Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Abigail De Rousselle Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass Critique Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845. Ibiblio.org. Elegant Ebooks. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is an autobiography about Frederick Douglass a fugitive slave from Maryland. The book follows Douglass as he grows up under slavery and begins to recognize the cruel institution to which he is subject to, and ultimately leading to his escape to the North. Several things are attributed to making this autobiography special. Not considering that since it was illegal for slaves to be taught how to read and write; autobiographies by ex-slaves were unique for their time. As DouglassÃ¢â¬ ¦show more contentÃ¢â¬ ¦In Chapter Three Douglass recounts a time when a slave from a large plantation, unbeknownst to him, passes his master who then proceeds to ask about how his master treats him. The slave answers truthfully that he is unhappy with his living conditions, then two or three weeks later the master has the slave sold off to a Georgian trader. The fear of experiencing a similar fate results not only in slaves lying about the Ã¢â¬ËkindnessÃ¢â¬â ¢ of their masters, but they become so overzealous that theyÃ¢â¬â¢ll fight other slaves to prove their master is Ã¢â¬Ëbetter. This was a common occurrence in the life of slaves, but had not become an issue to Douglass until after he learned to read and found the book, The Columbian Orator. In the book Douglass finds a speech encouraging Catholic emancipation, as well as an exchange between a master and slave. The slave, having been captured for the third time, explains to his master his sufferings while living under slavery, which unexpectedly leads to the voluntary emancipation of the slave. Obviously, the odds of this happening is very unlikely, but the thought of speaking out against slavery was desirable to Douglass. Where before, any desire for freedom would quickly die out after arising in his mind, now the thoughts remained and building up inside him and making him angry at his captors. An effect which his current captor, Master Auld, predicted would happen when
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
When George Henry Evans cited the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence and that, Ã¢â¬Å"Ã¢â¬â¢to secure these rightsÃ¢â¬â¢ against the undue influence of other classes of society, prudenceÃ¢â¬ ¦ dictates the necessity of the organization of a party, who shallÃ¢â¬ ¦prevent dangerous combinations to subvert these indefeasible and fundamental privilegesÃ¢â¬ , he called for a party to become the sentinel of the original American democracy. And for many, the Jacksonian Democratic Party filled that role. The Democrats, who pursued a democracy that entailed economic and social independence for the common citizen, faced harsh opposition from the Whig Party in the Second American Party System. But apart from the political tensions of the era, the mid-1800Ã¢â¬â¢sÃ¢â¬ ¦show more contentÃ¢â¬ ¦But Daniel WebsterÃ¢â¬â¢s response postulates that the veto message Ã¢â¬Å"sowsÃ¢â¬ ¦the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against the government of which its author is the off icial headÃ¢â¬ and that it Ã¢â¬Å"puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard ofÃ¢â¬ . However, given the vast amount of influence the government had in the bank, the President would have had equally vast power. Additionally, these Ã¢â¬Å"powers heretofore unknown and unheard ofÃ¢â¬ must also apply to the establishment of a National Bank, which on several occasions has been accused of being a grossly unconstitutional use of federal power. Therefore, JacksonÃ¢â¬â¢s actions indeed represented honorable goals of economic equality. In the same vein, the Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge Supreme Court Case highlighted the benefits of laissez-faire economics, a fundamental principle of the Democrats. Chief Justice Roger B. TaneyÃ¢â¬â¢s declared that, Ã¢â¬Å"while the rights of private property are sacredly guarded, we must not forget, that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and well-being of every citizen depends on their faithful pres ervationÃ¢â¬ , justifying limited government intrusion in theShow MoreRelatedThe Jacksonian Democratic Party And The Whig Party1770 Words Ã |Ã 8 PagesThe Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Whig Party each, exemplified different beliefs on the role of the federal government in the economy and towards westward expansion in the 1830s and 1840s. However, the Jacksonian, laissez faire supporting Democrats and the economic nationalistic Whig party shared almost no beliefs except for the removal of American Indians in the areas their supporters wished to settle. The lack of similarities is because the Whigs formed their own party to oppose PresidentRead MoreThe Democratic Party And Jacksonian Democracy738 Words Ã |Ã 3 PagesPolitical parties