Lack of control of animal testings are causing to some negative results for animals and this is damaging ecological equilibrium. The tests are used for goodness of humankind but there must be some standards when testing animals. Otherwise, the things performed for goodness of people may cause to the reverse. So, a question emerges from this point. Which one is important; developments in health field or health of animals. The important thing is to improve health field while using animals without giving pain to them.

Inspection of performance in animal testing has been weak until 20^th century and still weak in some countries, which is causing pains for animals and should have standards. These standards must both protect animals from damage in experiments and let developments in health fields. Dolly the sheep was a good example for this issue. It proved that an alive creature can be copied. By doing that, scientist learnt that they may copy humanbeing. So, animal testings are useful for humans if they are not being dangerous for animals.

The way of protecting ecology and finding useful developments in health field is to educate enough amount of people to establish equilibrium in ethics. There hasn’t been enough people until now and therefore many animals were murdered. The risks should be reduced when applying the experiments and this can be possible with education. Euthanasia is a method to kill animals after experiments. However, the animals may be relieved even after the experiments by the educations.

To summarize, ecological equilibrium should be rescued by having control over animal testings. Standardization of the controls can prevent the damages to animals in the testings. The controls and standards would be useful to both protect animals and make findings in health field. The way of doing this is to have enough educated people in the field of animal testing. Thanks to this, ecology would be protected and humankind would save its own future.

Mustafa Gerdan

So, this movie, I guess, is the best not only with its scenes but also with its story. Titanic was also another revolution that nobody would have dare to create, just like Avatar. James Cameron didn’t surprise us by this new revolution, Avatar, but still our eyes cannot believe how something this much amazing can be created by a human, with over-human dreaming and efforts. 3-D visuality, from now on, I think will be asked more by audiences and stories of movies will be created accordingly.

The film was released in traditional 2-D, as well as in 3-D, using the RealD 3D, Dolby 3D, and IMAX 3D formats. Avatar is officially budgeted at $237 million; other estimates put the cost at $280–310 million to produce and $150 million for marketing. The film is being touted as a breakthrough in terms of filmmaking technology, for its development of 3D viewing and stereoscopic filmmaking with cameras that were specially designed for the film’s production.

Avatar premiered in London on December 10, 2009, and was released on December 18, 2009, in North America to critical acclaim and commercial success. It grossed $27 million on its opening day domestically (in the United States and Canada) and $77 million domestically on its opening weekend. It opened two days earlier internationally and grossed $232 million worldwide in its first five days of international release. Within three weeks of its release, it had grossed over $1 billion worldwide. It currently stands as the second-highest-grossing film of all time, exceeded only by Titanic. Due to the film’s success, Cameron reported the possibility of two sequels.
 
Official Avatar movie site: http://www.avatarmovie.com/index.html

Watch avatar trailers and scences here

You can find more info about avatar movie at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)

Palestine became the main destination for Jewish refugees during the holocaust and after it, even if the Arabs were opposed to the Jewish immigrations, and after many waves of immigrations, more than 100 000 Jews moved to Palestine territory, which created the ground of oncoming Jewish state, and it has. Due to the immigrations were being made by urges of England and England was not desiring a tension with Arabs, after Arabs mentioned their complaints from the immigrations, England had restricted immigrations with quotas, such as allowing 75 000 Jewish immigrant in 5 years. However, even though England and Soviet Bloc had put restrictions to immigrations, an organization of former partisans and ghetto fighters, Berihah, managed illegal immigrations during 14 years, and 110 000 Jews immigrated to Palestine by their supports. During second aliyah (kibbutz galuyot), which was second huge wave of immigration, more than half a million Jews went to Israel between 1948 and 1950. The aliyahs were not only from Germany, but also from Arab countries, Ethiopia, Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, Argentine, France and North American States. Palestine was practically being prepared for a Jewish state and negotiations were being held with dominant and influential states, such as England, Soviet Russia and US. Ottoman was not for a Jewish state in the region but existence of a Jewish state was requisite for three victorious allies in the region because there weren’t any ally of them in the region. Accordingly, Balfour Declaration was performed and it “was the key piece in the jigsaw, for without it the jewish state could never have come into existence” (Johnson, 423). The land was engaged to Jews by God as Jews were believing and many leaders of West were supporting this belief. Influential Gentiles in the United States were expressing their supports for Zionist aspirations “beginning with a letter by John Adams in 1819 that fervently wished the Jews again in Judea, and independent nation” and there was signs of outstanding lay and religious leaders at the end of the letter in which it says “according to God’s distribution of nations, it is their home—and inalienable possession from which they were expelled by force” (Penkower, 110). Jews were considering the holocaust a piece of God’s plan for Jews. That’s why ther were trying to use the holocaust as a matter for their future plans, and the maximal usage was made by declaration of the State of Israel. That was consequence of the holocaust and something which is not certain whether made Jews happy or sad with its existence.

