Interests vs. Ideas

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right).

Module 2 readings (and PTJ's "soliloquy") focus on the issues of interests versus ideas. Do states act with interests in mind or ideas? As usual, when I read and listen to almost any topic in international studies, I think of Iran (my most-favorite area of interest and favorite state/culture to learn about). 


Two Iranian leaders came to mind when thinking about acting on interests and ideas; one leader represents acting for the interests or Iran and the other represents acting on the ideas --or beliefs-- of Iran. 

The first leader is current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. To me he represents an Iran that acts on the interests of Iran. He has helped to usher in a diplomatic thaw between the United States and Iran and, as of this past week, and Iran free of crippling international sanctions that had been placed on it as a result of their secretive nuclear enrichment program. These actions, it seems, have been taken out of the interests of the Islamic State of Iran. 

The other leader that comes to mind is Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, one could argue, took actions to protect the ideas of Iran, rather than the interests of Iran. Under the U.N. Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Iran is party to, Iran has a right to peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under Ahmadinejad presidency, Iran took steps to enrich uranium for what they claimed to be peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad was acting on the ideas or Iran to do so. Building underground enrichment facilities is a slippery slope toward sanctions, but Ahmadinejad believed that Iran --a sovereign state party to the NPT-- had the right to do so. 

This leads me to my last thought for this post, and draws from PTJ's Module 2 lecture. How do we know what what the true interests are of any state? And how do we really know what a state's ideas or beliefs are? I would argue (as would Dr. Jackson, I assume) that Iran's ideas as a whole could be pretty accurately summarized. We could study their history, culture, political actions, etc. and come up with a good idea of what their beliefs are. But what are their true interests? Might Iran have entered into the latest nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) for some other reason that is also in their interests? Maybe it serves to promote their ideas, also. Might it serve the ideas of Iran to be regarded once again as a major player in the international community while questions simultaneously arise regarding Saudi Arabia's place in the international community. (Another here) While abandoning hopes of obtaining a nuclear arsenal might be a blow to the ideas of Iran, becoming the moderate voice of Islam and and the center of power in the Middle East would, undoubtedly, promote the ideas --and ultimately the interests-- of Iran. 

-SC

Module1 - Coercion or Reason?

Satellite image of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) in Iran. (2009)

 Over the past two weeks, the class (American University's SISG-760 -- International Studies: History, Theory, Practice) has --among other things-- been reading about and analyzing different international organizations and how they harness the power of coercion and reason (rational bargaining) to usher progress in the international community. 

Group 4 (this group) studied the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nation's high court. In short, our group found that the ICJ is somewhat the U.N.'s arm of reason, or it's arm of rational bargaining. States only go to the ICJ when they both agree to have their dispute heard by the court. And, as the United States demonstrated, the court's decision really isn't enforceable unless the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) becomes involved and issues a resolution requiring states to follow some course of action. (The short video our group made explaining --and highlighting some of the more notable cases of-- the ICJ can be seen below.)

The question of "coercion or reason" is a really fascinating topic. As somewhat of a subscriber to realist theory and that almost every action a state takes is done in an effort to maximize its power, I submit the question of "when is state really bargaining?" Do states come the bargaining table perhaps with ulterior motives? We have to look no further than today's news of the American prisoners being released from custody in the Islamic Republic of Iran to find an action with questionable motives. Has Iran freed these prisoners as an expression of good will to the U.S. or is it another strategic move from a shrewd player of diplomacy? (I have thought for some time about this approach to IR theory: realism by way or liberalism, or that states try to maximize power through cooperation.) Perhaps only time will reveal the true answer to why Iran has recently become so cooperative with the West (was is reasoning or were the coercive effects of the international sanctions finally too strong?) but certainly the ideas of coercion and reasoning are relevant and essential to understanding the many dynamics constantly at play in international relations. 

What do you think? Why has Iran become so cooperative? Have they turned over a new leaf, or are they waiting patiently to maximize power? Leave your questions/comments below! 

-SC 

                                   
                                               

Uranium enrichment centrifuge cascade