America has a long history of involving itself militarily around the world. Our primary justification for military action is always the protection of the citizens of the United States from harm from external forces. We also justify wars by claiming to protect the rights and wellbeing of citizens of other nations who cannot successfully fight for themselves.

By providing ethical motives for our military presence abroad, our government rationalizes most everything we do. Daniel Volman, director of the African Security Research Project, recently spoke at John Hopkins University here in D.C. and argued quite effectively that we may need to question these motives.

Mr. Volman studies the evolution and activities of AFRICOM, the U.S. military command in Africa. He believes that a significant amount of why we are militarily present in Africa has to do with our reliance on African oil supplies. He notes the correlation between our increased military action in Africa in the last decade and our increased need for African oil. (The U.S. intelligence community predicts that the U.S. will be receiving 20% of its foreign oil supplies from Africa by 2015.)

Until about 10 years ago, Africa was quite marginal from the point of view of the Pentagon. As it became clear that we would come to rely on resources from the continent much more heavily than we had in the past, the need to protect those resources, and our access to them, became increasingly vital.

AFRICOM has attracted a great deal of negative attention in recent years (particularly in the wake of US intervention in Iraq), as Americans have begun to call for more transparency and accountability in U.S. military activities. As I see it, the main ethical dilemma with AFRICOM is the U.S. government’s justification of the program. Officials argue that AFRICOM is a tool for development, diplomacy, and conflict prevention, a means by which “Africans can be helped to help themselves.” Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs is quoted as saying, “the first [goal of Africom] is civil control of the military and defense reform, which we see as sort of two sides of the same coin. The second is military professionalization, and the third is capacity building.” These objectives, however, are not always supported by AFRICOM’s activities.

In large part, AFRICOM is used as a means to fight terrorism and extremism in places like Somalia, and is therefore an investment in the future security of the United States. There is also very likely an interest in maintaining US access to Africa’s natural resources, as Mr. Volman pointed out. The problem is, neither of these objectives are openly articulated.

If we agree with Mr. Volman that AFRICOM exists primarily to protect access to oil and other foreign resources, government excuses for the program are simply unacceptable. AFRICOM is not the first (nor likely the last) controversial assistance program justified on the basis of development, partnership, and capacity building—objectives that are hardly reflected in their day-to-day activities. It is the responsibility of the American public to hold government leaders accountable for programs like AFRICOM and ensure that tax dollars are first contributing to development and diplomacy, and not to covert military positioning as a primary foreign policy tool.

              The United States has taken a big step in U.S.-Muslim relations… we hope.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed the very first State Department envoy to Muslim communities—Farah Pandith. [1]   This follows President Obama’s promising speech in Cairo, Egypt which was lauded by Muslims, Europeans, and many Americans. People continue to have high hopes in this administration’s dedication to reach out to the naitonal and worldwide Muslim communities. 

For what it’s worth, the following is my wish list for Ms. Pandith; I hope she does not let this awesome opportunity slip away.  She could do an outstanding job by doing this and more:

1. I encourage Ms. Pandith and the rest of the State Department to engage American youth in outreach.  The State Department does some great work involving students, so this shouldn’t be a problem.  She has a unique opportunity to create dialogue and understanding between American youth and Muslim youth, especially between Muslim-American youth and their foreign peers.  True change will occur when communities are interacting, not just governments.  In a recent special press briefing by Ms. Pandith, a reporter expressed concern that the heart of the problem lies with American foreign policy.[2]  Ms. Pandith seemed confident saying that Muslim youth are more eager to think about their interaction with the United States and within their communities.  I hope that she and the rest of the State Department recognize that many of these students are likely eager to interact with American youth, and vice versa.  Interacting with the U.S. government is enchanting and exploring sustainable futures for Muslim students is essential but lasting relationships between communities end prejudices, reflect positively on foreign policy, and raise awareness of any existing problem.

2. I hope that Ms. Pandith uses a lot of local art and music in her attempts at communication with Muslim communities.  She has stated that she plans to use the town hall model and the round table discussion model for dialogue, but I hope she realizes that these events attract a unique elite who probably already have much communication with the U.S. in the first place.  Using music and art as tools and demonstrating the accessibility of American music can jump start conversation and enthusiasm. 

