hw 11 - 2. There was one point made in the conclusions...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Will Boas HW 11 1. In reading this article, I don’t believe this report presents an objective assessment of the energy potential of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In analyzing the text, I seemed to pick up that the authors were against the United States involvement in foreign affairs. They almost came across as isolationists. It seemed as if there were many more negative factors in the United States getting involved with the natural resources located in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The authors seemed very concerned with the United States’ relationship with foreign nations in the region, especially the main countries such as Russia, Turkey and China. The authors viewed competition with other countries as a bad thing. I would conclude that the authors of this report hold conservative views on foreign policy.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2. There was one point made in the conclusions section that I did not agree with. The report explained how Turkmenistan should not abandon the idea of selling its natural gas supply to Asia because of political barriers. I honestly dont believe that this is possible. The main connector country that would connect Turkmenistan to Asia is Iran, and Iran is too unpredictable and unstable as a nation. There have been many political clashes with Iran in the recent past. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, the Iran Hostage Crisis, and general hostility between Iran and Western Nations would not make this a good proposition. Iran cannot be trusted, and putting it in charge of a huge geopolitical process would not be in the best interest of the rest of the world....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online