Anti-semitism, growth of nationalism in Europe and massacres created the hope of re-establishing Jews as an independent nation. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress proclaimed the decision “to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law” (Herzl, 1897). The new state was seen as a redemption of the holocaust and those who were murdered by Hitler are sacrificials for new-born Jewish state according to Judaism. God says in the Jewish bible that “You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos, 3:2). So, the creation of Israel was the consequence of Jewish sufferings. According to Paul Johnson, Hitler’s persecution was the last in the series of catastrophes which helped to make the Zionist state (Johnson, 520). The Palestine mandate was assigned to United Kingdom after World War I and from now on the Zionist movement had first concrete benefits for the oncoming Jewish state in Zion.

Holocaust was a catastrophe and all nations accept that in today’s world but what unacceptable is that Jews are romanticizing what happened in Germany and benefiting from the holocaust by displaying like Jews are always under a possible attack of all other nations and that makes Jews’ attacks legal to others because of the possible attacks. When we look at today’s situation in Palestine, there is an obvious holocaust to Palestinians, which is a slow-motion one, and still there are effects of holocaust when we listen the pretexes of the State of Israel after their attacks to Palestinians. As Bradley R. Smith mentions, “Today the Holocaust is being used to justify a “Greater Israel” with expanded borders necessitating both voluntary emigration and compulsory expulsions of the Palestinians” (Smith, 1996). Social scientists are calling Jews’ behavior as ‘Holocaust Doctrine’. Jews are asserting the holocaust, mentioning what happened in the Jewish history, and trying to show themselves as pitiful people and consider that they have right to do everything to other nations just to protect Jewish community. In an open letter from Paul Grubach to George Bush, he is saying that “The world is aware how jealously the Jewish community guards the Holocaust, both as a memory and a weapon” (Grubach, 2007). According to him, Holocaust Doctrine is indeed an ideological weapon used against the non-Jewish world. After each attack of Jewish state to poor countries, world is becoming aware of the fact that Jews are not that poor and under a threat of being attack. Media power is almost in the hands of Jews in whole world and that is obvious they are exaggurating more than necessary, just to find reasons to their planned moves in Middle East. It is not only plans of the State of Israel, but also plans of US. If we consider that fact that Palestine, and especially Jerusalem, is the heart of the Middle East, then we can see why still Jews are using the holocaust as a matter for their policies at the region. Again Mr Grubach argues that “More and more of the world are starting to see the lies and exaggerations in the Holocaust ideology and how it has actually become a murderous religion that “justifies” Zionist wars and aggression” (Grubach, 2007). So, as a consequence of the holocaust, Jews are performing their policies without need of a reason in all over the world and especially in Middle East. Moreover, because the State of Israel is under the wings of US and England, it is the most powerful state in the region and acting according to the interests of US and England, not only its own.

To summarize, the holocaust in Germany caused waves of Jewish immigrations to Palestine and according to plans of Zionist organizations, England, US and Soviet Russia, the State of Israel was established in Palestine and the holocaust maintained its impacts in today’s world. Aliyahs had created the hope of re-establishing the Jewish state on the land that God engaged to Jews and Jews have believed that the state is given to them in accordance to God’s plan for Jews. However, the plan was made by Zionist organizations and three victorious allies, US, UK, and Soviet Russia, for their own interests in Middle East. On the other hand, Jews have not let it go with establishing a Jewish state but still using holocaust for their policies all over the world and asserting the holocaust as a reason to all their behaviors and attacks over other nations. However, their exaggurations are awared by more and more people in whole world everyday and anti-semitism is increasing because Jewish state is not taking the interests of other nations into consideration. God may make them suffer more, as he says in Jewish Bible, to grow in wisdom and walk on the right path.