are formed when voters have different ideology regarding government, economics, and politics. The Second Party System emerged after the Democratic and Whig parties came to power in America. The development of this party system was prompted by the clashing philosophies about individual rights, government control, and land acquisition. Despite both parties being equally prevalent in America, the Democratic Party flourished and was drastically much more successful than the Whig Party at impactingRead MoreJacksonian Democracy Dbq Essay1198 Words Ã |Ã 5 PagesKathy Dai M. Galvin AP USH Period 1 Jacksonian Democracy DBQ The Jacksonian democracy of the 1820s-1830s is often associated with an expansion of the political influence, economic opportunities, and social equality available to Ã¢â¬Å"the common man,Ã¢â¬ a concept of the masses which President Andrew Jackson and his newly founded Democratic party came to represent. The new administration certainly saw gains for the majority; namely, public participation in government increased to unprecedentedRead MoreThe Importance Of Jacksonian Democracy722 Words Ã |Ã 3 PagesAndrew Jackson, war hero, man of the people, and seventh president of the United States of America led the Jacksonian Democrats; this political group was formed antebellum America. The democrats tried to aggrandize the puissance of lower classes, Americans that did not have as many opportunities unlike the aristocracy. While decreasing the clout of the rich and potent. Economically, they achieved benefits from governing during a period where huge advances in transportation, which ultimately acceleratedRead MoreAndrew Jackson s Impact On The American History1142 Words Ã |Ã 5 PagesIndians in Alabama. Later, Andrew Jackson became the seventh president of the U.S in 1829, and a populist one, who earned a number of transformative achievements to his name. More importantly, AndrewÃ¢â¬â¢s presidency marked the advent of the Jacksonian era. The Jacksonian era in particular was monumental in the construction of democracy for the common man. Nonetheless, Andrew Jackson had a number of achievements and accomplishment that will live to transcend the American history for many years to come.Read MoreBook Review of Liberty and Power Essay959 Words Ã |Ã 4 Pagesand Power; The Politics of Jacksonian America Hill and Wang, N.Y. Review written by Richard Foust Book Review Harry L. WatsonÃ¢â¬â¢s book, Ã¢â¬Å"Liberty and Power, The Politics of Jacksonian AmericaÃ¢â¬ , takes an analytical look at America and her politics during the Age of Jackson. Watson uses the economy and the ideological mindset of the people, to support a powerful argument about the beginning of American political parties and their importance in definingRead More To What Extent Was Jacksonian Democracy Democratic? Essay1209 Words Ã |Ã 5 PagesWhat Extent Was Jacksonian Democracy Democratic? Ã Ã Ã Ã Ã During the administration of Andrew Jackson, the United States was a nation of change both politically and socially. American society was a society of opportunity. Americans felt that, given a chance, they could make a better life for themselves. This was the era of the common people, the era of democracy. Andrew Jackson appealed to the American people because he stood for values many regarded with favor. However democratic Jackson may seemRead MoreAndrew Jackson And The Influence Of The Jacksonian Democracy1259 Words Ã |Ã 6 PagesDuring the 1820s and 1830s, the Democratic Party grew under the influence of the politician Andrew Jackson. The Democrats believed in a limited federal government and supported giving more power to the states. The economic monopolies in the East concerned the Democrats, they wanted equal opportunity for white males in the South and West. By the presidential election in 1828, new amendments to voting qualifications allowed more white m ales to vote. With support from this new population of voters,Read MoreThe Presidency and Ideologies of Andrew Jackson Essay927 Words Ã |Ã 4 Pagesharmony with his idea of the Beautiful and the Just.Ã¢â¬ This statement truly explains the different reforms that develop politically, economically, socially, and culturally during the Jackson era. This paper had talk about the changes made during the Jacksonian EraÃ¢â¬â¢s and explain how the reformÃ¢â¬â¢s had aided and injured the United States society. Reforms in Politics Political reforms during the Jackson era occurred to stopped corruption, limit the size of government, and to expand as well as protectRead MoreJacksonian Democracy Dbq Essay1060 Words Ã |Ã 5 PagesJacksonian Democrats help create a more democratic America and because of this, believed themselves to be many things, real and fictional. In most cases they perceived themselves as defenders of equal economic opportunity, even though they sometimes put their own interests before those of the people. They also thought of themselves as guardians of political democracy, while at the same time using class differences to their advantage and emotionalized speeches, lacking real intellectual merit, to
