Name<\/p>\n
Professor <\/p>\n
Course <\/p>\n
Date <\/p>\n
Editorial 1 <\/p>\n
What the death of Iran’s top nuclear scientist could mean for Biden<\/p>\n
Opinion by David A. Andelman <\/p>\n
HYPERLINK “https:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2020\/11\/29\/opinions\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killing-biden-relationship-andelman\/index.html” https:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2020\/11\/29\/opinions\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killing-biden-relationship-andelman\/index.html <\/p>\n
November 30, 2020<\/p>\n
Editorial 2<\/p>\n
Why Was Iran\u2019s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed? <\/p>\n
By Barbara Slavin <\/p>\n
HYPERLINK “https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/11\/28\/opinion\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killed.html” https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/11\/28\/opinion\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killed.html <\/p>\n
Nov. 28, 2020 <\/p>\n
The two editorials are based on the recent killing or assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran’s leading nuclear weapons scientist, who was killed within Iran in a what the regime perceives as an assassination. Both editors have offered different views on the matter where they find some very strong pinion on how the killing of the Iranian scientist could shape the relations between the U.S. and Iran. In his opinion, David asserts that the assassination of the Iranian scientists could spell a hard tie for the U.S.-Iran relations that will make it harder for the incoming president Biden to improve on ties. The opinion presented by David brings in a new view in his analysis to address issue that has even remained a core forces for Trump in his presidency. In a more detailed outlook, both David and Barbara have delivered a very strong view that compounds into what would be termed as an integral value for coherence and understanding of this international matter. To add on this, the two opinions have been derived on what many would term as unique minds taking stand on what the world is currently facing and its projected to confront in the future in search for peace in the Middle East. <\/p>\n
Barbara states that the U.S.-Iran relations are at their worst and this even gets worse with the killing of the scientist. In his view, Barbara addresses the matter from a political point of view by looking at how the Trump\u2019s administration appears to be using every opportunity to pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table. Barbara goes further to look at the ideological and international policy approach by democrats and Republicans vary and is possible effects on the way the matter on Iran will be approached by the incoming Biden administration. Barbara has offered as strong argument and used the right tone in deriving the ideas on the topic. The opinion by Barbara is cohesive and does not take side but remains within the time of the matter thus making it cohesive and informative to read. <\/p>\n
First, David appears to have a better and stronger argument than Barbara based on how the editor breaks down the matter. The David\u2019s argument is stronger because the editor stages his opinion on liberal views that are centered on what and how the incoming administration may have to deal with. David also avoids taking sides by showing how the assassination of the Iranian scientist could spell more danger and risky path for the Biden\u2019s incoming administration. There is considerable amount of coherence, flow, and eloquent ideas in David\u2019s argument that appears to be stronger than that given by Barbara. <\/p>\n
In terms of coherence and structure, David has offered a perfect review and poured his thoughts on a matter that has its considerable weight in the global affairs. Perhaps the opinion came at a perfect time when the U.S. is almost undergoing a power transition between two different parties who hold very different global policy approach. To add on this, David has presented what many people would avoid discussing considering that the Iran relations with the U.S. have been at their lowest amid Trump\u2019s pressure through sanctions in a bid to force the Iranian leaders to come to the negotiation table. <\/p>\n
The opinion offered by David uses a very sober tone, fluent collabulary, and well-structured flow that makes it easy and interesting to read. Considering that Iran is already pushing to have better ties with Biden once he takes office, the assassination could not have come at a worse time (Riddervold 515). Barbara understand that to win the mind of the reader, he has to build his opinion on past facts and the trends revolving his topic. He thus analyzes Iran\u2019s position in the matter and also offers the world views on the assassination of the scientist. In his view, David avoids giving a firm stand but offers varied views that are meant to expand on what he terms as a derived failure of the global community to out this matter to a rest. The opinion is strong, well structured, and gives mire than one side of an argument to make it interesting and informative (Mazhar 7). Barbara also shows an incredible understanding of the matter at hand where he goes beyond the Iran\u2019s issue to analyze how the assassination will shape the Middle East relations going forward. One of the core elements of truth and facts that David offers is by looking at how and where the U.S. stands as the big player and foe as well as Iran\u2019s take on who and how the assassination might have taken place. <\/p>\n
One of the core values upheld by David in his opinion is that the world may face a difficult time confronting Iran because the country appears to withstand any kind of pressure that is thrown at its leaders. To conclude, David gives a very personal view that maybe would even be curial in the U.S. future diplomatic policy with Iran especially when Biden takes power on January 20th. The opinion is well structured, worded and carries the right tone on the topic that is of a great concern to the world peace and stability. There is no bias in the opinion because Barbara understands that even most Americans and the greater part of the audience take different positions on the matter. His ideas are well balanced and he gives his personal opinion without taking sides and this makes his article very strong and informative. <\/p>\n
Works Cited<\/p>\n
Barbara Slavin. Why Was Iran\u2019s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed? 2020 https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2020\/11\/28\/opinion\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killed.html <\/p>\n
David A. Andelman. What the death of Iran’s top nuclear scientist could mean for Biden. 2020 HYPERLINK “https:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2020\/11\/29\/opinions\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killing-biden-relationship-andelman\/index.html” https:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/2020\/11\/29\/opinions\/iran-nuclear-scientist-killing-biden-relationship-andelman\/index.html<\/p>\n
Mazhar, Dr Muhammad Saleem, and Dr Naheed S. Goraya. “Geneva Deal: Beginning of a New Era between Iran-Us Relations.”\u00a0South Asian Studies\u00a029.1 (2020). <\/p>\n
Riddervold, Marianne, and Akasemi Newsome. “Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty: crises and EU-US relations.” (2018): 505-521.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Name Professor Course Date Editorial 1 What the death of Iran’s top nuclear scientist could mean for Biden Opinion by<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n