3. Ms. Pandith and the State Department should broach difficult topics, like increasing tension between Muslim immigrants and their adopted home countries in Europe.  Judging from her statements, it is safe to assume that she already realizes the numerous controversial issues she will have to address.  She should not shy away from things that might upset one party or another.  She should let talks be dictated by what is important to the people she is talking with and by those who are entrusting her to do the talking.  We have the potential to learn a lot here, so let’s make it meaningful.

4. Finally, she should be open and honest with the press.  Hiding the Department’s concerns only makes her work seem less hopeful and less encouraging.  She should advise the press on strategies she plans to pursue.  Involving the media in her missions demonstrates the best of what is achievable through open communication with the Muslims.  Press briefings are awkward and, at times, downright unfortunate, but she would really strive to make the most of her work in front of the press.  Avoiding questions creates more doubts and concerns.  As our special messenger to Muslims around the world, she has the opportunity to show Americans that while there are problems, misconceptions, and maybe some hard feelings, there is also a lot of hope that these issues can be dealt with reasonably and easily.  Involving the press opens up communication to the people.

Ms. Pandith has the good fortune to educate a great many Americans on Muslim communities.  She has a chance to do great work similar to AIDemocracy’s mission.  This administration holds a lot of promise, hopefully it will continue to live up to the hope it inspired.

[2] Special Briefing by Farah Pandith, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125561.htm, 1 July 2009

Americans are having trouble believing it—their president is not making regrettable statements about the Iranian election.  Millions of facebook networkers, twitter users, and bloggers responded to what was immediately called an unfair election and its brutal aftermath.  Politicians and political junkies on both sides of the aisle chastised the great Obama for not taking a stand on the contested outcome and sequential outcome.  President Obama responded appropriately and thoughtfully.

As a huge Obama fan, I’m unapt to begin criticizing our President without all the facts.  He has responsibilities to his own people, to those who came before him, to the Iranian people, to the world’s people.  Completely isolating and insulting either Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his challengers could prove disastrous later in international affairs.  Illegitimating the unfavorable outcome of the election in Iran, a nation that had so hoped for a fair election, did not really feel right, especially while we were all still a little high on HOPE.  The appalled president condemned the actions of the Iranian government in a timely manner, but did not take the stand that so many Americans still thought was necessary

He still walks a “tightrope,” as CNN called it.[1] Jon Stewart joked that America can’t win and that seems to be true… or at least, Obama can’t win.  He was criticized by almost everyone when he didn’t say much and then was called a meddler and compared to President George W. Bush when he called for the violence to stop.  America got in trouble for meddling in 1953 and again in 1979, and now that we’re not meddling, suddenly we’re not doing enough.

I thought I was crazy or ignorant for being proud that Obama was taking the time to mull things over and react wisely.  My qualms were soothed after attending the June 22 New America Foundation forum on the Iran Election.  Most of the expert panel agreed that Obama was for the most part, doing the right thing:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding us all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling with the younger generation holding different values.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq?,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, even President Obama cannot speak for them.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

Americans are having trouble believing it—their president is not making regrettable statements about the Iranian election.  Millions of facebook networkers, twitter users, and bloggers responded to what was immediately called an unfair election and its brutal aftermath.  Politicians and political junkies on both sides of the aisle chastised the great Obama for not taking a stand on the contested outcome and sequential outcome.  President Obama responded appropriately and thoughtfully.

As a huge Obama fan, I’m unapt to begin criticizing our President without all the facts.  He has responsibilities to his own people, to those who came before him, to the Iranian people, to the world’s people.  Completely isolating and insulting either Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his challengers could prove disastrous. later in international affairs.  Illegitimating the unfavorable outcome of the election in Iran, a nation that had so hoped for a fair election, did not really feel right, especially while we were all still a little high on HOPE.  The appalled president condemned the actions of the Iranian government in a timely manner, but did not take the stand that so many Americans still thought was necessary

He still walks a “tightrope,” as CNN called it.[1] Jon Stewart joked that America can’t win and that seems to be true… or at least, Obama can’t win.  He was criticized by almost everyone when he didn’t say much and then was called a meddler and compared to President George W. Bush when he called for the violence to stop.  America got in trouble for meddling in 1953 and again in 1979, and now that we’re not meddling, suddenly we’re not doing enough.

