Another week has passed and the class (SISG-760) continues to discuss how states makes decisions. Do they take action with ideas in mind, or their interests? In my last post I posted a presentation analyzing how Iran considered interests and ideas in their willingness to negotiate with the P5+1 the details of their nuclear program.
After watching classmate's presentation on the British Royal Navy personnel detained by Iran in 2007, and having a discussion with another classmate about the latest incident where Iran help captive ten sailors from the U.S. Navy who had strayed into Iranian waters, a pattern seems to have emerged regarding the behavior from Iran.
Although the details of the two incidents were somewhat different (one group of sailors was seized in disputed water; another group had clearly entered Iranian waters), they were both succeeded by a strikingly similar series of reactive events by Iran. On both occasions, Iran seized the intrusive naval vessels and reacted sharply about the breach of sovereign waters. Iran then demanded an apology by the respective governments of the captive sailors. (Both actions driven by the ideas of Iran --a proud country with a rich culture and influential history.) As the incidents progressed --with not apology coming to Iran-- the Iranian regime begins an apparent shift to consider the interests of Iran and ultimately releases the sailors.
This same pattern can be seen on several other occasions involving Iran. (Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, to name another.) Is this pattern Iran's "signature sequence of events?" Are other "signature" sequences unique to other states? Leave your comments below!
-SC
No comments:
Post a Comment