The Iranians have been motivated to pursue nuclear technology as from the 1950s as a result of the launch of Atom for Peace Program by U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. For a while, it received aid with its program from the Unites States solely for research (Bruno, 2010). However, over the years, knowledge of clandestine research program that aimed to enrich Iran’s nuclear weaponry brought international concern since the original peaceful intent was overstepped. Henceforth, various news agencies have sought to pursue any latest updates on the global concern over the Iranian Nuclear Program. This paper, therefore, will compare two websites that have tried to get to the root of Iran’s Nuclear Program.
Council on Foreign Relations vis a vis The New York Times
The Iran’s Nuclear Program featured on Council on Foreign Relations website was authored by Greg Bruno and is dated March 10, 2010 while the one on The New York Times is dated Friday, March 6, 2012. Both of the websites present some background to the Iranian Nuclear Program in a detail manner but each websites has executed their presentations in a strikingly different manner. Council on Foreign Relations for instance began its layout with links to the various topical issues the report addresses and has organized them systematically up to the last subject of discussion (“Introduction”…”Sanctions and Saber Rattling”). This has made navigation through the article to locate a particular piece of information easier, quick and precise. Though it is organized into subjects, the New York Times on other hand did not begin presentation with such links as Council on Foreign Relations.
Moreover, the various subjects addressing the issue of Iranian Nuclear Program are underlined in the Council on Foreign Relations report making it an attractive read. Besides, it has some summary quotes by various personalities and agencies interested in this issue. In terms of brevity, the Council on Foreign Relations report uses few words relative to the New York Times and manages to give an updated report on the US-Iran relations as far as the Iranian Nuclear Program is concerned. The introduction has also been indicated giving the reader a brief insight into the issue at hand. On the contrary, the New York Times lacks an introductory title at the onset but unlike the Council on Foreign Relations report, the New York Times has concluded its report with a brief historical background enabling the reader to comprehend the mechanics of the Iran Nuclear Program. It also lacks side quotes that the reader can skim through. Furthermore, the New York Times has presented a detailed account of the issue at hand giving the reader a richer comprehension of the US-Iran stalemate.
The credibility of both the reports is evidenced by the several links that can be noticed within the structure of the reports. However, the Council on Foreign Relations report is very user friendly as it as eased navigation through the report courtesy of the links to the various subject matters. On the flip side, the New York Times has a comprehensive account of the Iranian nuclear Program.
The presentation of cold facts by the two websites substantiates Iran’s involvement in developing nuclear arsenals. Though both reports do not seem to take a polarized stand on the issue, the supportive evidence from various credible agencies like United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) they give shows that they are convinced of a Tehran Nuclear Program. Both reports claim that some Iranian dissenters leaked information that the Iranians had some nuclear reactors near the holy city of Qum that was constructed under the radar of global inspectors (Bruno, 2010; New York Times, 2012)