An ideology-friendly guide to the Iran negotiations

Fri, 10/02/2009 - 11:52am

So, how should you interpret the first round of P5 +1 negotiations with Iran that took place yesterday? 

The hard-working staff here at drezner.foreignpolicy.com would never want its readers to view material outside their ideological comfort zone -- that would be crazy talk.  Therefore, please go down this list of different ideological approaches to Iran and read only the one that fits you. 

Liberal internationalism:  An excellent first round of talks.  At a minimum, the Iranian pledge to permit IAEA inspectors into its Qom facility, and the agreement to have fuel encriched outside of Iran, help to lessen fears of a breakout capability.  This shows how a multilateral approach, linked to the threat of sanctions, can successfully bring Iran into a cooperative relationship with the West.

Neoconservatism:  These talks were a feckless and futile exercise.  Iran agreed "in principle" -- which means that it will likely not honor its pledges. This also covers part of the uranium that we know about, and only the facilities that we know about.  Anyone who thinks that this lying, odious, anti-Semitic regime is showing all of its cards on the nuclear question is deluding themselves.  The only thing these talks will accomplish is sapping the will of Americans to use any means necessary to overthrow the regime. 

Realism:  Iran's concessions reinforce the point that this regime a perfectly rational actor that is worthy of even deeper engagement.  We still have no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, so we should not go looking for red herrings that do not exist.  A deal can be made with this government once we are able to ignore how its rulers treats its own citizenry.  Any failure from here on in is entirely the fault of Israel and the Israel Lobby in the United States. 

So, did I miss anything? 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Is there still

by zjin on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 12:21pm

Is there still isolationism/non-interventionism in US?

But anyway, Iran news is so behind the curve now. Today's hot deal is if the Chicago's 1st-round loss breaks the myth of Obama's soft power in the world. Does it change the prospect of the public diplomacy championed by Obama? If Obama cannot even deliver IOC for his home state to pass the 1st round, what are his odds of delivering Iran, Afpak, climate change, international NUKE disarm, and mideast peace?

Ideologies

by Ralph Hitchens on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 1:30pm

Hey, I never thought the Windy City had a chance. But seriously, LI & R trump N pretty soundly.

things you missed

by Alexander Wendt... on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 2:03pm

*Constructivism* 'cough' 'cough'
Or are you saying Neoconservatism takes care of my concern?

And to zjin's first question, the answer is no. At least not in academic IR.

Yes, a worthwhile comment on the matter

by Norwegian Shooter on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 3:23pm

A false trichotomy is no better than the di version. This is only a very surprising and potentially very big IR development. No need to actually treat it seriously.

Diplomatic isolationism is fringe, but military non-interventionism is alive and well. See Andrew Bacevich and Daniel Larison.

did I miss anything?

by Sir_mixxalot on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 9:22pm

Yes.

The fact that Israel started the Nuclear Arms Race in the mideast.

And, that Israel never signed the NPT.

And, the fact that USA will play monkey see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil since we surrendered our leadership to AIPAC:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/02/president-obama-has-reaffirmed-a-4-decade-old-secr/#

Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret

This may not be your intent,

by Grant on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 12:46am

This may not be your intent, but I have to make two criticisms on your 'realism' point. The first is the mention of lobbies in the United States. To my understanding pure realist theory sees groups like lobbies as unimportant compared to the state. Second, the idea that any problems that occur now would be the fault of the United States or Israel. That presumes that somehow Iranian internal politics won't abruptly shift, or that Russia or China won't set up new problems. Realist theory might prefer to look more at the states, but it takes into account all of the states.

I think he was tweaking a

by blue13326 on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 7:47am

I think he was tweaking a fellow blogger on this site who tends to blame anything negative on the 'Israel lobby' while masquerading as a realist, rather than trying to paint an accurate portrayal of a pure realist position.

It made me laugh.

Yes, you understated the neocon case,

by Don Bacon on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 10:25am

which has also been the neolib/Obama*/Clinton case, and that is that Iran has "an illicit nuclear weapons program."

*Obama, nor his spokesman, has mentioned the "illicit program" in a week, so there's hope.

Incidentally, David Albright has new revelations on this "illicit weapons program" on his ISIS website, evidence supposedly gleaned from the infamous "smoking laptop." It doesn't get any better than that.
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IAEA_info_3October2009.pdf

scary! Iranians may be

by Sir_mixxalot on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 10:37am

scary! Iranians may be catching up to Israel....

Deep-six mini-me Israel, and the mideast will be fine.

'neolib'? If you mean that

by Grant on Sat, 10/03/2009 - 1:11pm

'neolib'? If you mean that neoliberalism (political) and neoconservatism would agree on this I can't see how. Neocons see IOs as a waste of time, while Neolibs see them as vital.

If you had actually bothered

by Heresiarch on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 2:07pm

If you had actually bothered to read the link you posted you might have realized that the IAEA views that "laptop" data as legitimate. And originally provided by the Germans to the US.

Yes it does. So does Interpol

by Grant on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 8:00am

Yes it does. So does Interpol by the way. So do the U.S police, the courts, and the international community. Getting evidence off a computer is generally well known, and called "computer forensics". It's so well known that even my small, private college offers a course in it.

Awesome

by Azrael on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 3:04pm

I really love it when you do these articles. As an undergrad History major looking to pursue grad school in IR, I worry that I won't be able to keep up with the myriad of "ism"s IR theorists appear to love so very much.

It's nice to see them mentioned frequently, and playfully, in your articles.

Keep up the good work!

I love the concept...even if the execution falls short...

by Clancy on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 7:10pm

The idea that today we all seem to need our "personal" analysts in order to interpret international affairs is refreshingly honest.

But the "Realist" view lacks the necessary skepticism. Iran agreed to nothing in writing. It reneged (perhaps for local consumption) on some of what was said in Geneva before most people had even read or heard an account of the talks.

I'll take the "lobby" comments for what they are.

The realist will remember Reagan, consider Iran's previous behavior and accept that a policy of "Mistrust and Verify" is a decent course.

Iran's concessions reinforce

by Brett on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 3:10pm

Iran's concessions reinforce the point that this regime a perfectly rational actor that is worthy of even deeper engagement. We still have no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, so we should not go looking for red herrings that do not exist. A deal can be made with this government once we are able to ignore how its rulers treats its own citizenry. Any failure from here on in is entirely the fault of Israel and the Israel Lobby in the United States.

That's more Walt than Realism.

Don't forget

Marxism: Iran was strong-armed into taking a position that threatens its security by the imperialistic, capitalistic power states who are seeking to prevent a challenge to the existing hierarchy that enriches them.

Marijuana Approach: The threat of sanctions is devastating to the potential spread of new markets for the use and consumption of marijuana.

you give realism a bad rap by

by jjh722 on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 3:48pm

you give realism a bad rap by presuming that they have such a myopic view of domestic american politics or domestic iranian politics. you also disregard the acquiescence many liberal internationalists and realists feel toward the idea of an iranian bomb. sanctions can't stop nuclear programs--history proves that they seem to goad the nuclear aspirant into more militarization. and in the case of iran at least, the west's military option is weak in the longrun--when the secretary of defense admits it, the prospects are slim. back to the ideologies: it would be interesting to see how many of these neocons really believe that more sanctions or more bombs would actually inspire the "green" Iranians to act against their government. I've heard some of them argue it repeatedly. Surely they're not dumb enough to believe it. Assuming they do, the fools really don't understand nationalism even though it consumes them entirely.

I disagree with the

by KevinM915 on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 6:39pm

I disagree with the assertions that Realism agrees with Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis on the Israel Lobby (if anything their argument goes against the grain of Realist theory) but thats another topic.

The progression in talks does indeed show Iran is a rational actor; one that is entitled to a peaceful nuclear energy program under the NPT to which it, along with the P5+1 are all signatories. It should be noted that Iran's willingness to send uranium to Russia is a concession it did not have to make, and perhaps the US/Israel can stop threatening to attack Iran now (which is illegal under international law.)

It should also be noted that amongst all the big hoopla at the UN last month; Mohammed ElBaredi repeated his desire to see an international bank of fissionable material available for all countries (with sets of controls), as a means to stop proliferation; in addition to increased funding for the IAEA, also as a means to stop proliferation. Both requests (and others, in his statement) have been ignored.

Is that really realism?

by bbender123 on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 10:21pm

I would have thought that realism would dictate Iran pursue a bomb, no matter what the international community thinks. Being rational actors, they would see that Israel has multiple bombs and the U.S. is ill-prepared to intervene. Thus, having nuclear weapons capability only ensures that Iran's government stays viable.

neoconservatism??

by AGD on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 11:03pm

Are you implying that US IR Theory now considers neoconservatism an official paradigm and that you would chose it over constructivism on your top 3?? Scary thought... Scary thought indeed...