I thought I was crazy or ignorant for being proud that Obama was taking the time to mull things over and react wisely.  My qualms were soothed after attending the June 22 New America Foundation forum on the Iran Election.  Most of the expert panel agreed that Obama was for the most part, doing the right thing:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir-Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding U.S. all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling as the disparity between the government and its people grows larger.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, not even President Obama can speak for Iranians, who have, in fact, done a remarkable job speaking for themselves.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

Guest post from Ruhi Shamim

As a 2008 “Innovators in Cultural Diplomacy” fellow, an initiative brought to you by Americans for Informed Democracy (www.aidemocracy.org), I gained a deeper understanding of the current progressive Muslim American identity movement. While the identity issue at hand has personal significance to me as a Muslim American, it is my commitment to the bigger picture of an inclusive, diverse democracy that fuels my work in this field.

My initiative, “The Crescent Project” was developed in response to the need to organize the Muslim community on my campus based on a common principle of open dialogue that did not exclude self-identified Muslims who have diverse views, practices, and experiences. I reached out to upperclassmen who have achieved leadership positions in a variety of aspects of the university culture (athletics, student government, grassroots organizing, the arts, the sciences, etc..) and who also represent the diversity of the Muslim experience (Black Muslims, International Students, Shi’as, Sufis, Converts, Secular Muslims…) to create a network of support for incoming freshman who are negotiating identity questions upon arriving at college. We wanted to encourage Muslim youth to be engaged in the university community without being pigeon-holed as the token Muslim and without giving up their connection to the Muslim identity and heritage. Through this project, we created open dialogue for alternate views and a forum for active community engagement.

The Muslim community in America is undergoing an important shift as first-generation born Americans who identify with Muslim culture assume leadership positions in the community. This social shift includes a revival of Islamic intellectualism, arts, and culture tied inextricably with active involvement in American and Global affairs, via politics, environmentalism, public health, public policy, and grassroots organizing. The platform for this shift is a commitment to diversity and pluralism within the Muslim American community, an active anti-violence and anti-oppression stance, and an active, informed, peaceful engagement with the larger community and environment.

A variety of civic engagement organizations, like Project Nur, (www.projectnur.org), are working to raise awareness about the diverse Muslim identity and shatter negative and misleading stereotypes about Muslims. Project Nur specifically focuses on spreading the movement to universities across the nation, training student leaders to facilitate open dialogue, and creating opportunities to be active in humanitarian issues. Project Nur is collaborating with Americans for Informed Democracy to build bridges across in order to reach out to youth via videoconferences and other cultural events. This is indicative of a larger social movement which seeks to include Muslims in the active American experience, shifting general public views towards progressive, inclusive open-mindedness and peaceful, strategic, informed action.

In the almost two weeks since President Barack Obama has been inaugurated there has been much speculation and debate on the strategy that he will pursue with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Countless bloggers, analysts, and talking heads each have their own personal solution for how and when the new President should approach the Iranian leadership, about whether or not he should impose preconditions, and even about how far Iran is from producing a nuclear weapon.  Among all of this important and worthwhile debate, a different story caught my eye this week (although I did find Roger Cohen of the International Herald Tribune to be particularly insightful).  The key player in this story was neither a policy analyst nor a political operative; it was the well known travel writer Rick Steves.

Steves is the host of his own travel television show on PBS and he recently filmed an episode about Iran in an attempt to promote understanding between the U.S. and Iran.  I have not yet viewed the show itself but Steve’s travel blog describes his experiences and insights.  Some of his observations are cliché to the point of almost being insensitive, for example when he notes, “when I travel, I’m struck by how people—regardless of the shapes of their noses—are so similar the world over”.  One would hope that, as a travel writer, Steves would have stopped making assumptions about people based on their physical appearance a long time ago.  However, despite the occasional platitude, I found Steve’s description of his trip to be very interesting.  He appears to have made a genuine effort to explore Iran beyond the usual tourist sites and to connect with ordinary, every-day Iranians. He also seems to have tried to portray Iran completely and fairly (a rare occurrence in American media coverage of Iran): filming the anti-American murals but also stating, “I have never traveled to a place where I had such an easy and enjoyable time connecting with people”.

Steve’s most touching insight comes from his trip to a Martyrs’ Cemetery, one of the burial places of the millions of young men who died in the Iran-Iraq war.  Observing the profound loss suffered by Iran during that conflict he reflects, “it would be dangerously naive for America to think we could “shock & awe” those people”.