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Question: Discuss about the Marketing Strategy Masafi Mineral Water Company. Answer: Introduction The following discussion if about Masafi Mineral Water Company based in United Arab Emirates (Masafi.com, 2017). Discussion of themarketing strategy and management of the company will be done in the following report. The analysis will be done based on4P model of marketing which is relevant for every marketing management strategy. Masafi is a mineral water company based in water deficient country like United Arab Emirates. The importance and significance of such a product is discussed below: Product: Masafi mineral water is the UAEs only naturally sourced premium drinking water. It is clean, clear, has a crisp taste. Masafi has natural replenishing minerals mixed in it. (Al Bawaba, 2017). Since UAE is fortunate enough to be endowed will deep water resources to save and to glorify water becomes the responsibility of Masafi (Masafi.com, 2017). Mineral water is a product which needs no market creation. Sale of mineral water is not a matter of concern if its quality is up to the mark. Masafi is the purest deep earth natural water and will sell automatically. Price: Price of Masafi Mineral Water has been kept a bit high as compared to its competitors in the market. 4 gallons of Masafi Mineral Water is priced AED 15 (Masafi.com, 2017). It is a bit high as Masafi relies on the choice of the customer to trust them with the quality of mineral water. Price of Masafi is kept so that it makes profits and appeals to the class of consumers it wants to create its market for. They have strategically kept the price high to convince high end consumers about the quality of the product. Promotion: Masafi has been very keen to promote its product in the high society. They have endorsed ambassadors who are owners of elite hotel chains, chefs in five star rated hotels and famous models of UAE (Masafi.com, 2017). They also organize Recycle events, Art and Culture events and gourmet feasts in which they portray the significance of using pure water in cooking, in having it daily and the cultural significance of purity as well. These promotions have helped Masafi to make a valued place in the hearts of its customers. Place: Masafi has understood the concept of marketing which says that it is all about placing the right product at the right price at the right time (Masafi.com, 2017). They have places Mineral Water at one of the best markets for it. UAE being a desert country requires good quality water for drinking (Emmanuelle Landais, 2017). It is also the place where almost all the richest people of the world visit and live. This is the best place to sell a product such as quality mineral water as per the marketing management concept. Conclusion It can be observed that the management of Masafi has done almost everything right in the context of marketing their product. The 4Ps analysis of their strategy in the above discussion shows that it is the optimum way to launch market and sell a product mineral water like Masafi has done. References Al Bawaba, U. (2017).UAE's Masafi launches new packaging.Al Bawaba. Retrieved 11 September 2017, from https://www.albawaba.com/business/uaes-masafi-launches-new-packaging Emmanuelle Landais, S. (2017).Masafi launches water bottle recycling scheme.GulfNews. Retrieved 11 September 2017, from https://gulfnews.com/news/uae/environment/masafi-launches-water-bottle-recycling-scheme-1.649673 Masafi.com, I. (2017).Masafi | Consumer.Masafi.com. Retrieved 11 September 2017, from https://www.masafi.com/water Purelybranded.com, P. (2017).The Four Ps of Marketing.Purely Branded. Retrieved 11 September 2017, from https://www.purelybranded.com/insights/the-four-ps-of-marketing
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Table of Contents Realist Theory Constructivism Marxist Theory Conclusion References United States (US) and Iran initially has good relations in mid to end 19th century. However, sour relations emerged after the end of the Second World War when the Persian Gulf started exporting huge amounts of oil and the intrigues of the cold war started taking centre stage in international politics.