Post by gabriellest116 on Dec 4, 2012 22:26:58 GMT -5
All individuals have the right to express themselves and their opinions according to the first amendment. However, when does expressing one’s opinions go too far and become a weapon for control? Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, supported by President Obama, took advantage of this right by expressing his opinion that the United Nations must come together to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This request introduces the question of whether or not Netanyahu has any evidence to support his claim or whether he is simply seeking control over Iran. Even if Netanyahu’s belief is sincere, his approach to the matter demonstrated a use of fear and anxiety as means of establishing control.
Netanyahu’s method of expressing his concerns was an exemplum of the fear tactic by drawing a picture of a bomb almost 90% full. The Prime Minister claims that Iran has almost completed the second stage of creating nuclear weapons, in which case it is just a matter of time until Iran has nuclear weapons, unless the UN gets involved. He also urged the public to think about past Iranian violence without such weapons, thus implying increased and more dangerous aggression from Iran once they have obtained nuclear weapons. Insisting that people consider a possible violent outcome illustrates his use of the fear tactic. The Prime Minister is trying to scare countries all over the world into believing that the whole world will not be safe once Iran has the ability to make these weapons.
However, other countries in the world have access to such weapons, but Netanyahu is not accusing those countries of jeopardizing the safety of the planet. The United States, which is a country with access to nuclear weapons, supported Israel’s plea to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Although their methods for halting the development are different, both Obama and Netanyahu agree that it must be done. Is Obama’s reason for agreeing with Netanyahu the safety of the country and the world at large, or is he reaping the benefit of Israel’s use of the fear tactic? By preventing Iran from this development, not only would Israel have power over Iran by proposing this halt in production, but the US would also have power over Iran due to the fact that the United States has access to nuclear weapons and Iran does not. Therefore it would only be beneficial for Obama to support Netanyahu because he has nothing to lose and only power to gain.
The use of fear in order to gain power is anything but a new concept. Illustrated in the early 1700s, Puritan Minister Jonathan Edwards used threats of hell and destruction in order to scare people into retreating back to Puritanism. For a period of time it worked and many people fled back to a belief in Puritanism in order to preserve their safety both before and after death. Ultimately, people stopped falling for the fear tactic and once again Puritanism largely decreased; therefore implying that fear can only go so far. Initially fear can be a powerful weapon, but history has shown that after a certain amount of time, it will only blow up in your face.
Word Count: 526
Works Consulted:
Martinez, Michael. "Netanyahu asks U.N.to draw 'red line' on Iran's Nuclear Plans." CNN. CNN, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/world/new-york-unga/index.html>.
Netanyahu’s method of expressing his concerns was an exemplum of the fear tactic by drawing a picture of a bomb almost 90% full. The Prime Minister claims that Iran has almost completed the second stage of creating nuclear weapons, in which case it is just a matter of time until Iran has nuclear weapons, unless the UN gets involved. He also urged the public to think about past Iranian violence without such weapons, thus implying increased and more dangerous aggression from Iran once they have obtained nuclear weapons. Insisting that people consider a possible violent outcome illustrates his use of the fear tactic. The Prime Minister is trying to scare countries all over the world into believing that the whole world will not be safe once Iran has the ability to make these weapons.
However, other countries in the world have access to such weapons, but Netanyahu is not accusing those countries of jeopardizing the safety of the planet. The United States, which is a country with access to nuclear weapons, supported Israel’s plea to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Although their methods for halting the development are different, both Obama and Netanyahu agree that it must be done. Is Obama’s reason for agreeing with Netanyahu the safety of the country and the world at large, or is he reaping the benefit of Israel’s use of the fear tactic? By preventing Iran from this development, not only would Israel have power over Iran by proposing this halt in production, but the US would also have power over Iran due to the fact that the United States has access to nuclear weapons and Iran does not. Therefore it would only be beneficial for Obama to support Netanyahu because he has nothing to lose and only power to gain.
The use of fear in order to gain power is anything but a new concept. Illustrated in the early 1700s, Puritan Minister Jonathan Edwards used threats of hell and destruction in order to scare people into retreating back to Puritanism. For a period of time it worked and many people fled back to a belief in Puritanism in order to preserve their safety both before and after death. Ultimately, people stopped falling for the fear tactic and once again Puritanism largely decreased; therefore implying that fear can only go so far. Initially fear can be a powerful weapon, but history has shown that after a certain amount of time, it will only blow up in your face.
Word Count: 526
Works Consulted:
Martinez, Michael. "Netanyahu asks U.N.to draw 'red line' on Iran's Nuclear Plans." CNN. CNN, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/27/world/new-york-unga/index.html>.