Steves concludes by focusing on the similarities between Iranian and American society, noting that “[p]oliticians come and go, but the people are here to stay”.  This message of commanalities rather than differences and of dialogue rather than the “us versus them” mentality is an important one.  I am glad that Steves has brought this perspective to American television viewers and I hope that it will be the begining of an increased interest in cultural sharing and dialogue with Iran.

Pirates have long been subjects of fascination and intrigue in the Western literary imagination. Authors have published accounts of looting, mustached, one-legged bandits toiling over treacherous waters in such epic masterpieces as “Peter Pan.” But in Somalia, where many forge a living by capturing commercial cargo ships in the Indian Ocean, the motives for pursuing a life of piracy aren’t so romantic.

Reports of Somali pirates hijacking foreign ships have circulated through the news quite frequently in the past few months. Last September, for example, the New York Times’ Jeffrey Gettleman reported a band of Somali pirates snatched a Ukrainian arms vessel headed for Kenya.  Much of the article delved into the details of the attack, the great conundrums that Somali piracy presents for the international community and African law-making bodies, as well as the deviance of the criminals responsible for the attack. Gettleman describes the pirates in the following manner:

“The gun-toting, seafaring thieves, who routinely pounce on cargo ships bobbing along on the Indian Ocean, suddenly found themselves in command of a vessel crammed with $30 million worth of grenade launchers, piles of ammunition, even battle tanks.”

While his word choice certainly grabs the reader’s attention, the analysis provided notably fails to examine driving forces behind the growing trend of Somali piracy. Might there be reasons beyond an assumed natural affinity to  lawlessness and violence?  What of the public perception of piracy as a form of national defense among Somalis?

Much to the ire of the United States and Russia, the pirates refused to turn over the Ukrainian ship, claiming the charged ransom money was to be used to fund public service projects to clean up toxic waste along the Somali coast. That is, uranium radioactive waste European and Asian companies have dumped in Somali waters for over a decade. Yes, the same Europe that is crying foul each time Somali pirates attack. Not to mention that foreign powers have been illegally draining Somali fisheries and other marine resources since 2000.

Mainstream news outlets also fail to mention the devastating poverty and weak rule of law that has drawn many Somalis to piracy as a means of livelihood. Without a reliable government or a functioning economy, most Somalis end up desperate for a means of income.

In other words, it seems convenient for the international community to dismiss Somali pirates as third-rate thugs. But, it would prove more constructive for major world powers to address the bloody conflict with U.S.-backed Ethiopian forces that has been ripping through Somalia for the past nineteen years. A thoughtful letter to the editor for the UK’s Financial Times pointed out that over the past two years, battles between the Somalis and U.S.-backed Ethiopian troops have resulted in the displacement of one million and the death of 10,000 Somali citizens. Locked in violence and pandemonium, Somalis have increasingly turned to less conventional industries, such as piracy, as a means of survival and way to exercise power over the terms of their own lives.

What can the world’s major powers do? For one, the United States should stop its funding and support of Ethiopia’s invasion and violation of Somalia’s territorial integrity. In addition, wildly hazardous, health-threatening toxic waste dumping on the part of European and Asian  companies should cease. Finally, as per usual, diplomatic intervention and humanitiarian aid will go much farther than bellicose rhetoric and short-sighted interventionist policies  in stemming the Somali piracy problem.

Oh, and the illegal usurpation and abuse of a sovereign country’s resources and territory have never been the best way to stamp out crime.

On January 20th, 2009 President Obama and his administration will be taking the reins of foreign policy, including the United States’ relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Recent appointments and statements by Obama and his transition team offer some clues as to what to expect from the next administration.

The first significant development is President-elect Obama’s announcement of his foreign policy and national security team on Monday, December 1st.  His selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is certainly interesting. During the the primary season, Senator Clinton tried to portray herself as being tougher on Iran than Obama.  She even went so far as to suggest that if Iran should “foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel”, the U.S. “would be able to totally obliterate them”.  Senator Clinton was also criticized by some Congressional Democrats for her support for a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She has also, however, expressed support for diplomatic options, stating in 2007 that if elected President she would open a “diplomatic track” to discern “what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push”.