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on US Ã¢â¬â Iran Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The good relationship between Iran and America was observed under Shah Mohammad Reza PahlaviÃ¢â¬â¢s rule but it took a turn for the worse after the Iranian revolution of 1979 (Lesch, 2003, p. 52). Some observers attribute the poor relations to American arrogance but others note that such conflict was unavoidable because of the wave of Islamic revolution (directed against Western domination) sweeping across many Muslim states (D ow Jones Company, 2010, p. 3). One of the greatest hallmarks to Iran and US relations lies in the overthrow of Musdaqq in 1953 (Lesch, 2003, p. 52). Many observers are of the opinion that since the US gave a lot of support to the then leader, Muhammad Shah, and helped plan the 1953 coup (that brought Shah to power), many people supported anti-US/Western ideals which led to the 1979 Islamic revolution (Lesch, 2003, p. 52). The strong anti-US sentiments were largely harbored by many Iranians because it was widely believed that the US orchestrated the 1953 coup to overthrow Musdaqq in order to gain control of IranÃ¢â¬â¢s oil wealth and establish a dictatorship government at the same time (Gasiorowski, 2004, p. 261). After the success of the coup and an establishment of Shah as the Iranian leader, the American government gave a lot of support to ShahÃ¢â¬â¢s government. In fact, during ShahÃ¢â¬â¢s first week in government, the US gave Iran more than $68million in emergency fund af ter which it followed by giving the oil rich nation more than $1.2 billion, the following decade (Gasiorowski, 2004, p. 273). US-Iran relations thereafter became very rosy until Iran started getting a lot of money from its oil revenues (within the 1960-1970 periods). This development slowly diluted USÃ¢â¬â¢s influence in Iran and consequently made Shah develop a bad reputation in the West. Nonetheless, the support US government had been giving Shah over the past years mounted a lot of criticisms on Shah as an independent leader. Unrest therefore grew in Iran over an upheaval of Western ideals in the nation. These sentiments later lead to the ousting of Shah in the 1979 Islamic revolution which also took the US by surprise. It is however interesting that six months prior to the revolution, the US had passed a verdict on Iran, saying that it was nowhere close to a revolution or prerevolutionary state (Gasiorowski, 2004). After the revolution, Ayatollah was established as IranÃ¢â¬â ¢s interim leader.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Ayatollah was predominantly against Western ideals; further soiling relations between America and Iran. Subsequent events saw Iranians take Americans hostage for 444 days; a development that greatly angered the US and resulted in trade restrictions and embargoes on Iran (Beisner, 2003, p. 1222). This was to be later followed by warfare; like the failed coup to rescue the American hostages and the 1983 Hezbollah bombings carried out by the US on terrorism grounds (Beisner, 2003, p. 1222). In 1988, the US carried out more attacks on Iran because of the conflict on Iranian mines and also in the same year, the US shot down an Iranian commercial plane which killed more than 255 people including 66 children (Beeman, 2008, p. 132). Nonetheless, these attacks seized after Iranian reformers advocated for more negotiation s with the US in solving the persistent wrangles between the two countries. In 2005, Iran got a new president, Mahmud, Ahmadinejad who to a great extent bases his policies on religious principles and anti liberal policies. US concerns on IranÃ¢â¬â¢s nuclear programme has been top in the list, defining US -Iran relations because the US under the Bush government consistently accused Iran of enriching its Uranium deposits and insisted that Iran had to pay the consequences for such actions. This has been the biggest issue between Iran and America today. However, after the exit of George W. Bush and an entry of Obama into White house, the issues plaguing Iran and US relations have taken a milder form, considering ObamaÃ¢â¬â¢s change in approach to Iran issues. However, this is not to be assumed that the pertinent issues affecting the two countries have disappeared. In fact, after Obama took office, Iran raised a number of concerns which it wanted the US to look into; starting from th e 1953 coup, USÃ¢â¬â¢s support for Saddam Hussein to attack Iran and USÃ¢â¬â¢s shooting down of commercial air flight 655 (Beeman, 2008, p. 132). Collectively, many observers point out that the US has greatly shifted its policies towards Middle Eastern countries and the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has never created peace between the US and Iran. This study proposes that the threat of an oncoming war between the US and Iran is very real because there are a number of issues that still underlie the relationship between the two nations and they are still to be solved decades later. These issues include IranÃ¢â¬â¢s exportation of terrorism and funding of terrorist activities, USÃ¢â¬â¢s accusations that Iran holds weapons of mass destruction, IranÃ¢â¬â¢s threats to its neighbors in the Persian Gulf, IranÃ¢â¬â¢s constant assertion that it wishes Ã¢â¬Å"death on AmericaÃ¢â¬ , IranÃ¢â¬â¢s persistent opposition towards a peaceful Arab-Israeli world, and IranÃ¢â¬â¢s histor ical violation of human rights.