biased, even if only slightly? find such a passage and briefly explain.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author is a bit biased. On multiple accounts Sanger does not try to tiptoe around political feelings, including one comment, "...the Bush administration, by refusing to talk to Iran, never forced its leadership to make such a choice", which directly insults George Bush and his policies of foreign relationships. Also, he uses specific wording such as, "Dr. ElBaradei, who is leaving his job at the end of next month, said he hoped that leaders in the West and in Tehran would “see the big picture” and approve the agreement. But his voice was tinged with doubt", to convince his readers of the impossibility of the subject.
It seems he firmly believes that no matter the good intentions of Obama and his team, Iran will not be willing to cooperate, and the situation can not end positively.