i use the occasion to try this blog since this week happened an important diplomatic change. i've just read tha Obama has re-engaged diplomatic relations with syria after 5 years of silence and ostility. after the accident in Beirut on the 14th of february 2005, the diplomatic relations between Washington and Damasco had been cut down. finally they re-astablished relations, but what i want to underline is the conditions of this relations, in fact syria wants that USA take opportune actions to try to sort out the Israel/Palestine issue with particular concern for the territory of Golan occupied by Israel since 1967; but what do the United States want back? clear! the want that Syria cuts it links with Theran since Damasco has always been an economic and ideological supporter of Iran. cut their links means a further isolation of Iran and an aggravation of the latter's situation.
what do you think about this diplomacy of return? I give you this if you give me this back? is this old or new diplomacy?
lets think about it; it is bilateral, it can be argued that in a kind of way it is exclusive, since it aims at the isolation of Iran, and it is about high politics, that is to say matters of security.
that's a strange world!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well Federica it is well true that we are in a strange world. I think you should know that it is and has always been about giving and taking back. I think it is a mix of both old and new diplomacy, new because negotiation has began in an open context in the 1st place, and old because in my case, I’ve never studied anything yet in IR/Politics where I could not find interest and the balance of power or "PRETENDING" "PLAY THE GAME" and as you said as well ISOLATION and HIGH politics in the Iran case.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the continued isolation of Iran has been one of the most serious mistakes in modern American foreign policy, (and thus of course, of the foreign policy of America's allies).
ReplyDeleteCulturally, Iran are our natural allies, in contrast to the absolutist monarchies on the other side of the Gulf, Iranian culture has a strong tradition of pluralism and tolerance, (indeed, the world's first ever human rights document was issued by the Achaemenid Persian empire).
And until the recent stolen election, the Iranian state had been making progress in regaining this heritage - The facts on Iran speak for themselves; the nation is (/was) one of the only states in the region to have multi-party elections, and its position on women's and minority rights far surpasses most other near-by states.
When Barack Obama was running for the presidency, he implied he would follow a policy of rapprochement with Iran, and for a while that seemed to be what he was doing.
But if this development is what it seems, (i.e. an attempt to sever the Damascus-Tehran alliance), then it seems Obama has given up on that aim and resorted to the old antagonistic status quo. (If I may so, giving up on his election pledges and resorting to the broken status quo seems to be a characteristic thus-far of Obama's presidency.)
As I said, I believe this to be a mistake. The 'bad guys' in the Iranian government thrive on conflict with the West. George Bush's labelling of Iran as an evil nation led directly to the election of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and the constant threats against the nation over its supposed nuclear weapons program, (of which's existence there has never been any credible proof!), were what gave him the audacity to steal the election and crush those who protested against him!
So you ask what the implications of this development are. I'd say that its yet another example of Barack Obama going back on his promise of 'change' and instead sticking to a policy that is bad for America, bad for Iran and bad for peace in the Middle East - and merely delaying the time when some other American president will have to reverse the disastrous blockade of Iran.