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on US Ã¢â¬â Iran Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More These concerns characterize the Iran-US conflict and its magnitude is slowly weighing down on the two countries by the year. However, this nature of conflict can be explained through a number of theories which will be employed in this study to explain the threat of war between the two countries. The bottom line however remains that there is a high likelihood of war between Iran and the US in the near future. Realist Theory The realist theory has been used for a long time to define how nations relate. It majorly revolves around the concepts of state-centrism, survival and self help (Spegele, 1996, p. 1). State-centrism is based on the theory that states are often autonomous entities and their actions are centrally dictated without the influence of external parties. In this manner, th e realist theory downplays the influence of non-state actors but upholds the influence of the state in defining international relations. The concept of survival notes that states are often motivated by selfish interests and would advance their own agendas without much consideration to other relevant factors. This concept also advances the fact that there is no central authority in international relations and states would often do whatever they wish without much control from external agents. The self help concept notes that a nation state should rely much on itself without expecting much assistance from another state. This means that many nations rely upon their resources and capabilities to advance their own interests without expecting much assistance from other states (Spegele, 1996, pp. 1-5). From the above analysis, we can deduce the fact that the realist theory to a significant degree outlines the sour relationship between the US and Iran. Also from the same framework of the rea list theory, we can quantify the potential threat of war between the two nations. Most of the actions exhibited by the US expose how much state-centrism characterizes Iran -US politics. Much of USÃ¢â¬â¢s actions, starting with the Iran coup of 1953 to the support given to Saddam by the US in attacking Iran are all signs of an all-powerful state. The Influence of non-state actors and international institutions in this conflict is conspicuously absent because of the aggressive nature of the US in determining Iran politics for its own interests.Advertising Looking for research paper on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The 1953 coup was a clear example of the state-centric approach exhibited by the US because the US acted as a billiard ball in influencing Iranian politics. In fact, the actions by the US to orchestrate the coup can be largely seen as a distinct action by the US because no other state or international institution had much to do with the coup. Also, the principle of survival can be observed from USÃ¢â¬â¢s interests in Iranian politics. IranÃ¢â¬â¢s actions can also be viewed in the same manner because there is a deep-seated sense of anarchy governing the politics of Iran. The 1953 coup and the Islamic revolution of 1979 is evidence enough of a lack of central authority in Iranian politics. Coups for example often occur because of a lack of central authority where people can express their grievances and at the same time, it also shows a lack of maturity for democratic processes in any country. In advanced countries, the law and the constitution form the government, which later beco mes the central authority. In this case, the existing laws that should set up the government should be the central authority to be respected by all prospective leaders but apparently, this seemed to be what Iran was lacking. This observation prompted the coup and later, subsequent ousting of leaders from power followed. All these actions show a lack of central authority not only on the part of Iran but also on the part of the US. Actions by the US, for example, bombing the Iranian air flight and not apologizing for it, shows the extent to which states go to extreme levels to uphold their selfish interests. The selfish interest being protected in this case is the domination by the US on Iranian politics in order to control Iranian oil reserves. Additionally, IranÃ¢â¬â¢s enrichment of Uranium and allegations of uranium enrichment with consequential effects on US security also reflect on the selfish interests of the states. From the analysis of the realist theory, we can therefore de duce the fact that states are usually very autonomous and operate within an anarchic international system of politics which is largely unregulated. The level of deregulation in international politics and indeed international relations advances the fact that Iran and US can certainly go into war because there are not many international bodies or third parties to stop them. The realist theory also suggests that the two states are likely to go to unprecedented levels (including war) to safeguard their own interests and address their security concerns (Spegele, 1996, p. 3). This therefore means that both Iran and the US can be potentially be very aggressive and war wouldnÃ¢â¬â¢t come as a surprise to many. Constructivism Constructivism, developed