A bleak trail of tears.

Emily Greenberg examines how social media can be used as a force for freedom or oppression and how it is compromising our version of the truth.

General Anthony Zinni discussed the causes and possible solutions to the looming threat that Iran poses to the U.S. on Tuesday in Kaufman Auditorium.

In the Feb. 19 news article, “Cornell University Alum Fined $17 Million for Iran Deal,” Professor John J. Barcelo III, Law, is spot on in finding it “really astounding ... that [Balli] could have been involved in a violation of that kind.” You don’t need a distinguished professor of law to tell you that a billion dollar business like Balli would know better than to sell Boeing 747s to Iran in breach of US sanctions. Which is precisely why Balli Aviation’s “deal” was never about selling aircraft to Iran in breach of US sanctions.

Team Iran, the current members of which are undersigned, has been monitoring developments in Iran and its relations with the rest of the world since December 2006. We find that the more one studies the diplomacy connected to Iran’s nuclear program, the more clearly one sees the danger of the situation. It is a game of chicken. The possibility looms that neither Iran nor its adversaries will swerve away at the last minute.

If the revolution will not be televised, it will probably stream on YouTube.

During his first official visit to China, President Barack Obama told an audience of students in Shanghai that he is a “strong supporter” of social media websites like Twitter.

“The more freely information flows,” the President explained, “the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable.”

This week brought news that Iran will allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in to the country to inspect newly revealed nuclear enrichment sites.  There are now two questions before President Obama and the world community.  The first is whether this is a sign of Iran’s willingness to cooperate with the international community or just a cat and mouse game.  The second question is what to do next.

To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question. As a stickler for the written word and old fashioned journalism, I’ve been extremely hesitant to create a Twitter account, feeling that if I do, I’m giving into the enemy: social media. For traditional newshounds like myself, social media is the archenemy of journalism. It threatens the integrity of our work and our authority to report the news with legitimacy. Yet in light of Iran’s Twitter Revolution and the explosion of new users around the world, I figured Twitter deserved a thorough analysis before I dismissed it for good. Maybe this will help you decide if your Blackberry could use another application — Twitterberry — or if your e-mail inbox can afford yet another means of congestion.

Some issues to think about:

Last week’s U.N. Security Council Resolution 1887 aimed at curbing the nuclear capabilities of Iran, North Korea and other nuclear-aspiring nations was merely the first development in setting the international stage for this Thursday’s talk in Geneva, Switzerland regarding the fate of Iran’s nuclear future.

Acting as Chairman of the Security Council — a first for an American president — President Barack Obama advanced a resolution that would close the gaps in international nuclear regulations that are often exploited by nations seeking to establish weapons programs.

In the wake of international accusations over Iran’s nuclear program, I want to return to a column last week by staff columnist Navid Farnia ’10, which was a critique of the panel presented by the Cornell International Affairs Review on the Iranian Election.

I should make it clear that I’m not speaking for the Review here; in fact, I became involved with the publication to challenge many of the problems I saw in contemporary college International Relations discussions, many of which Farnia points out, including a tendency to unquestioningly adopt a “solidarity” with specific peoples of the world to strategic ends in the often-pernicious American game of international politics.