Fallacies In An Op-Ed

http://www.realite-eu.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=9dJBLLNkGiF&b=2315291&ct=4477049

The Chavez-Iran Alliance
Fact Sheet
Facing the threat of international isolation and stiffer UN Security Council sanctions over its uranium enrichment work, Iran is keen to demonstrate the backing it enjoys from a number of Latin American leaders. In Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, Tehran has found a friend.
Chavez is Latin America’s most vocal supporter of Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the men call each other “brother” and relish their status as fierce opponents of Washington. “The two countries will unite to defeat the imperialism of North America,” a beaming Chavez told a news conference during an official visit to the Islamic Republic. i
In September 2005, Venezuela was alone in opposing an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution that found Iran in violation of nuclear safeguards. Chavez has since spoken in support of Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. and European governments say is part of a project to build weapons.ii
In July 2006, Iran’s state-run TV reported that Ahmadinejad gave Iran’s highest state medal to Chavez for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff. “The medal was awarded as an expression of gratitude for Chavez’s support for Iran’s stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the station said. iii
During a visit to Iran in September 2006, Chavez spoke in support of Iran’s nuclear program. “What gives the U.S. the right,” he asked “to stop any country developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes?” Chavez added an ominous warning to Washington: “We don't want another war, but there will be disastrous consequences if Iran is attacked.” iv
Uses Chavez's negative image in the US to reflect poorly on Iran, using a Personal Attack fallacy. It also uses a genetic fallacies by using many references to Venezuela and Iran preying on people's negative images of both South America and the Middle East. Argumentum ad Populum with the Bandwagon approach is used when it says that Venezuela alone was against a policy that negatively affected Iran. This agrument is used in the patriotic approach too as they often make reference to the countries being against the US.

Iran and Venezuela have signed bilateral agreements on issues ranging from oil exploration to cultural exchanges. In the financial sphere, Ahmadinejad and Chavez have tried to undermine the world’s economy by challenging the dollar.
In October 2005, Chavez announced that Venezuela was ready to follow Iran and move Venezuela’s foreign-exchange holdings out of the dollar. He called for the creation of a South American central bank to hold all foreign-exchange holdings of participating countries. v
In July 2007, the two presidents launched construction of a joint petrochemical plant with an annual capacity of 1.65 million tons on Iran’s Gulf coast. Chavez and Ahmadinejad also signed a series of other deals to expand economic cooperation, ranging from setting up a dairy factory in Venezuela to forming an oil company.vi Iranian officials said a second methanol plant would be constructed in Venezuela.
Each of the two plants would cost $650 million to $700 million and take four years to complete. Methanol, an alcohol, can be used as a solvent or an element in fuel. That would help Iran to access the Latin American market, while Venezuela would get closer to buyers in India and Pakistan. vii
Both leaders see themselves as revolutionaries, and the 29 agreements they have signed are, in their words, designed to fuel their revolutions. Along with the agreements cited above,, the presidents signed deals covering iron and steel production, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and health care equipment and munitions. viii
Uses the appeal to patriotism is also used when the challenging of the dollar is brought up. Repaets the leaders names often so they can build up their infamy, therefore its a subtle personal attack because the reader will negatively link them the next time they hear about them. Talks about developments as something bad or conspiratory, (Personal Attack) and citing their deals as plots for evil.

Both Iran and Venezuela have provided significant support to international terrorist organizations, particularly al Qaeda.
Chavez provided $1 million to al Qaeda following 9/11, according to Major Diaz Castillo of the Venezuelan Air force, who was Chavez’s personal pilot until he defected. In late September 2001, Diaz Castillo says, Venezuelan Vice President Diosdado Cabello funneled the money through Venezuela’s ambassador in India, Walter Marquez. The Taliban received the money and publicly acknowledged receipt of $100,000 in “humanitarian aid.” “The rest went straight to al Qaeda,” he said. ix
Chavez’s support for al Qaeda could help explain his increasingly close relationship with the government of Iran, where large numbers of al Qaeda leaders are known or suspected to be. x
Cuba’s General Intelligence Directorate has practically taken over Venezuela’s Directorate for Intelligence, Security, and Prevention, according to General Marcos Ferreira, who resigned as director of Venezuela’s border-control service.
In addition, Ferreira said, Interior Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin pressured him to cover up the identities of terrorists, many from the Middle East, to deceive U.S. terrorism investigators. xi
Chavez’s courting of radical regimes is not new. He fawned over Saddam Hussein in 2000, even as that dictator brutally tortured his own citizens, stole Oil-For-Food funds, and sent terrorists abroad to murder Iraqis who opposed him. Today, Chavez roots for the terrorists who bomb innocent Iraqis. xii
Personal attack when it cites the countries helping terrorists and slanders Iran when it says that many terrorists are suspected to be there. Improper Authority is also used as the pilot defected and therefore feels negatively towards Chavez and the need to please Americans as he needs asylum. Uses a Personal Attack against Hussein to negatively reflect on Chavez and this line "Chavez roots for the terrorist who bomb innocent Iraquis" needs no explaination towards its bias.