REFERENCES

• Paul Johnson (1987). A History of the Jews. New York: Harper & Row. p423-585.

• Monty Noam Penkower (1994). The Holocaust and Israel Reborn. New York: Library of Cataloging Data. p110.

• JAFI: Zionist Congresses: First Congress – Basle (Basel), 1897.

• King James Version (2001). Bible-Amos. Charlotte: Church of the Great God. Amos 3:2.

• Bradley R. Smith (1996). Zionism and the Holocaust. The CODOH Revisionist Library: Tangled Web. 1.

• Paul Grubach (2007). An Open Letter to the President of the United States. Pennsylvania: Tangled Web. 1.

  Mustafa Gerdan

He doesn’t curse or perceives morality and value systems as errants for the sake of politics but he argues that politics

ought to be separate from all elements and rules of all kinds of systems. In other words, it should

be amoral, but not immoral. ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli’s one of the most towering writings, ¨is

destined to remain one of the half-dozen political writings that have entered the general body of

world literature¨ and was ¨a reflection not only of man’s political ambitions and passions but of man

himself¨ (p. 318). Basically, he argues in his writing that a man strolls between good and evil while

conducting politics and the way of handling power and saving it has to be by being a virtuous ruler

and putting amorality on the first place of implementing politics; otherwise, the things that are

considered as moral and valuable might take away the power that prince had and the actual evil

comes with following one of the value systems, instead of acting according to facts of politics.

A virtuous ruler is the one who focuses on commanding the state with considering who

expects what, but not conducting his politics as others offer and advise; instead, he is the one

focused on the end and govern the people amorally for the sake of reaching the reason of state, by

disregarding the goods and bads because of not having good or bad in the autonomous system of

politics. Virtue, to Machiavelli, is being able to act according to required condition of the politics.

On this path, ¨the concept of virtue implies the ability to understand reality and to adapt action to

reality in a flexible and non-ideological, nondogmatic manner¨ (p. 320). So, Machiavelli advises to

princes and prince-to-be people of his time to not follow other ones’ and moral systems’ values

while conducting his politics. The end, in this sense, ¨is presumed to be naturally inherent in the

ruler or would-be ruler, and need not to be further argued¨ (p. 320).

Machiavelli separates power from all value systems and asserts the idea of reason of state

under which all acts are tolerated. He distinguishes morality of politics into two as amoral and

immoral politics. He believes that a virtuous and successful prince should put a basis in fact of

conducting his policies amorally. ¨He neither assumes that there are no values in this world, nor

wishes to create a world in which all values would be destroyed¨ (p. 318). However, the values

should be separated from conductings of politics. Amorality implies, accordingly, ¨not the denial of

moral values in all situations, but the affirmation that, in the specific situation of the statesman, the

rules of power have priority over those of ethics and morality (p. 318). Therefore, power is the

end of politics and thus goodness coincides with efficiency: ¨an efficient means of acquiring,

consolidating, and expanding power is good; and inefficient means, bad¨ (p. 319).

Religion, on the other hand, as a dominant factor in Machiavelli’s time, was a tool in the

hands of the ruler to reach power in politics and defend that power, according to Machiavelli.

Because of the fact that there is nothing to be considered as good or bad when it comes to politics,

Machiavelli believes that anything goes right, such as supporting and spreading a religious doctrine

for the sake of conducting people even if the ruler knows that the doctrine is wrong. The main

value of a religion, according to Machiavelli, to the ruler, ¨lies in the fact that it helps him to keep

the people well conducted and united, and from this viewpoint of utility it makes no difference

whether he spreads among them true or false religious ideas, and beliefs¨ (p. 321). Accordingly,

Machiavelli’s relationship with Christianity is completely pragmatic. As a pessimistic personality,

Machiavelli believes that the cause of Italian political disunity is the church itself; therefore, the

ruler should look at the past and consider the fact that religion can destroy a principality even if it

might be the compulsive factor while constructing the principality.

