On Sunday, President-elect Barack Obama once again waded into the treacherous waters of U.S.-Iran relations without the benefit of some understanding of who Iranians are, and how they might respond to a certain kind of language (employed in public). Language that may seem perfectly reasonable to us, but when heard on the other side of the world, provokes, as the Iranians have put it in the past, an "allergic" reaction.
Obama suggested on Meet the Press that U.S. policy towards Iran would involve "carrots and sticks," albeit better carrots and much bigger sticks, to get Iran to change its behavior. Indeed, "carrots and sticks," as Secretary Baker once told Ali G, may be tools of diplomacy, particularly in the arsenal of a superpower, but the language is insulting to a nation that simply does not consider itself inferior to the U.S., and, perhaps more importantly, and whether we like it or not, is not afraid of the U.S.
Iran's response to Obama's statement was to be expected by anyone who knows Iranians, and although the they wouldn't go as far as to suggest that they were insulted (as a matter of politesse), the gist of the foreign ministry's response was that the very concept of "carrot and sticks" will no longer work with country like Iran. That concept, as Iranians see it, implies that Iran is a naughty child that requires discipline if it does not do as it is told, and rewards if it does. Whether the actual diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iran do or do not involve reward and punishment, expressing them publicly as such will only make the Iranians immediately reject almost any diplomatic initiative put forward by the new U.S. administration.
And it would be a pity if diplomacy were to fail because of, of all things, undiplomatic language.
The simple fact is this, if Iran doesn't stop work on the nukes and America continues to sit on their hands and do nothing but yap in the press about this real THREAT Israel is going to ACT to defend themselves deliver the GD REAL carrots to Iran...and more power to em....
How we take anything that the Iranians say is up to us.
This author is projecting his own beliefs on a country that has more twists
and turns than an exciting mystery novel.
It seems a little simplistic to me to not give Obama credit for knowing that the
statement was being simplistic, too much so to be taken seriously by anyone.
It is so ---- obvious-- to broadcast such a plan as sticks and carrots!
Iranians play the same game with their words. In fact it is such an above board
method that both sides of any question recognize it for what it is, an attempt at
a response that can then be worked out. However, when one side plays their
cards so close to the vest that what they really desire isn't discernable, then a
different approach must be tried. But you start with a basic ploy and work from
there.
Iran needs us moreso than we need them, but for what purpose? Legitimacy
or subterfuge?
Some countries, at certain times in their history, develop very intense and deep national pride. Iran has been that way for a hundred years and it has only increased the last decade or so (as the youth that grew up during the war have grown up).
Iranians are very seriously and intensely defensive about their people, their nation, their culture, and their heritage. Any arrogance in the statements of another nation towards Iran will be counter productive.
The USA needs to either declare war on Iran and attack (regime change) or deal with Iran through the UN in the officially appropriate, non-aggressive, non-arrogant way.
You can say you are going to embargo the country (and do it), but using silly childish terms like "carrots and sticks" is insulting to anyone it is intended towards. How would you feel if your boss at work used that term with you? Only an extremely arrogant and dominant person would speak this way.
The issue is logic.
What the author is saying is that the silly childish terminology and language being used is offensive. You say "who cares"? But it isn't accomplishing its intended purpose. The more Iranians hear that, the more defensive and uncooperative they will be. All you are doing is pulling the Iranian people away from good sentimental feelings towards America.
The issue is what works and what doesn't work. What is going on now doesn't work.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html#3970810478235829858
while offering carrots is bad enough, the United States has a long history of doing just that, namely, *offering* carrots but never actually *delivering* them, just as the donkey never actually *reaches* the carrot dangling in front of its nose.
I can tell you that the reaction of any Iranian to this is very negative. Even Iranians that have good sentimental feelings towards the US will feel like they were just insulted. The "carrots and sticks" statements gives Iranians the impression that American thinks it is dominant over Iran. Iranians will be very offended and become defensive and uncooperative.
It has the opposite effect of what it intends.
If that is what you think of Iran, then nothing short of a full declaration of war, invasion, and regime change makes any sense. If they are an actual threat (which they aren't in my opinion), then something should be done now and immediately.
The point is though that if you are going to speak, then you statements should make sense, or at least accomplish something. The "carrots and sticks" statement has the opposite effect of what is intended. So, it is not logical to continue to use that language.
If someone is determined to take offense - it doesn't matter what you say, they will be offended.
We are the ones that are nervous (incorrectly so) about their military intentions. We are the ones hoping to avoid military confrontation by using diplomacy.
They just keep telling everyone not to attack and IF you want to have relations, then here is how it will be done. It is interesting though that many other countries successfully have relations with them. China, Russia, India, Brazil,.... Those countries haven't threatened Iranian territorial sovereignty.
As for my comment about illiterate Americans. I meant that by in large average Americans have a poor grasp of international policy and politics.
"In Iran all news is propaganda and the internet is restricted."
I believe you have just proved my point.
ie heaven and hell
Heaven and Hell and dont forget about those 70 plus virgin carrots waiting in heaven too! The same people that are offended by the thought that others feel they need to be bribed into civil negotiations with "carrots" are the same people that feel they need to be bribed to behave in this life with promises of Heaven in the afterlife.
Isn't it ironic?
1) Once you have develop nuclear capability for peace to build a nuclear weapon is easy.
2) Iran have the right to use nuclear for energy.
3)The will use the nuclear capabilty to eventually build nukes is the only real deterent for a US regime change invasion
4) Israel have nuclear weapons and will use them if invaded
5) If a country accepts a carrots and stick deal is not a nation anymore.
6) the only way for stopping any country that wants nukes is to invade or bomb no diplomacy will work
7) they will go to diplomacy only after having the weapons... eventually
8) popular sentiment in Iran will shift radical the more pressure you apply
10)Internal policy if at the heart of FP and war
I conclude that Iran will have its nukes unless we invade.
That is exactly what I try to tell people: follow the logic. Just for the moment, forget good vs. bad, or right vs. wrong. Take what you are proposing and follow the logical path to its conclusion.
Follow all possibilities to their conclusion and decide which end result is best for you and do your best to get there.
What we have been doing so far in dealing with them is really stupid.
Before people began learning most of what they "know" about history, language, politics and other important facets of societal reality through blogs where the marginally-informed are as free to teach and preach as are the genuine experts, the phrase "carrot and stick" actually referred to dangling a carrot at the end of a stick in front of one's donkey or mule; the idea being that the animal would keep moving in the master's chosen direction in an attempt to acquire the incentive. It implied that the incentive wasn't actually a reward - rather, it was just a tease. If we'd quit using/misusing this worn and twisted cliche, and use real English to say that we intend to bestow or withhold rewards on or from opponents and adversaries, a lot of what is said that includes the phrase "carrot and stick" would make more sense to more people.
RR