In his article, “The Hazards of Real-Time Foreign Policy Punditry,” Daniel W. Drezner addresses the dangers of reading too much into the immediate foreign policy moment. Drezner looks into the hostage negotiations that occurred last week in Iran. A week ago, Iran released U.S. sailors and ships it had seized after the boats drifted into the country’s territorial waters. Drezner hints that some media figures had overreacted during the short period of captivity. The author believes that overreacting is usually unnecessary, and in this case the overreactions look plain silly. Drezner holds this idea because often, things “turn out to be” or unbeknownst details arise, as in this instance.

Last week, it happened to be that the Obama …show more content…
“The Hazards of Real-Time Foreign Policy Punditry” is an opinion article, therefore, I expected a political slant. In this case, the slant was to the left, proved by the occasional jab at conservative critics. One section of the article is devoted to proving why some conservative viewpoints are wrong, in Dresner's eyes.

In my opinion, this article has an interesting topic. However, the author jumped around so many different topics and stories that, being that I do not have a strong foundation in Iranian affairs, it was difficult to follow. Had I been up to snuff with current foreign policies and such, this article would have been much more enjoyable. I did not even know that these hostage deals were happening. It made me think--how much am I unaware of? As for the content, I agree with Drezner in that I believe it is wrong to jump to conclusions, especially for attention--which is what the media is all about. With confidential deals, I think it is best to wait for the facts, rather than to