According to Machiavelli, man is bad when we look at the history and with the eyes of a

pessimistic; therefore, a ruler should be using two methods of fighting, which are by law and by

force, to be a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man while conducting the state

(p. 322). Moreover, a ruler should keep not a faith because record of man’s behavior proves him a

depraved and wily creature. Thus, ¨a realistic theory of power must be based on such a pessimistic

view of man¨ (p. 323). The best-known passage in ‘The Prince’ is that, accordingly, ¨If men were

all good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their

faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them (p. 322). In short, a ruler can even lie

and use all the faiths for the sake of his power and there is nothing wrong with that because power

politics is amoral.

To conclude, the end justifies the means and the end of power for the sake of reason of state

is to have the power and save it, for a prince. Therefore, non of the value systems and religions are

to be considered as a guiding source when conducting politics. Evil in politics comes to the surface

when the ruler follows a system or religion actually. Machiavelli is pessimistic about this issue by

looking at history and records of man’s behaviors. Moreover, he believes that why Italy was

dissolved and disunited is because of the church was the policy conducter. In short, a ruler ought to

be virtuous while conducting power policies and the way for it is not following any religion or

moral system, but by acting according to realities and facts of the real political life.

REFERENCES

· Machiaelli Niccolò (1996). J.S McCelland. A History of Western Political

Thought. London: Routledge. P150-167.

· Machiavelli Niccolò (2000). W. Ebenstein and Alan Ebenstein. Great

Political Thinkers. 6th ed. Orlando: Harcourd College Publishers. p316-336.

Some of them take seriously, some of them do not consider and some cabalists take up shares. The person may be a boss, a doctor, a politician member of cabinet or likewise. The merchant may not be someone but a pharmaceutical company, which is in governmental circles.

I am not an anti-govermentalist or government supporter but it sticks to my throat.The government  appropriates to allowance for purchasing 40.000 doze H1N1 vaccine so early due to the vaccine’s phase for clinic studies are not accomplished .We don’t know all results about complications, contraindications, adverse reactions. Besides being aware of these kind of probabilities, we must initially review and accept it because human health cannot be recycled and are not disposable goods.

Furthermore, not only people are affected from events of era while they are naming but also naming streets is affected from the political and social structure of society. On the other hand, it can be claimed that naming people have more individual reasons, such as admiration to famous people. So we can say that political changes, politicians of eras, precious people of eras, structure of societies, culture and individual reasons affect the naming process and may give us information about each of these segments.

Most of the names are bestowed because of many different reasons. The reason can be admiration to an emperor, aspiration to a former darling, concern to politicians. There can be many personal reasons. For instance, my mother’s name is Sekine and the meaning of this name is “Stop”. Her name was bestowed by my grandfather and the reason is that after four daughter demand to have a male child. This belief is also mentioned by İlhan Başgöz in his passage which has heading ‘’The meaning and dimension of change of personal names in Turkey’’. He argues that similar names like Yeter further reveals that the name itself is the subject of a magical belief which is expected to make the next baby a boy, the inherent desire imbedded in the name (Başgöz, 1983, p 21/201). In my family without of my father’s allof our names were given by my mother and because of religious reasons or the reasons because of feeling admiration to ancestors such as Ottoman Sultans. My brother’s name is Ertuğrul and it is because of affection to ancestor Ertuğrul Gazi. For example, my father’s and my name were given also because of religious reasons. My name is the second name of our prophet Mohammed Mustafa and my father’s name is Abdullah because the name of our prophet’s father was Abdullah, which means the servant of God. Not only that, I have also two sisters. One of their name is Zeliha, which has same meaning with Züleyha and the other’s name is Özgül. Züleyha was the prophet Joseph’s wife’s name. Only my little sister Özgül’s name was not related to religion or affections to our history. The reason why her name was bestowed her is that according to my parents’ thoughts, out of three siblings she would leave family home and my parents latestly. So she would lookafter our parents mostly. And because of this she was named Özgül which means ‘’pith rose’’.

On the other hand, our surname is ‘’Gerdan’’ and it means ‘’neck’’. It was given because our ancestor who decided to our surname was a butcher and butchers cut the sheeps from their necks. My father told us the story of our surname in this way. Furthermore, most of my male relatives were butcher up to now. Accordingly, it can be claimed that the conditions of era, political events, thoughts beliefs of elders and parents and also sociologic structure are the things which influence names. Başgöz’s fixing should also be mentioned here. He says ‘’…education and urbanization are two important factors in changing names.’’ (Başgöz, 1982, p 23/205). It is true because when we look at his statistics, we see that the people who has an affair with cities are mostly using more local names by the influence of urbanization and education. The names of people in my family were mostly influenced from religious people, affection to great people from history and this shows that we can see the general values by looking at the names.

In conclusion, people bestow names of politicians, emperors, caliphs, officers, teachers and so on to their babies. Because it is usually believed that their babies would be like them if they name their babies with those people’s names. While ancestors’ and other model people’s names are used by people when they are naming, people’s names also show the general beliefs and thoughts of the era by these names. In short, names are bestowed under impression of political changes, precious people of era, structure of society and because of too many different individual reasons.

Mustafa Gerdan

During this genocide, neighbours and relatives also killed each other. After the genocide everybody questoined: Why did these people kill each other? Why did they suddenly become enemy? Who did cause to genocide?

All these questions were answered by different unions and groups differently: It can be said that many different things caused to this genocide as well. However, the most significant question is: Who is the most guilty one for the Rwandan genocide? It can be undoubtedly said that main reason of Rwandan genocide is Belgium’s policy over Rwanda, which intends to seperate Rwandan people for manipulating more easily and exploiting deeply and more.

After the World War II, Germany lost his power over Rwanda and Belgium started to manage Rwanda but when Belgium took the control began to fiddle with ethnics of Rwandan people in order to manage and exploit them more easily. This is the common strategy of colonist countries. They also intervened into affairs of Rwandan society and ruled the Rwandan people for working in coffee gardens. The people who didn’t accept this work were punished with whipping. Also, some people were killed because of not accepting the work. Then, Belgium maintains his policy and starts to separate people with their races even if they don’t know the races or tribes of people exactly. They decide the races of people according to thinness of their faces or numbers of cows that they have. They distributed two types of identity cards. One of them is for Hutus and the other one is for Tutsis. These are the races in Rwanda. Belgium was mentioning that the people who have cows more than ten are Tutsi and the people who have less than ten are Hutu. Besides that, they evaluate people’s faces and so deciding their new identities. They also claim that Tutsis are people of superior race because they are the grandchildren of prophet Noah. Due to this belief Tutsis got the government affairs of Rwanda. However, after the independence movements in African societies Belgium decided to change the government and gave the political power to the Hutus. After this change Belgium began to support Hutus in every area. With the weapon and political supports of Belgium, Hutus rebelled and murdered one hundred thousand of Tutsis. After this rebellion, about five hundreds thousand of Tutsis immigrated to neighbor countries, such as Uganda and Tanzania, and lived in camps.

A few years later, the Tutsis, who were living in neighbor countries, decided to come back to Rwanda and struggle with Hutus. Accordingly, they turned back to Rwanda and fought with Hutus. At the end, Tutsis and Hutus signed a pact and ended the war. Even if Belgium was managing both sides, they didn’t intervene into struggles in any way because their desire was already seeing the Rwandan people in struggle. Policy of Belgium was continuing perfectly and the Rwandan people’s minds were being blunted day by day.

Even if most guilty was Belgium for Rwandan genocide, it is possible to be argued that Rwandan people also caused to genocide or gave permission to happen awarelessly. Because most of the people in Rwanda were the people who were dependent to their own religions and according to their religions, making racial discrimination is not acceptable. For example, Christianity or Islam was the most common religions in Rwanda and mention that every people are created equally and advising people for not considering people with their races. Prophet of Islam, Muhammad says: “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, and Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action” Prophet of Christianity, Jesus also gave the similar messages to people but Rwandan people could not be dependent to their own religion as far as they were before Belgium`s interventions. It is possible that Belgium`s employment and brain-washing caused to this atrophy. Most probably, Rwandan people could not be interested in their religions too much and so could not get right messages from their religions and could not resist Belgium policy, which intends to make them disputed with each other.

