I chose to talk about the conflict surrounding sanctions on Iran regarding their low-enriched uranium production. The article from guardian.co.uk was titled, "Iran sanctions take us closer to conflict" and was from June 11, 2010.
In the article, author Stephan Simanowitz talks about the conflict between the US and Iran regarding this issue of low-enriched uranium, and how President Obama has tried to make strides to come to some resolution regarding this "Goal Conflict." I would say that this is a goal conflict because the United States and the UN Security Council wants an end state that eliminates the production of low-enriched uranium. The article basically states that Obama intended to use both integrating style and compromising style in order to make the end state optimal for both sides of the conflict. However, the article goes on to state that because the US refused some of Iran's stipulations to the agreement the conflict has escalated, suggesting that the US wasn't really using either an integrating or compromising style at all, but rather a dominating style that refuses to accept suggestions from the other side.
Another reason that the US-Iran conflict has escalated is because the US has been inconsistent in its approach to the conflict. Turkey and Brazil went into negotiations with Iran to export its low-enriched uranium in exchange for nuclear energy cells, but the US refused to support this deal after it had been negotiated, despite the fact that President Obama had sent a letter to the president of Brazil prior to the negotiations which gave his consent and approval of the negotiations. This waffling by the US is what is prehaps primarily responsible for the escalated conflict with Iran, and is also the reason why Brazil and Turkey voted against the new level of sanctions suggested by the US. As Simanowitz writes in his article, "Up against increasing pressure not just from Congress but from within his own party, the dismissal of the Brazilian-Turkish deal suggests that Obama may no longer have a great deal of influence over US policy on Iran."
This conflict has been going on for years. The US has been trying to get Iran to stop producing low-enriched uranium for such a long time, yet no approach seems to get us any closer to a conflict resolution. The US has always put forth the assumption that because Iran is producing low-enriched uranium that it is doing so with the intent of weaponization. But Iran, even in their talks with the UN Security Council, has stated that they just want to exercise their right to use nuclear energy. It would seem that despite the impression that the US is using integrating and/or compromising styles of approach to conflict that it is nothing more than a guise to cover up a more dominating style of conflict resolution. As Simanowitz suggests in this article, because the US never seems willing to give any ground on this issue they may be escalating this conflict to a direct military conflict in which there will be no room for integrating style or compromising style, especially because we are talking about the probability of nuclear war.
This use of a dominating style of conflict resolution by the US seems on par for our historical record of dealing with groups that don't agree with us or get in our way. It is our way or the highway, with no room for discussion. This has done nothing to further our place in the global market much less in the eyes of the world, and yet it always seems to be the approach to conflict that we fall back upon as a failsafe. I guess it really shows that men are still running the show, and that until our approach to foreign policy changes we will always end our conflicts with a flexing of our military might.
Instead of using this subversive dominating style, the US might ultimately find success in resolving this conflict with Iran if it were to use a more integrating style of conflict resolution in which the US gave as much as it expected in return. Without this - and without a unified approach that is embraced with concensus by Congress and the president - I don't see much hope for ever reaching a resolution to this conflict that doesn't involve military action.
Questions:
1. Do you think further sanctions will help pressure Iran into signing an agreement?
2. Do you think the US's dominating style of conflict resolution is justified?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that with an issue such as this one concerning the Uranium and Iran, the US deciding to pressure Iran into might have been a good choice. Usually, I would try to focus more on passive aggressive tactics, but it seemed like they were struggling to make a decision. I'm not sure if the best choice would be to continue to pressure them, but I'm not sure what else they should do.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Kelsey in the fact that this may have been a situation in which it was good for the U.S. to put pressure on Iran. I think that pretty much anytime the U.S. involves itself in something, it's not sure how they should go about it. For whatever reason they thought that this was the best way, I'm not sure if I would necessarily agree that dominating is the best way to do that though.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the dominating style. I think the US should try to compromise with Iran because it is something our country needs. Our country should try their best to get what we need but we shouldn't be inconsistant about it. We need to tell them what we want and have converstations about how to get it.
ReplyDelete