as a result of the failure of the realist and neo realist approaches to predict the end of the cold war. Nonetheless, the theory emphasizes a lot on social elements as a determinant of international politics (Kegley, 2008, p. 39). This idea c an be evaluated progressively because the theory bases its foundations on the development of ideas. These ideas later develop into international structures which states abide by, but the said structures are likely to lead to the development of state interests which later determine how states and non state actors relate to safeguard their own interests (Kegley, 2008, p. 39). Constructivism therefore derives its authority from the inclusion of social, cultural, persuasive and collective ideas in determining how states relate. This concept can be largely witnessed in the Iran- US relations. Obviously, Iran being an Islamic state, most of its actions and policies are largely dominated by Islamic principles. The anti-western sentiments (leading to the Islamic revolution of 1979) are also social elements which characterize IranÃ¢â¬â¢s relations with the US. In fact, the Islamic revolution was largely dictated by social factors (religion) which the constructive theory relies on to predic t international relations. In this manner, we can deduce the fact that international relations between the US and Iran has to a significant degree been socially constructed. Social construction in Iran-US relations can be largely evidenced in a religious context, especially focusing on the actions of IranÃ¢â¬â¢s leaders. Leaders who were perceived to be Western puppets such as Shah never got a huge following in Iran because of the different social beliefs that characterizes US and Iran. However those leaders who to a great extent resisted Western influence got a huge following in Iran because the people felt like the leaders advanced their own social beliefs. This scenario can be evidenced through Musddaqq and more recently, Ahmadinejad. These leaders have significantly represented strong Muslim beliefs which have determined their actions with regard to IranÃ¢â¬â¢s policies with the US. To a significant degree, some of the most pressing issues between the US and Iran have not be en economic but social because of the apparent differences in religious principles. In fact, IranÃ¢â¬â¢s leader Mahmud Ahmadinejad has been quoted in some sections of the press purporting that USÃ¢â¬â¢s arrogance is brought about by the countryÃ¢â¬â¢s dominance over minority groups (Muslims) (Kegley, 2008, p. 39). These sentiments were also expressed with regards to USÃ¢â¬â¢s relations with other Arab nations. The approach taken by US in defining its relationship with Iran has also been largely dictated by IranÃ¢â¬â¢s funding of terrorism activities. This is largely a serious security issue, brought about by the social construct of the US and Iran. Indeed, through the funding of terror groups such as Hezbollah, Iran is doing so with a common purpose of fighting for Muslim interests, especially with regards to the conflict in Lebanon. The US has therefore imposed restrictions and embargos on Iran due to such activities. More vivid is IranÃ¢â¬â¢s stand on the Israel-Lebano n conflict. Iran is in support of Lebanon while the US has been largely assumed to support Israel. What is predominantly seen is the big religious divide that exists in these states. The US and Israel are Christian states while Iran and Lebanon are Muslim states. Therefore, the underlying premise behind the US and Iran relations have been partly attributed to the religious differences between the two nations. The difference between the constructive theory and the realist theory is that the constructive theory does not emphasize a lot on security issues like the realist theory does. Instead, a lot of weight is given to the social construct of the society and its influence on foreign policy. Proponents of the Constructive theory note that international conflicts based on constructive elements may have far reaching implications and may go on for long periods of time. In the same manner, such type of conflicts may trample over materialistic interests because state actions may go beyond rational thought (Kegley, 2008, p. 39). These factors withstanding, war is not an out of the ordinary occurrence between the two nations. Marxist Theory The Marxist theory purports that international relations are majorly driven by materialistic and economic factors. In this manner, states operate within a wider capitalistic system of operation where they are driven by economic interests above all other factors of concern (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 27). This ideology also necessitates the development of class structures, not only in the society but within international relations as well. Coming back to the Iran-US relations, it is evidently clear that the bad relations started because of a pursuance of US economic interests in Iran. More notable is the 1953 coup that