After the pact, Hutus started to create a half military group, which was named Interhamwe. Members of this group spreaded in whole country and the members made card indexes of most of the Tutsis and the Hutus who were not making discrimination between Hutus and Tutsis. Hutu militiamen soldiers started to killings on April 6, 1994, after the Rwandan President Habyarimana`s plane was shot down, with the supports of Belgium. This support can also be with not intervening into the genocide. The killings began that night. America and France were the countries that signed a pact to intervene into any genocide in the world but they preferred to prevent using the word `genocide` in UN. Their biggest fault was making no intervention to the genocide but the guiltiest country is Belgium because if the discrimination was not started in Rwanda, there would be no genocide and these countries would not be obliged to sign a pact and apply it. So the country, which firstly caused to genocide, is guiltier than all others and the country, which caused to Rwanda genocide was Belgium. So Belgium is most guilty for Rwanda genocide.

In conclusion, some European countries and America cause to Rwandan genocide. However, it should be mentioned that each of them have faults in different ways and levels. While America was resisting the usage of the word `genocide`, France also mentions that there is genocide in Rwanda and sends soldiers to provide peace but covering an area and in this area Hutus kill Tutsis more safely. Besides that, Belgium supporting both sides to kill each other. All these things are the reasons of Rwandan genocide but when we compare the reasons of the genocide we can see that first reason and the biggest reason of the genocide is policy of Belgium and so Belgium is most to blame.

The conflict between Iran and US on nuclear researchs of Iran is because of the reason that US has no more power to apply sanctions to Iran on any issue. The beginning of nuclear researches of Iran is about 1950s, and CIA of US was the supporter and instructor of Iran.

When we look at today’s picture, it is obvious that US lost its sanctioning power on Iran and creating reasons to stop nuclear researches of Iran. Iran is a powerful player at the region of Middle East now and that is not acceptable for US, which is the actor of Middle East after occupying Iraq and while having goals in the region.

US is the most powerful player in the region, firstly, thanks to Israel, the closest ally in the region, and secondly occupying Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein government. After the 1979 Revolution in Iran and then Saddam Hussein’s attack by chemical weapons to Iranian civillians sparked Iran Administration to develop its defence against actors of the region. Moreover, silence of international society during Saddam’s attacks in 1980 weakened Iran’s trust to others. Accordingly, Iranians decided to reach enough power to protect themselves for at the expense of losing its allies in the region and supports of West.

The conflict is that Iran has more researches and developments on nuclear power than it displays officially, according to US and some other Western states. This is considered as a danger for the peace of Middle East by some Western countries. And that’s why they are acting as the messiah of the people of Middle East, and owner and teacher of democracy. On the other hand, Iran administration is claiming that their nuclear researches are just to produce nuclear energy, but not for using nuclear energy for producing nuclear weapons. The more you have media power, the more what you are saying is considered, as a fact. So, US is using its hegemonical media power to create the base of ending Iran as an important and powerful actor in the region and Iran is becoming more angry, even if Iran cannot be heard by the people of the world, because of lack of their media power all around the world.

There are two choices of Iran for now and first of them is to stop all nuclear researches and studies of enrichment of uranium. Second way is to maintain all its developmental activites in spite of threat of US and other Western states. To maintain its developments and research may consequence with an attack to its land and it probably cause a huge war in Middle East, which will damage democratic image of US more and more in the region for Muslim societies. On the other hand, to stop its developments and nuclear efforts will force Iran to become a dependent state to West with its resources and puppet of them, same as Saudi Arabia is. The worst consequence for Iran to maintain its activities is continuing to be an unintegrated state to world in the sense of business affairs. However, China and Russian Federations are two huge powerful actors for Iran to get commercial integration in very soon future. So, the risk of being attacked by US is so low but until the time of breaking free from sanctions of US on other countries to not have commercial relationships with Iran, Iran has to stay powerful on its own and seem powerful enough to protect itself against any attack by any state. In short, Iran has to act as the state that has the most developed nuclear power in the region, until it has integration to Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China.

The best option for US is to accept Iran as a powerful actor in Middle East and have good relations to benefit from Iran for the sake of being more influential actor in the region. Moreover, that will change the bad image of US on the eyes of Muslim World, which will provide US to increase its effects at the region and again benefit more. That will also be the best option for Iran because of the fact that US is the owner of the keys of commercial doors of many countries in the world. That will provide Iran to have more commercial relationships and become more powerful at the region. By this option, both sides benefit more and the civillians of Middle East has no pain anymore, by any other war at the region.