Overall, Senator Clinton’s stance toward Iran is characterized by the belief that the U.S. must “use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force”.  While I am pleased to see that our new Secretary of State is ready to use a variety of methods, including diplomacy, in dealing with Iran, it worries me that she considers the threat of violence to be an equally effective foreign policy tool.  Of course the United States must be prepared to use force to protect itself and its allies, but the militaristic threats and gesturing that have characterized the Bush administration’s approach to relations with Iran have gotten us nowhere.  I hope that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be ready to tone down the rhetoric and use diplomatic and economic tools before resorting to threats and violence.

President-elect Obama himself has also spoken about the strategies that his administration will pursue with Iran.  Today while appearing on Meet the Press Obama articulated a carrot and stick approach that will include diplomatic engagement and the possibility of economic sanctions.  For more on Obama’s plan and the thoughts of other analysts, continue reading.Obama’s proposed plan is a classic carrot and stick approach.  He notes that Iran, despite being an exporter of oil, has an economy that is struggling with unemployment and inflation and suggests that economic incentives could be used to encourage Iran to stop its nuclear activities.  Should Iran’s behavior not change, he believes that stricter economic sanctions could act as an effective deterrent.  In his remarks, however, Obama did not specify what kinds of economic incentives he would offer Iran or how he would modify the current sanctions against Iran.

There is debate about whether or not sanctions are an effective strategy.  It is quite clear that the sanctions as they exist right now are not consistent or stringently enforced.   The Wall Street Journal reported in November that the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce is teaching seminars in Germany entitled “Iran Sanctions — Practical Consequences for German Companies”.  These seminars are designed to teach German businesses how they can legally conduct business in Iran, completely undermining the purpose of economic sanctions.  Schlumberger Limited is a company that sells oil drilling equipment, including machines with readioactiive chemicals, to Iran by using a loop-hole in the sanctions laws.   According to Iran News Blog, Schlumberger is based in the Carribean but has a CEO based in Houston.  The blog also has a photo of Schlumger’s offices in Tehran.

So if President-elect Obama decides that sanctions are an appropriate stick, he will have to close the current loopholes and convince our European allies to not undermine international sanctions.  Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings Israel, Iran, and the United States, recently commented that for sanctions to be used effectively in negociations, the U.S. must be willing to lift them as a reward for good behavior.  Parsi reminds us that if sanctions are a stick, then the lifting of sanctions can be considered a carrot, so we must be willing to consider lifting the some of the sanctions that we have had in place for almost thirty years.  Parsi doubts whether or not Obama can create the the political will to lift any sancions.

Obama must also consider what effects his actions, either carrots or sticks, will have over the domestic political scene in Iran.  Presidential elections are coming up in June and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he is willing to use anti-American rhetoric for personal political gain.  If Obama imposes new sanctions, Ahmadinejad may continue to present himself as the victim of Western bullying and the defender of Iranian national pride.  Conversely, if Obama pursues direct talks with Iran, Ahmadinejad may claim that he brought the Great Satan to its knees.

It is clear that President-elect Obama and his foreign policy team will need to procede with caution.  The idea of carrots and sticks is appealing but it will only work if the carrots are truly enticing or if sticks are truly punitive.  The system of rewards and punishments is also only effective if it is applied fairly and consistently, in coordination with the international community as a whole.  Hopefully President-elect Obama and Senator Clinton can work together to develop a strategy that uses both carrots and sticks.

The analyst observes the US and Iran meeting on May 28, 2007 as a great diplomatic move for peace and security in Iraq. For the first time since 1979, the two countries met for a direct talk over security issues in Iraq. The meeting focused on possible ways to cooperate for a stable Iraq. Both delegations acknowledged that a stable Iraq was in their interests. The most interesting point of the negotiations explored the possibility to have Iran cooperate with Iraq and the US over security matters in Iraq.

This meeting represents a symbolic step for the improvement of the relations between Tehran and Washington. Whatever speculations follow that meeting, Washington should capitalize on it because it provides a helpful opportunity to cooperate with Iran over peace and security in Iraq. Cooperation  with Iran over Iraq could be a powerful signal for cooperation over broader issues including nuclear weapons. With the hope that the two sides will follow up the results of the negotiations, the analyst could hypothesize that this meeting between Iran and the US translates a progressive triumph of diplomacy.

Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy

Following recent developments in the US foreign policy orientation to Iran, the analyst is tempted to hypothesize that the Bush Administration faces a dilemma of intimidation and diplomacy regarding Iran. Official documents and media reports indicate the US resistance to have direct talks with Iran. BBC reports that "the US has had no formal ties with Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution". The Bush Administration publicly echoes Washington’s tough positon on Iran whenever they have the opportunity to do so. US Vice-President Dick Cheney follows this logic of toughness and intimidation when he warns Iran over its programs of developing nuclear weapons and restricting sea traffics.

However, early May 2007, at a recent international conference about Iraq, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly met with Iran’s foreign Minister. Even though official reports stressed that such a meeting did not mean a direct talk with Iran, political analysis observes that US move as a strategic indicator of the US progressive inclination to direct dialogue with Iran. Evidences in international negotiations demonstrate and support that a simple meeting (whether it is short or long) is a powerful symbol that annonces conflicting parties’ willingness to enter negotiation phases, after they have reached a stalemate.

The US has interests in negotiating with Iran for peace in Iraq and in the Middle-East. A certain awareness of historical ties built by the Ottoman Empire does not allow the policymaker to isolate Iraq from Iran. Iraq was the political and cultural heart of the Ottoman Empire, while Iran was like the body of it. In the same way there is crisis when the heart is separated from the rest of the body, the crisis in Iraq will continue as long as Iran is not involved on the table for national problem-solving in Iraq. Obvisously, the Iraqi crisis fuels crisis and instability in the Middle-East. The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is aware of such reality when he recently urged Washington to engage in direct talks with Tehran. It is extremely important that the Bush Administration gives full priority to diplomacy. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s ongoing visit in the Gulf intends to ask allies such as Saudi Arabia to help the Iraqi government. Such diplomatic offensives are positive and commendable. Nevertheless, they still desperately need to be extended to Iran and Syria in order to be efficient and successful. Only humble diplomacy can foster peace in Iraq and stability in the Middle-East.

Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy   

I am afraid to hypothesize that the conventional wisdom that has fed the US foreign policy-making in recent years has relied on the use of non-democratic means to try to impose democracy and quell terrorism. Non-democratic strategies manifest in the use of force and result in war and political chaos that weaken international peace and global security. The case of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq represents a typical  illustration. There is no need to expand on this here. Media sources provide excellent analysis and factual details on the issue at stake. With recent developments on the ground in Iraq, policymakers ought to understand and accept that non-democratic means cannot serve democracy successfully and consistently. The more troops are on the ground in Iraq, the more increase of sectarian violence leading the country to the shadow of civil war as the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently warned. The end does not justify the means in this case because the use of force simply betrays democracy.

Only diplomacy can truly serve democracy with success and sustainability. Let us hope that the Bush Administration is on their way to embrace the wisdom of fully using diplomatic means to promote democracy and global security and peace. The analyst could interpret recent diplomatic offensives by the Bush Administration, following the massive loss of the Republican Party during the November 2006 elections, as the early warnings of a strategic paradigm shift in foreign policy orientation by President Bush’s White House. As a result, real politics would acknowledge and revere the soft and constructive power of diplomatic solutions. It might be though to understand how diplomacy can still reconstruct what real politics has destroyed. Real politics might challenge the thought that negotiations will succeed where the use of force has generated confusion and failed into sectarian violence. However, if we are able to reach out to local Middle-East role-players such as Iran and Syria for dialogue and cooperation, the diplomat would happily hypothesize that we are heading the right way for peace in Iraq.

Multi-Track diplomacy requires relying on local capacity for problem-solving. In such logic it is of paramount importance that Iran and Syria are invited to the "club" in contributing to national problem-solving in Iraq. History demonstrates that Iran and Syria represent key players in the Middle-East politics and culture. To some extent, lessons learned from the Ottoman Empire suggest that Iraq represents the heart of the Middle-East. The heart cannot be isolated from the rest of the body without experiencing hemorrhage and organic crisis causing systemic troubles because it shares the same blood and life than the rest of the body. Iraq needs to reconnect with the Middle-East by rebuilding on its close systemic links with Iran and Syria. Any democratic policy-making might need to take those parameters into consideration for peace in Iraq and for international security.

Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy