In the nuclear talks, what if Iran can't get to yes?
LATimes, Doyle McManus, 30 January 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
Tensions regarding U.S policies with Iran have been rising lately, says Doyle McManus in his most recent article, "In the nuclear talks, what if Iran can't get to yes?" McManus talks about the U.S imposing restrictions upon Iranian nuclear military and what exactly has come of it. A recent negotiation between the two countries forecasts a struggle of power. While the president and the foreign minister are ready to sacrifice some luxuries, the supreme leader demands that economic sanctions be lifted from Iran. McManus outlines the crucial steps that we are currently taking to save both our reputation and our relationship with Iran. It includes the politics behind the agreement and how exactly this event is shifting our focus within the political world. Bills are being inspected, Obama is expressing his opinions, and deadlines are being extended for this compromise. After taking a look into the politics of the equation, McManus proposes reasons for Congress' inaction. Regardless of what has happened, McManus indulges in the peace knowing that the negotiation has been delayed to another day.
McManus' central contention is less of an assertion and more of a reassessment, taking a closer look into the perhaps crumbling relationship between Iran and the U.S. I could not help but admire how closely the title resembles that of an advertisement online or on the T.V. Words like "nuclear" and "can't" have connotations with such drastic influence on the phrase itself--it appeals to the audience through fear. This is indeed a great way to drag people into the article, but McManus uses many other strategies to keep them there. For example, McManus insists upon using phrases with negative connotations ("less optimistic,"not going to happen," etc.) constantly throughout the piece. Here, we can see McManus drawing from his title and continuing a theme. Another rhetorical technique lies within the structure of the article. The beginning is primarily dedicated to establishing a conflict and exacerbating the suspense. He makes note of the deadline several times and uses rhetorical questions to spur our fear (I.E what will happen?). Suddenly, after summarizing the diplomatic conflict, the piece jerks suddenly in another direction and begins pursuing appeals to logos and ethos. Quotes from reliable sources are used more frequently and statistics are thrown into the mix. He notes cause-and-effect relationships, modern politics, and the Iranian perspective. To finalize the piece, McManus refers back to his original strategy of provoking fear in the line: "It would allow both sides to live to negotiate another day."
More drama in the Middle East? Dang. Why can't we all just be friends? In America, some people worship the flying spaghetti monster, but we don't freak out about it. Anyway, I appreciate your always concise and effective analysis.
ReplyDeletethis is gabrielle, by the way. I am not sure why it thinks I am a "writer"
DeleteThank you for actually posting... My writer also focused on Iran, but not so much the issue. I like your focus on the negative language to keep the reader there through fear. It actually worked a lot like that in my post. At least yours ends on a more hopeful note than Iran can end Judaism in a single day.
ReplyDeleteComment to Author:
ReplyDeleteMcManus, first off, thanks for the article. It was a good read and sparked my interest as you probably intended. As for the contents, I am surprised to see how America has responded to this potential threat. I am also curious as to know where this relationship is headed and how the future negotiations fold out.