Nuclear Opinions

Nuclear Opinions

How long until we are really in danger of Iran gaining nuclear power? The opinion of president Obama differs from that of what the Israeli Prime Minister believes. This editorial addresses the issue of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. He outlines the opposing views of when President Obama feels it should be taken care of and when Prime Minister Netanyahu believes it should be taken care of. It is interesting to note that the author is Jewish but clearly sides with President Obama and bashes Prime Minister Netanyahu on the way he deals with relations with the U.S. and the nuclear problem. The topic of the editorial will usually bring out heated emotion but the credibility and logic were sorely lacking mostly because of the unclear way the author presents his argument to the reader.

The author presents us with many different quotes and political terminology but can we consider this enough to make this editorial credible? The author employs a lot of different political terminology such as "red lines." Even though the word choice is advanced that in itself is not enough to give the editorial credibility. His credibility really takes a hit when you continue to read his editorial because even though he has many quotes the reader is confused as to who he is quoting. It took me a while to understand that the paragraph where the author talks about the bipartisan paper called "Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran" is what the author, Roger Cohen continually quotes from in his next few paragraphs. The people he seems to be quoting are influential people in American society, which would help him in swaying the reader to see his point of view, but fails to give a clear a presentation of Israel's perspective on the issue. Understanding who he is quoting can help a reader understand that the author is probably giving us biased quotes that will help strengthen his argument but that does not help someone to understand all sides of the conflict. Overall the credibility of the editorial had some flaws and generally didn't work but his appeal to the emotions is slightly stronger.

The emotional appeal of the editorial varies depending on the type of audience. As a Jew, this article had a different effect on me. When I first read the article it had the ability to make me angry because I feel a strong attachment to Israel and this article bashes Prime Minister Netanyahu and fails to show the audience his reasoning for pressuring the U.S. into preventing the building of an Iranian nuclear weapon. This article definitely has the ability to draw out emotions. It is a very hot topic and usually anything pertaining to the Middle East has the ability to appeal to emotions because of all the strife that both the Israeli and American people have endured throughout the years. This article may not be really interesting to most people living here but others who have maybe lost a loved one in Afghanistan or Iraq will most likely have a strong reaction to this. Most American people don't want to get involved in other Middle Eastern problem and will gladly side with the opinion of this author. Overall this article greatly succeeds in getting the audience emotionally invested because of