MY BLOG ^^ALL ABOUT KNOWLEDGE^^

C H A PT E R 4

Conceptualizing Knowledge

Emergence

4.1 GATEKEEPERS,INFORMATION, STARS,AND BOUNDARY SPANNERS

The seminal work was that of Thomas J. Allen of MIT [Allen and Cohen, 1969, Allen,T.,1977] who conducted a number of studies relating to information flow in industrial and corporate R&D laboratories.Allen’s most ingenious contribution to the field was to seize upon the phenomenon that in many cases in the context of military R&D and procurement, the same contract is awarded to two different organizations to achieve the same end, typically in the case of a critical component of a larger system. Duplicative development contracts may, in fact, be very worthwhile insurance against the failure of a key component of a system. This duplication provided a wonderfully robustcontext in which to examine information flows and what distinguished the information flows in the more successful projects from the less successful.

Allen coined the term ‘Gatekeeper’ to describe the information flow stars that he discovered,the heavily connected nodes in the information flow pattern. The reason that he chose that term was that much of the development and project work that he investigated was classified military work, where there seemed to be something of a paradox, how was a team to be successful if it didn’t effectively connect with the world of information outside the organization? But how did it do that in a classified and communication restricted environment?What he discovered was that the information stars, the sociometric stars, were the answer to that paradox; they were the information channels through which external information reached the project team.That role was so crucial in the contexts that Allen typically investigated what he termed his sociometric stars “Gatekeepers.” They oversaw and guarded the gates through which external information reached the projects. Indeed, one might say that they were not just the gatekeepers, they themselves were the gates.

4.2 RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND KNOWLEDGE

The ‘Gatekeepers, Information Stars & Boundary Spanner’ tradition is very consistent with a substantial body of work studying research productivity. Koenig,M. [1992a], for example, in the context of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, studied the relationship between research productivity and the information environment in which that research was conducted. The productivity measure was, at base, simply the number of approved new drugs (new drug applications or NDAs) per millions of dollars of R&D budget. This measure, however, was refined by weighting the NDAs in regard to: 1) whether or not the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) judged the drug to be an “important therapeutic advance,” 2) the chemical novelty of the drug, and 3) the filing company’s patent position in regard to the drug, an indicator of where the bulk of the research was done. The study is compelling because of the high face validity of the measure of success, the successful introduction of new pharmaceutical agents, since that is what pharmaceutical companies are about after all, and because of the statistical robustness of the results, a consequence of the fact that the more successful companies were found to be not just twenty or thirty percent more productive than the not so successful companies, they were two or three hundred percent more productive.

The more productive companies were characterized by:

·         A relatively egalitarian managerial structure with unobtrusive status indicators in the R&D environment,

·          Less concern with protecting proprietary information,

·         Greater openness to outside information, greater use of their libraries and information centers, specifically, greater attendance by employees at professional meetings,

·         Greater information systems development effort,

·         Greater end-user use of information systems and more encouragement of browsing and serendipity. Increased time spent browsing and keeping abreast,

4.3 LACK OF RECOGNITION OFTHESE FINDINGS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

As Allen pointed out in his study, there is a surprising lack of recognition of these findings about the importance of information stars in the business community. This is, in fact, a subset of an even larger problem - the lack of recognition of or even obtuseness to the importance of information and information related managerial actions in the business community. For example, one major study that reviewed a large corpus of work on R&D innovation, [Goldhar et al., 1976], concluded that there are six characteristics of environments that are conducive to technological innovations. The three most important characteristics are all related to the information environment and information flow – specifically: 1) easy access to information by individuals; 2) free flow of information both into and out of the organizations; 3) rewards for sharing, seeking, and using “new” externally developed information sources. Note the ‘flow in and out’ and the ‘sharing, seeking, and using’. Number six is also information environment related, 6) the encouragement of mobility and interpersonal contacts. Yet in a remarkable oversight, the studies’ authors never remarked on the dramatic win, place, and show finish of information and knowledge factors.

