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.

On Monday, the Cornell International Affairs Review held a panel discussion entitled “Tehran Divided: Iran’s Presidential Election and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy.” The discussion featured three professor panelists, each from the Near Eastern Studies department. The panelists were Prof. Ziad Fahmy, Prof. Iago Gocheleishvili and Prof. David Patel.

With the first United Nations General Assembly Meeting in New York City just three days away, the Cornell International Affairs Affairs Review held a panel discussion yesterday focusing on the political issues surrounding this upcoming meeting, especially the controversy surrounding Iran’s recent presidential elections.

CIAR’s first panel of the seminar, “Tehran Divided: Iran’s Presidential Election and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy,” sought to address issues such as the controversial 2009 presidential elections in Iran, the history and future of Iran as a political power and the implications of these issues on the General Assembly meeting, where both President Barack Obama and President Mohamoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will be present.