Both conflicts have led to change in the Middle East. Describe what changes happened because of U. S. Presence in the (1) Persian Gulf Conflict, (2) the invasion of Afghanistan, and (3) the invasion of Iraq. There should be THREE parts to your answer

(1) Persian Gulf Conflict - American intervention led to the survival of Kuwait as an independent country. Without the U.S., Kuwait would have probably succumbed to Iraqi aggression since Iraq is a much larger and powerful country. This intervention also weakened the regime of Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq.

(2) the invasion of Afghanistan - American intervention resulted in the removal of the Taliban from power, and the installment of a U.S. friendly government that still rules the country, officially. However, the Taliban still have de facto control over vast areas of the country.

(3) the invasion of Iraq. - American intervention resulted in the removal from power and capture of Saddam Hussein, who would be excecuted years later. However, this invasion was also a complicated matter that made the country more unstable, worsened relations between sunni muslims, shia muslims, and kurds, and paved the way for the emergence of ISIS.

dude have you found the answer? i go to connexus as well but i think the answer is prime minister

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )