Can you rephrase is so that way I can probably help
Explanation:
The history of Ottoman–Safavid relations (Persian: روابط عثمانی و صفوی) started with the establishment of Safavid dynasty in Persia (Iran) in the early 16th century. The initial Ottoman–Safavid conflict culminated in the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, and was followed by a century of border confrontation. In 1639, Safavid Persia and Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Zuhab which recognized Iraq in Ottoman control, and decisively parted the Caucasus in two between the two empires. For most of it, the Zuhab treaty was a consolidation of the Peace of Amasya of about a century earlier.[1]
Persian and Ottoman Empire in 1661
Until the 18th century, the struggle between the Safavid version of Shia Islam and the Ottoman Turkish version of Sunni Islam had continued to remain an important dimension of the combative relationships between the two major empires.[2] In the early 18th century, Persian–Ottoman peace negotiations introduced a new concept of inter-Muslim relations whereby sovereign states could co-exist as autonomous parts of the Islamic world community.[3] Although the further relations were guided by the mutual fear of weakness and distrust, it wasn't until 1847 when Qajar Persia and Ottoman Empire reached a substantial peace Treaty of Erzurum, starting a century of peace,[2] after centuries of rivalry.
Answer:
Option D, is the right answer.
Explanation:
Monetary policy is associated with the actions of the central bank as well as other regulatory agencies that are responsible to determine the rate of growth and size of the money supply.
The Federal Reserve System is the main agency which determines and implements the monetary policy in the United States. The U.S. Federal Reserve System was established by the Federal Reserve Act in the year 1913. This system is a quasi-public institution.
Answer:
Explanation:
The main reason congress tends, in practice, not to use this authority is that congress rarely wants to. Congressional Democrats didn’t block the “surge” in Iraq, congressional Republicans didn’t block the air war in Kosovo, etc. And for congress, it’s quite convenient to be able to duck these issues. Handling Libya this way means that those members of congress who want to go on cable and complain about the president’s conduct are free to do so, but those who don’t want to talk about Libya can say nothing or stay vague. Nobody’s forced to take a vote that may look bad in retrospect, and nobody in congress needs to take responsibility for the success or failure of the mission. If things work out well in Libya, John McCain will say he presciently urged the White House to act. If things work out poorly in Libya, McCain will say he consistently criticized the White House’s fecklessness. Nobody needs to face a binary
The spanish gov't favored the peninsulares over the creoles, often rewarding them with powerful gov't positions.
