RSS

Mon, Nov 1st 2010, 03:42

Jennifer Nicole Prystupa, NYU-CGA grad student, Silver Contributor (45)

Very interesting article. To sum up my insight into U.S.-Iranian relations, I envision the phrase "rules are meant to be broken" carved in a double-edged sword. When states make rules, like the Algiers Accords, it occasionally behooves such states to brake the rules if interest (rather, WHEN interest) is threatened - and since the U.S. and Iranians act on realist beliefs, then that is all the time. Needless to say, the fine line between diplomacy as a truthful method of international relations and diplomacy as a cover for covert actions has yet to be defined, better yet, proven to be the case here (perhaps not so back during the hostage crisis, but the current state of affairs can change if/when the U.S. hikers to go on trial soon).

It doesn't surprise me that the Bush administration increased intelligence sharing with the Israelis in light of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat. And it doesn't surprise me that the Obama administration told the Israelis that the threat from Iran isn't as imminent as once thought. Nevertheless, I feel that the Israelis are more of a threat to American security in the case of Iran than anything else. If the Israelis attack an Iranian nuclear facility, say in the holy city of Qom, not only with there be international outrage, but the Iranian gov't will blame the U.S. for having any kind of role in the attack and in one blink, even the opponents of the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad will unite as one Iran and all progress, covert or not, will be lost in an instant. So much for any kind of success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I can agree that the U.S.' supposed covert actions in Iran and the overt diplomatic actions outside paint an odd picture - like a child with his fingers crossed behind his back or a parent telling a while lie. However, I have a hard time criticizing either tactic outright. Let’s see if talks play out in November - either way, this saga is not ending anytime soon.