4.4 COMMUNITY-BASEDMODELS

The Information Systems literature points to an abundance ofKMstrategies in the category of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Such systems provide the infrastructure for enabling the interactions needed for a group’s knowledge synergies and interactive activities [Maier, R., 2002] and may include bulletin boards, electronic meeting/conferencing, or online chat. In this model, the notion of space [Ruhleder, K., 2002], physical or otherwise, is important primarily because the meeting place or system provides an environment that allows for interactions to unfold, at the convenience of individual participants, often asynchronously. Further, such CMC interactions allow for the creation of persistent records [Robins, J., 2002] of the interactions. Chat and other kind of social media transcriptions can be preserved too as another example. To the extent that discourse occurs through such interactions, the dialectics can be archived for future reference and subsequent “reuse.” However,  asHislop, D. [2002] points out, while technology may provide the tools for interaction and communication, the application of technology alone may not be a sufficient condition for sustaining the creation and sharing of knowledge.

4.5 REPOSITORY MODEL

The knowledge management repository, a space to store and retrieve knowledge objects has long been a standard in KMprograms. It is a model that emphasizes the creation of quality knowledge content in online repositories with re-use as a goal. Markus, M. [2001] argues that the purpose and content of knowledge records in repositories often differ depending on who needs the documentation: the content producer, similar others, or dissimilar others. She emphasizes that a great deal of effort is required to produce quality content, and, as such, part of the burden of documenting and packaging knowledge objects can be transferred to intermediaries, saving time and energy of the organization’s staff. In addition, adding context is also another aspect of making content more usable. Markus proposes the roles of human intermediaries in what she terms as “repurposing” of repositories to make them more appropriate for use by others. Examples of activities that could be performed include abstracting, indexing, authoring, and sanitizing or scrubbing content. Because of the costs involved in repackaging and making repository knowledge content more usable to the knowledge seeker,Markus looks to an expanded role for technological support of core competencies of librarians, archivists, data curators, and other information professionals.

4.6 ACTIVITY-BASEDMODELS

While there has been significant work done in terms of Information Systems support for the coordination of work [Winograd,T., 1988], the next logical progression would be to link knowledge production and capture with work processes. For example, Blackler, F. [1995] considers knowledge in organizations as socially distributed collective activity systems, and emphasizes the significance of incoherence and dilemma as the key issues in social systems. Similarly, Engeström, Y. [1999] research, using activity systems as cycles of expansive learning in work practices, also points to the  importance of activities as providing the necessary context for grounding organizational knowledge. Based on such a historical-cultural perspective of activity, Hasan, H. [2003] proposed rudiments of a KM system influenced by activity-based models that would link work activities with people and content.

C H A PT E R 5

Knowledge “Acts”

5.1 QUESTION ASKING AND ANSWERING

Question asking and answering is a foundational process by which what people know tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as knowledge. To support such a view, we borrow from speech acts theory [Searle, J., 1969] that amongst others categorizes question asking as a form of a speech act. In adapting the theory, Hirschheim et al. [1995] describe types of speech acts that pertain to aspects of either Knowledge Management (KM), or Information Management (IM). For example, Boahene and Ditsa [2003] suggest that Information Management systems target a base of expressive speech acts by mainly supporting the recall of meaning-attribution while Knowledge Management systems target regulative and constantive speech acts primarily to support the organization and management of dynamic complexity. They reason that IM addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’ while KM targets problems involving dynamic complexity, addressing solutions to questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’ Quigley and Debons [1999] adopted a similar stance that considers information as texts that primarily answer ‘informative’ questions such as who, when, what, or where while knowledge is considered as texts that answer more ‘explanatory’ or ‘meaning related’ questions such as why or how.

5.2 POSTING CONTENT TOREPOSITORIES

Contributing content such as lessons-learned, project experiences, and success stories is another approach to knowledge sharing. The capturing of best practice has often been highlighted as a form of externalized knowledge. O’Dell and Jackson [1998] point out the importance of frameworks for classifying information.For example, they note that Chevron and other groups organize information in their best practice databases using the Process Classification Framework developed by APQC (American Productivity and Quality Council) and Arthur Andersen. Through such a framework, subunits can talk with each other more effectively via a common vocabulary.

5.3 (RE)USING KNOWLEDGE

Desouza et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume knowledge can be framed as a problem of risk evaluation, with perceived complexity and relative advantage being identified as factors relating to intentions to “consume” knowledge. However, it is essential that the knowledge consumer is able to reasonably frame his or her knowledge needs. Belkin et al. [1982] found that during problem articulation, users have anomalous states of knowledge, and they may not be able to specify their information needs accurately. Since the publication of this seminal work legions of researchers have worked on systems that will help people formulate effective questions that will retrieve relevant information.McMahon et al. [2004], studying team work involving engineering design, suggest that both codification and personalization approaches to knowledge reuse are relevant. They recognize the notion of information value, allowing for the matching of information to the knowledge needs of the user. They propose that good representations of both information characteristics and user characteristics are essential.

5.4 KNOWLEDGE-BASED 

In general, decision making involves identifying alternatives, projecting probabilities and outcomes of alternatives, and evaluating outcomes according to known preferences and implications for stakeholders. Choo, C. [2002] suggests that decision making activity requires the establishment of shared meanings and the assumption of prior knowledge.

Shared meanings and purposes as well as newknowledge and capabilities, converge on decision making as the activity leading to the selection and initiation of action.Shared meanings, agendas, and identities select the premises, rules, and routines that structure decision making. New knowledge and capabilities make possible new alternatives and outcomes, expanding the range of available organizational responses [Choo, C., 2002, p. 86]. Choo further proposes that information flows are a central process that bridges knowledge creation and decision making activity. Information flows continuously between sense making, knowledge creating, and decision making, so that the outcome of information use in one mode provides the elaborated context and the expanded resources for information use in the other modes [Choo, C., 2002, p. 85].

Information used in one activity that results in new knowledge will, in turn, be used to guide selection of alternatives in future tasks that involve decision making. Codified rules and routines would be relied on to support evaluation of alternatives and selection of action decisions. Choice of alternatives, and decision outcomes then provide the backdrop upon which sense making, or justification, of decision rationale occurs. Such decision rationale, and its associated sense making can then be codified for (re)use in other contexts, applied to future activities that draw on it to create new instances of knowledge.

C H A PT E R 6

Knowledge Management in

Practice

6.1 KMIN PRACTICE – PROCESSES

A very useful way of thinking is to conceptualize KMas the actualization of what Powell,T. [2001a] calls the “Knowledge Value Chain.” The chain is straightforward, a pyramid, in fact, leading from Data at the bottom through Information, Knowledge, Intelligence, Decision, and Action, to Value. The notion is simple, but the explication is sophisticated and complex. Value to the organization is ultimately what KM is about.

6.1.1 FINDING INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Finding information and knowledge refers to processes that allow organizations to make sense and make use of data, information, and knowledge objects that may be present but are not codified, analyzed, nor accessible to members. Knowledge exists in all organizations, but all knowledge may not be explicit. Knowledge objects or artifacts are entities that represent knowledge existing within organizational members [McInerney, C., 2002]. A long-time employee may have a deep understanding of processes and guidelines, but he or she may never have written them down or compiled them in a document like a procedural manual.

6.1.2 SHARING INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

Sharing of information for knowledge development is the most traditional collection of processes, easily understood, but often overlooked in a systematic knowledge management program. Sharing refers to the willingness and ability of the knowledgeable to share what they know to help others expand their own learning and knowing.Teaching and learning activities, such as online universities in industry, mentoring programs, apprenticeships, and training programs all serve as opportunities for individuals to share knowledge. The live interactions that occur in lectures and other kinds of learning sessions can now be captured fairly easily with digital video or audio equipment. Even devices have these capabilities.They can then be indexed and placed on a shared file platform or in an intranet. If indexed appropriately, knowledge workers can find the audio and video and use these things over and over again. The principals therefore wanted the person who needed the information or knowledge to have to come to them, so that the two contexts could be discussed and the applicability properly understood. The principles were, in general, quite willing to have it be broadcast that they had a lesson learned in a particular area, but in many cases, they did not want so much to be revealed that someone else would feel that they knew enough about that lesson to take it and run with it without consultation first.

6.2 KM IN PRACTICE - PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES

Note that KM is a complex topic, and in attempting to write about its various dimensions and to address it from different perspectives, some overlap is unavoidable.

6.2.1 KNOWLEDGE AUDIT

The obvious first step in launching a formalKMprogram throughout an organization is to conduct an information or knowledge audit.An audit answers the questions of what information and knowledge exists in the organization and where is it?Who maintains it?Who has access to it? Etc. The idea of an information auditory much predates KM as we have defined KM here. Accompanying, or more accurately a component of, the Information Resources Management (IRM) movement of the 1970’s was a strong emphasis upon the information or knowledge audit. The foremost exponent of the information or knowledge audit was Forrest (Woody) Horton. He and Burk developed a program called ‘InfoMapper’ [Burk and Horton, 1988] precisely to facilitate the conduct of an information audit.

6.2.2 TAGS,TAXONOMIES,AND CONTENTMANAGEMENT

Having identified and located information and knowledge, the obvious next step is to make it relocatable and retrievable, made possible by tagging and creating taxonomies. (Note that the term used by far the most frequently in this context in KM is “taxonomy.” The traditional professional information community would call what most authors in theKMfield call a taxonomy a classification scheme, or a classificatory or syndetic structure. But most writers in the KM domain come from the business world and are unaware of that terminology, and use the word “taxonomy” that they remember from their high school and college science courses.) Stage III of the development of KM, described above, can well be called the Taxonomy Stage.

6.2.3 LESSONS LEARNEDDATABASES

Lessons Learned databases are databases that attempt to capture and to make accessible knowledge that has been operationally obtained and typically would not have been captured in a fixed medium (to use copyright terminology). In theKMcontext, the emphasis is typically upon capturing knowledge embedded in persons and making it explicit.The lessons learned concept or practice is one that might be described as having been birthed by KM, as there is very little in the way of a direct antecedent. Early in the KM movement, the phrase typically used was “best practices,” but that phrase was soon replaced with “lessons learned.” The reasons were that “lessons learned” was broader and more inclusive, and because “best practice” seemed too restrictive and could be interpreted as meaning there was only one best practice in a situation.What might be a best practice in North American culture, might well not be a best practice in another culture.The major international consulting firms were very aware of this and led the movement to substitute the new term. “Best Practices” succeeded by “Lessons Learned” was the most common hallmark phrase of Stage I of KM development.

6.2.4 EXPERTISE LOCATION

If knowledge resides in people, then one of the best ways to learn what an expert knows is to talk with one. Locating the right expert with the knowledge you need, though, can be a problem. The basic function of an expertise locator system is straightforward, it is to identify and locate those persons within an organization who have expertise in a particular area. Such systems were commonly known as “Yellow Page” systems in the early days of KM, the name coming from the telephone book yellow pages, the section of the phone book, or a separate volume of the phone book, organized for subject search. In recent years, the term expertise locator or expertise location has replaced yellow pages as being rather more precise. After all the yellow pages metaphor with its implication of subject search could apply to many areas of KM, such as for example lessons learned and content management.

Expertise location systems are another aspect of KM that certainly predates KM thinking. The Mitre Corporation, for example, developed such a system in 1978. It was based upon creating a database developed from reformatted resumes retrieved from word-processing tapes, and upon the development of a competence area thesaurus to improve retrieval.However, even in a technologically sophisticated organization, generously, by the standards of the time, supplied with computer workstations, the system was underutilized, fell into disuse, and was for all practical purposes abandoned. More than two decades later, the system was essentially reinvented as part of a larger KM initiative [Mattox et al., 1999], by a development team that was totally unaware of the previous system and its thesaurus, which they would have called a “taxonomy,” and which had to be recreated. A journal article on the history of KM at Mitre [Maybury, M., 2003] starts its discussion in the late 1980s and makes no mention of the 1978 system. This is a good example of valuable organizational knowledge and expertise being lost due primarily to normal personnel turnover.

6.2.5 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE (COPS)

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are groups of individuals with shared interests that come together in person or virtually to tell stories, discuss best practices, and talk over lessons learned [Wenger, E., 1998a,Wenger and Snyder, 1999].Communities of practice emphasize the social nature of learning within or across organizations.

            The organization and maintenance of CoPs is not a simple and easy undertaking. As Durham, M. [2004] points out, there are several key roles to be filled, which she describes as manager, moderator, and thought leader. They need not necessarily be three separate people, but in some cases they will need to be. For a CoP, some questions that need to be thought about are: Who fills those roles? manager, moderator, and thought leader. How is the CoP managed? Are postings open, or does someone vet or edit the postings? How is the CoP kept fresh and vital? When and how (under what rules) are items removed?

6.3 PROCESSES,PROCEDURES,AND PRACTICESMATRIX

If we create a matrix in which the rows are KM Processes and the columns KM Procedures and Practices, and in which the ordering, top to bottom and left to right is roughly in chronological or serve, the matrix looks like:

 

Figure 6.1: Processes and Procedures & Practices Matrix.

That matrix reveals several interesting things. Almost everything one does in KM is designed to help find information and knowledge.However, if we assume that the main goal ofKMis to share knowledge and even more importantly to develop new knowledge, then the Knowledge Audit and the Tags, Taxonomies and Content Management stages are the underpinnings and the tools. It is the knowledge sharing and knowledge creation of one on one communications enabled by expertise locators, and the communal sharing and creation of knowledge enabled by communities of practice toward which KM development should be aimed.

the results of my response !!

Will be completed in the Strait of Hormuz?

In the last three months of the conflict between Iran and the United States et al into the new episodes that can lead toward open warfare. War will break out if Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz if the European Union to realize the financial sanctions and an embargo on Iranian oil exports in July. The EU will continue to impose sanctions (following the U.S. sanctions that currently apply) if Iran does not halt its nuclear program. And Iran has insisted it will not stop nuclear program for peaceful purposes according to him.

Since the revolution of the mullahs led by Ayatollah Khoemeni in 1979 that overthrew U.S. ally, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran has become the target of America. Occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by student activists on 4 November 1979 followed by 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days, an American and shameful event is reason enough to sever diplomatic relations on April 7, 1980. Furthermore, under the pretext of human rights and democratic America dropped the various embargo vigorous, intelligent operations and military operations.
 On 24 April 1980, the American military operation with the password "Operation Eagle Claw" as a preliminary attack on Iran. This ends the operation failed, eight members of the U.S. military were killed and several were arrested. The assault was stopped as a signatory to Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. A day later, both parties mutually release the captives.

On January 1984, President Ronald Reagan declared Iran as "a sponsor of international terrorism" and mobilizing the countries in the world for not cooperating with Iran. On October 19, 1987, the American attack on Iran with the password "Operation Nimble Archer" and failed. On 18 April 1988, America returned to the attack with the password "Operation Praying Mantis" by attacking Iran's military position in the Persian Gulf and sank an Iranian-owned ships Frigate.

On July 3, 1988, the U.S. Navy ship launched a missile from the cruiser USS Vincennes and Airbus A300B2 aircraft to destroy Iran's flying over the Strait of Hormuz. Scheduled commercial aircraft is destroyed, 290 civilians were killed from six nations including 66 children. USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf as part of "Operation Earnest Will". To the United Nations, Iran filed the incident as a terrorist act by the state. American responded that it is as "unintentional incident."

On October 1992, the U.S. sets sanctions on Iraq and Iran suspicion of allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In 1994, Conoco (American oil company) signed a contract with Iran oil investment of U.S. $ 1 billion. Feeling cheated, in March 1995, the U.S. set a total embargo on all types of investment and trade.

In 1993, the U.S. issued a policy of "dual containment" by publishing Ilsa (Iran Libya Sanctions Act), which contains sanctions for companies outside the United States that invests in Iran and Libya worth over 40 million U.S. $ a year. In 1996, the policy of "dual containment" is focused on Iran, come a ISA (Iran Sanction Act) which is a tightening of sanctions before, giving sanction to any company from any country that invests more than U.S. $ 20 million per year in oil industry Iran.

Triggers Nuclear Dispute

In 2000, the U.S. and its allies began to question Iran's nuclear program that Iran replied to the question of Israel's nuclear program, which began in 1952 with the help of American and British. Iran's nuclear program actually began long before the Islamic Revolution, on June 1967 when the government of Shah Pahlevi for the support of the U.S. and Germany established the TNRC (Tehran Nuclear Research Center) and has a five megawatt nuclear reactor scale. The deteriorating condition of the domestic force to stop Iran's nuclear program as well as the termination of cooperation with Siemens of Germany.

