What if They Don't Want Carrots?

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.

Comments

[evagorman]

I've always hated the "carrot and stick" expression and wish Obama had chosen his words more carefully. Some Huff Post readers imply it's a pain to have to think about how our words come across, well that's very American of them! I say we need to learn about this culture and communicate with it appropriately so that our intention is properly conveyed, otherwise we will continue the way we are, and so far that's not working.

[Akenanubis]

Proditor ... any state bent on "our" destruction only needs to sit by the sidelines, popcorn in hand, and watch as this country sticks it to itself. No program necessary. Or haven't you been following the news for the last couple of years, or if you only need the soundbyte, the last couple of months as the meltdown has finally taken out the remaining masses through the soft underbelly.

[UberReaganite]

Whenever our "leaders" talk prematurely and publicly about their negotions with another sovereign nation they are actually disrespecting that nation in public and taking a dump on any real negotiations before they can even begin to happen. If leaders really were intent on accomplishing actual change they would simply shut up and take the appropriate actions in private and then discuss the outcome publicly in a positive manner respectful to all parties when they have some actual RESULTS. Dont tell us what you are gonna do - JUST DO IT - and then tell us how we are all better off for it if you can. All this talk up front does nothing but sour any negotiations and create more problems.

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....

[Petunia39]

Was with you through your first paragraph.

[johnsopinion]

How Iranians take anything we say in this country is, .... well, up to Iranians.
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?

[OrganOfThought]

I don't think Iranians feel like they "need" us. I am sure they would like more commerce, but people miss understand the culture of Iran.

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.

[POTUS2008]

maybe if Iran stops funding Hezbollah I will worry if our matter of fact dialog is offending their terrorist supporting government.

[OrganOfThought]

It isn't a matter of hurting their feelings. It is perfectly fine not to care about that. I think it is even logical to declare war and go there and get rid of the mullahs.

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.

[Petunia39]

I doubt Hezbollah would go away even if it cut absolutely all ties to Iran. The single largest confessional group in Lebanon is the Shi'i, and although not all Shi'i support Hezbollah, most probably do.

[leftionthenews]

Point well taken, but you missed one aspect. As I explained in a long post several months ago:

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.

[SophieAmrain]

Obama probably should have said, we will show them the advantage of working with us, and the disadvantage of working against us, but 'carrot and stick' is proverbial, and much more poignant. Obama is not the guy with the patronizing position, as one can find out when reading about his foreign policy views. If the Iranians use his comments as pretext to not negotiate, they would also have found another pretext, if this one would not have occured. It is always possible to find something.

[Petunia39]

Unfortunately, Iran is one area where Obama since his nomination as the Democratic candidate, has shown very little difference from his predecessors. While he was running against Hillary, he was actually more interesting and more sophisticated than now. Now, he just parrots the established views. And I do not say this because there are no serious issues with regards to Iran, its just that "carrots and sticks"... blah, blah, blah heard it all before during the Clinton years.

[OrganOfThought]

"carrots and sticks" is proverbial and culturally significant to us here. There is no equal to it in Iranian Culture. It translates very badly.

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.

[Proditor]

How does one one engage in diplomacy with a state bent on our destruction? Majd speaks as if Iran can be reasoned with. They want to expand their influence in the region and the Wolrd. Part of that involves destroying Israel and then excluding the US from the region. They want to use terrorism and their military power to cow everyone else. Should we kowtow to terrorist States or oppose them? And if they refuse to co-operate, do we allow them to continue to attack us without responding in kind?

[SophieAmrain]

Iran is NOT bent on the destruction of the US. And it is NOT a deadly sin to wish to expand your influence in the region and the world. That, in fact, has been standard operating procedure for the US, so far. And US is one of several players in the arena, albeit a major one.

[OrganOfThought]

Besides my disagreement with your opinion about Iran's intentions, I can tell you that this is not the central point of this particular article.

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.

[tiradintim]

Spoken like a true neo-conservative

[kgb999]

In a world where their alternatives were unabashedly declaring they would "Obliterate Iran" - if diplomacy failed as a result of this "undiplomatic language" it would prove once and for all that the Iranian government is completely full of crap.

If someone is determined to take offense - it doesn't matter what you say, they will be offended.

[OrganOfThought]

Except that they are not begging for diplomatic relations. They would like to have diplomatic relations with us, but they aren't holding their breaths.

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.

[sonoffestus]

Maybe "humus and a stick" would work?

[Seldon]

I doubt Obama will use that language when dealing with Iranians directly. He was using language that Americans would understand. It is just unfortunate that in the internet age, the language required to make sense to Americans who are typically illiterate in terms of international policy, is disrespectful to Iranians

[Proditor]

Of course Iran is always respectful of our Country and it's citizens when they are speaking for internal consumption. Are you calling the Americans who elected Obama illiterate? I would say that Americans have a far better grasp of foreign policy than the average Iranian. In America we all have access to the internet and the myriad point of views represented there. In Iran all news is propaganda and the internet is restricted.

[Seldon]

I am not saying Iran was respectful...merely making the point that what a leader says domestically is typically quite different from how they act internationally.

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.

[rbe]

That's a joke, right ?

[Petunia39]

I read the Huffington post while in Iran. Some sites are restricted, but then articles published there appear elsewhere in other sites. Iranians are ingenious at finding ways around government restrictions.

[BassMonk]

I'd bet you the average Iranian understands American foreign policy better than the average American does. They are a well-educated population.

[northstar11]

isnt "carrot and stick" endemic in all societies via their religions.

ie heaven and hell

[SophieAmrain]

lol

[UberReaganite]

Right on! You said it!

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?

[OrganOfThought]

Not even close.

First of all, even if there was a comparable phrase, it would be exactly as the author describes - insulting. The phrase, by its very nature, assumes that the person saying it dominates the other.

Secondly, Muslims have a completely different perception of Heaven and Hell. It is not even in the same ballpark as the Christian version.

Thirdly, Iranians are a weird mix of secularists, Zoroastrians, and their own special brand of Islam that is not practiced like the Arabs.

The phrase sounds so ridiculous translated to Farsi, that there is almost no way to take it but an insult.

[dcazal01]

The problem with iran and other nations is not diplomatic and the language cannot do too much, of course all govenments depends on public opinion at home.
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.

[OrganOfThought]

Very well said. I agree with all your points.

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.

[russpix]

That many people get in trouble by using the phrase "carrot and stick" has as much to do with the fact that we've mangled this cliche to the point where it means "rewards and punishments" as anything. And the idea of beating an adversary with a "stick" in the political realm has offensive connotations - especially in the world of Islam. "Incentives" and the withholding of same (more a disincentive than a violent punishment) is actually what most people mean when they misuse this euphemism; and that is clearly what Obama was talking about.

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

[Akenanubis]

Bayside, the growing rage with American, and prior to that British and Russian/USSR foreign policy in Iran and other palces in the world, has made that world "hate" the US long, long before Bush-Cheney-Rove. Those guys were just crude and sloppy enough to put the story on the map for the common American, the average guy who doesn't read about world events and follow the emerging stories from a historical perspective. We're like the dysfunctional family who doesn't know and can't believe that "Uncle Fred" is groping the kids under the dinner table. So now we know. It's been going on for a long time. The road back is a long and arduous one, but it's worth the trip.

[bamilt0]

Here here!