Why rogue states are now neorealists

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 1:41 PM Share

In the Boston Globe, Bryan Bender explains that longtime foes of the United States are facing a public relations problem:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has an Obama problem. So does the leadership of Al Qaeda. Obama also presents a challenge to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, and other leaders who have utilized anti-American feeling to strengthen their grips on power.
The new American president, who has tried to strike a more conciliatory tone toward some of America's most intractable adversaries, may be making inroads into reducing anti-American feeling in some distant corners of the globe: Entire bookshelves from Egypt to the Persian Gulf are dedicated to Obama; a popular Arab pop star is recording a "Song to Obama"; and public spaces that just months ago were dedicated to anti-American posters are festooned with the smiling American leader.
In response, some of the most anti-American governments, along with the leaders of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas, are testing out their own strategy for dealing with Obama: asserting that he's no different from George W. Bush and insisting that US policies won't change.

In trying this approach, these actors are essentially adopting a neorealist explanation for state behavior -- i.e., the disposition of a foreign policy leader is irrelevant, because states will act based on their position in the international system.

My hunch is that this strategy will not work in the short run, as Obama has pivoted U.S. policy on some important issues (Gitmo, Iran, missile defense, etc.) Not surprisingly, Iran has already begun to deviate from its rabid anti-Obama posture. Yesterday, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would consider a dialogue with the United States. His foreign minister told Reuters today that, "We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed."

Over time, this kind of rhetorical response might work, however. It depends on what Obama does rather than who he is.

Developing....

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, OBAMA, ROGUE STATES, SOFT POWER

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUE13326

2:06 PM ET

February 11, 2009

Arguments that rely on

Arguments that rely on anecdotes are logically invalid.

According to the new BBC poll, global attitudes toward the US haven't changed much after Obama's election, especially in our long-time foes:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/BBCEvals_Feb09_rpt_emb.pdf

PERCNON

5:23 PM ET

February 11, 2009

Arguments are ideas

@blue13326

Arguments are ideas. Anecdotes aren't used for their 'proof', they're used to make a point. And opinion polls don't 'prove' a thing. They can be powerful and enlightening but often wrong. In the case of foreign policy, especially as these are less than democratic states, its the words of the leaders that matter. Politicians don't just say stuff without meaning it. An anecdote from a head of state says much more about possible foreign policy changes than any opinion poll.

GIBEOM KIM

5:17 AM ET

February 12, 2009

of the recent movements of the N.K

Regarding the recent movements of North Korea, preparing to launch one of their missiles and replacing certain positions within their army, do you think that testing the Obama administrations's response to their actions is definitely one of the logics behind all this mess?

CHRIS BROWN

4:50 PM ET

February 12, 2009

Can we please

Stuff the "rogue state" cliché? If one checks the definition of rogue, and wants to gets down to cases, the USA is a rogue state.

While I'm add it might also observe that "schadenfreude" was long ago rendered to cliché status.