On August 2001, President Bush signed a bill extended the life of the Ilsa into a formal law. On January 29, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush called Iran with Iraq and North Korea as a rogue nation "Axis of evil". Bush tried to attack a third country. Plans to attack North Korea canceled, because Americans are not supported by its close allies (South Korea and Japan) and was strongly opposed by China. Americans turned to Iraq, Iran peering.

In 2002 Iran stop its cooperation with IAEA and banning all forms of supervision and inspection of Iran's nuclear program. Iran IAEA reasonable and honest work is a part of American and Israeli espionage.

After Saddam Hussein fell, in June 2005, the U.S. preparing to attack Iran. Preparation is done by taking a base in Azerbaijan. Despite allegations, the U.S. gets fierce resistance from the Iraqi fighters, plan raids into Iran also suspended. United then used to conduct terror group Jundullah and sabotage against Iran's interests. In this action, Jundullah managed to kill about 400 Iranian soldiers. Jundullah itself an Islamic militant group based in Waziristan, Pakistan, organized and funded by the United States. ABC (the American Broadcasting Company) on this subject by quoting The Washington Times on April 3, 2007.

Stepping on the year 2006, the U.S. managed to garner support for the UN to impose sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Since then at least five United Nations imposed sanctions crucial to Iran. Iran refused to obey the Iran nuclear sanctions on the grounds for the sake of peace in order to meet domestic electricity demand, not for military purposes as charged America and its allies.

To the UN sanctions Nuclear Program Related

Dated March 23, 2007, Iran seized 15 British Marines are trying to make incursions into Iranian territory. Britain and the United inflamed, in October 2007 the U.S. dropped sanctions against Bank Sepah, Bank Arian, Kargoshaee Bank, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat Iran as an effort to trade blockade. Tensions increased in January 2008, when the U.S. Navy and Iran have faced each other in the Strait of Hormuz. In June 2008, Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz for five hours in response to the Israeli invasion plan.

On April 2009, America dropped back IRPSA sanctions (the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009) which contains a threat to any person involved in Iran's oil refining industry. On June 18, 2009, Britain froze Iran's assets worth $ 1.59 billion. On 19 November 2009, the U.S. added sanctions include banning the sale IRPSA oil and gas exploration equipment to Iran, either by the state, enterprises and individuals. On July 26, 2010, the EU endorsed sanctions to restrict the activities of oil and gas investment in efforts to limit Iran's natural gas production.

On November 2011, the IAEA issued a report on Iran's nuclear program, the progress of Iran's nuclear program has reached the stage of the ability to make nuclear warheads for missiles. Asked Iran to stop its nuclear program or will be imposed an embargo on Iranian oil exports.

Failed Embargo, U.S. Prepare War

Various economic war being waged America and its allies since 1980 until today, not many reaping the rewards. Also with the latest sanctions are expected to make a variety of countries decided to trade relations with Iran. On January 26, 2012, India still bring in oil from Iran who is a supplier of 12 percent of its crude needs India. India to pay for this transaction in the currency of rupees which can then be used by Iran to pay for imports from India. Earlier India used U.S. $ to pay for Iranian oil. On February 3, 2012, China also sent two supertankers to carry around two million barrels of crude oil from Iran to the Khark Island, China. Two other ships, Davar and Hoda, also has been in the Iranian oil terminal to transport 2.4 million metric tons of crude oil to China.

Thirty-two years of living in Iran embargo did not make the weak. Similarly, for 32 years in the threat of war does not make Iran shriveled balls. But now, after looking at the military title of both parties, this is just hard to believe that in order "deterence". Chief Editor of the Russian National Defense magazine, Igor Korotchenko, predicted that war was imminent between the United States and Iran. America will continue to encourage a variety of sanctions for Iran and hope that Iran is really fulfilling its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. Thus the Americans have reason to attack Iran which has been delayed several times due to weak excuse. On the basis of disruption of international interest, Americans expect to get international support.