Solving the Issue

As we prepare for our simulation next Friday dealing with how to react and respond to the conflict in Iran, I discovered there is quite a lot of information to talk about. I decided to do some additional research online about Iran and came across some very interesting political cartoons that represent two key points that I had read in the various packets we received. One cartoon criticizes Iran for lying about its nuclear program and the other cartoon criticizes the U.S. and other foreign powers for exercising hypocritical behavior towards Iran. This is what will make the simulation so interesting; there is always two sides to every argument, especially in war.

Cartoon #1 shown above is judgmental towards Iran in regards to the idea that the country is secretly operating a nuclear program to construct nuclear bombs, and covers it up by saying that their nuclear program is simply for domestic energy purposes. This political cartoon captures the usual point of argument in this conflict, which is that Iran cannot be trusted in any way shape or form and are a threat because of it. This is the more dominant opinion of Iran today and is definitely a valid point.

Cartoon #2 takes the opposing side of the dominant criticism and shows that part of the problem is the hypocritical behavior of the world powers. The cartoon depicts the U.S., France, Russia, China, and Great Britain as the possessors of nuclear bombs. The words, "Do as we say! Not as we do" are very significant because they effectively bring up a point that is important to consider while dealing with the conflict of Iran. The U.S. and these other world powers have all created nuclear programs in which they produced a large amount of nuclear bombs. Now, as Iran is suspected of doing the same thing, these countries say that Iran cannot do it. This introduces, therefore, an argument that opposes the idea that Iran cannot be trusted, for how can Iran trust these world powers in the first place if they all did what Iran is doing now.

Aside from all the facts, interviews, and cartoons that I have used in my research, I have and probably always will have one bias opinion towards this matter; I do not think Iran can be trusted in the first place, and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Although my stance has not changed, I now have much more information regarding all aspects of the conflict of Iran. Getting all the information can indeed cause someone to change positions in an argument, but it is most important for figuring out the best way to solve the issue. I guess that is what this whole simulation is about; understanding both sides, therefore, is a key part of learning how to react and respond to all of the problems we face in this world.