installed Shah as the Iranian leader. Shah rose to power with the help of the US because the US found it easy to relate with Iran if it had a pro-western leader. Also, the USÃ¢â¬â¢s stand on Iran has been largely motivated by its overall Middle East agenda. In other words, the US has a lot of interest on oil exports from the Persian Gulf and the increased dominance of Iran in the region (which adopts an anti Western stand) has the potential of destabilizing the economic balance in Middle East which the US is benefiting from (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 28). It is therefore important that in the interest of the US, Iran has a Western friendly leader. Such are the intrigues that characterize USÃ¢â¬â¢s relations with the Iran. However, subsequent leaders (after the Islamic revolution) saw Iran adopt an anti Western policy on many of its foreign relations. These leaders (like Mahmud) have further soiled relations between the US and Iran because they didnÃ¢â¬â¢t/donÃ¢â¬â¢t agree with the USÃ¢â¬â¢s policies in the Middle East. Nonetheless, these intrigues characterize the Marxist theory because US is largely seen as having adopted an economic agenda which is characteristic of capital accumulation. Of impo rtance is the subcategory of the Marxist theory advancing the fact that globalized capitalistic systems have facilitated the dominance of wealthy nations over poor, third world countries. In this case, the dominant wealthy nation is the US while Iran is the third world state under exploitation. The level of economic interests in play between US and Iran is therefore alarmingly high and when analyzed according to the Marxist theory, the economic interests at stake may lead to a fully blown out war (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 27). This conclusion is drawn from the firm belief by Marxists that economic interests have the potential of transcending all other elements of concern. It is therefore important to note that as much as the relation between the US and Iran is characterized by other issues such as security, if the US continues to lose on its economic agenda in Iran, it may resort to protect it through military means. Conclusion The probability of an emergence of war between Iran and the US is high because of the nature of the conflict between the two nations. Underlying premises to the war can be best analyzed through the realist, constructive and Marxist theories. The realist theory analyzes the concepts of self-help, state-centrism, and survival which are evidently seen in the Iran-US analysis, especially due to the lack of influence from non state actors in the conflict. As a result, the US can take extreme measures in advancing its agenda in Iran and this may include the probability of war. Also, because the conflict between America and Iran is characterized by religious and social differentials, the constructive theory outlines that these factors will characterize future relationships between the two countries to a great extent. Under the constructive theory, such kind of conflict can take a very long time to end and social influences may override economic interests. The probability of a war breaking out, especially from the Iranian part (which is more religi ously socialized) is very high. Lastly, the Marxist theory advances the fact that since the US has considerable economic interests in the Persian Gulf; it may go to unprecedented levels to protect it. This obviously includes war. Considering there is no let up between the two parties, the US and Iran can surely go to war if provocation is felt from the Iranian side. This is in accordance to the Marxist theory, purporting that economic interests may transcend all other interests. The nature of international relations between Iran and the US therefore still remains very volatile. References Beeman, W. O. (2008). The Ã¢â¬Å"Great SatanÃ¢â¬ Vs. The Ã¢â¬Å"Mad MullahsÃ¢â¬ : How the United States And Iran Demonize Each Other. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Beisner, R. (2003). American Foreign Relations since 1600: A Guide to the Literature, Volume 1. New York: Abc-Clio. Chatterjee, A. (2010). International Relations Today. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Dow Jones Company . (2010). QA with IranÃ¢â¬â¢s Deputy Foreign Minister for Americas Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123861706862379499 Gasiorowski, M. J. (2004). Writing in Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran. London: Syracuse University Press. Kegley, C, W. (2008). World Politics: Trend and Transformation. London: Cengage Learning. Lesch, D. W. (2003). The Middle East and the United States: A Historical and Political Reassessment. New York: Routledge. Spegele, R. (1996). Political Realism in International Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This research paper on US Ã¢â¬â Iran Conflict was written and submitted by user Gregory B. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.