May 19, 2008

Hold Me Tight, Iran

It’s hard to know what to make of reports that suggest that American trade with Syria actually increased last year. Remember, this is despite the fact that the Syrian Accountability Act (2003) leveled strict trade sanctions and barred the sale of most American goods. General Motors, Coca-Cola, and a few others corporations are apparently doing a brisk trade, however, effectively skirting the restrictions by shipping in their goods from overseas factories. Nonetheless, overall market access between the two countries has diminished and Syria is reportedly feeling the effects.

With fewer Americans products flowing in, Damascus has looked eastward towards Tehran. Trade between the two countries has jumped severalfold over the past few years, and sanctions appear to have played a pivotal role in pushing these unlikely partners from the "It's Complicated" status of the 1980s to "Married" as of today.

From car-manufacturing plants and a proposed $2 billion industrial zone for Iranian businesses to plans to overhaul urban transportation systems, Iranian companies are charging into Syria, looking to cash in on a recent privatization push.

Weighed down by a behemoth public sector, an abrupt influx of nearly 2 million Iraqi refugees and falling oil production, Syria's leaders are trying to liberalize their economy in hopes of avoiding a financial meltdown. In another time, the Syrian privatization effort might present an opportunity for the United States and Europe to use their enormous commercial muscle to drive a wedge between Damascus and Tehran, Washington's foremost antagonists in the region.

But the United States imposed sanctions in 2004 as punishment for Syrian support of militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. These prohibited American exports to Syria and gave President George W. Bush the added option of outlawing American investment in the country, effectively scaring off American and Western companies from doing business there.

At the same time, Iran, the subject of two recent rounds of United Nations sanctions for its possible nuclear weapons ambitions and a three-decade boycott by the United States, has few opportunities to invest abroad.The end result, Western diplomats and analysts say, is that Washington has effectively pushed Damascus and Tehran into deepening their alliance of nearly three decades. (International Herald Tribune)

It is no secret that Syria has no great ideological affinity for the mullah regime - their regional and political goals are substantially different. Yet rather than try to draw Syria away from Iran, the United States has settled on an isolation policy that has, inadvertantly, pushed the two countries closer together!

It is a similar criticism to that which has, in hindsight, often been directed against the Kennedy administration in its policy towards Cuba. By severing economic and diplomatic ties with the Castro regime in early 1961, the United States forced the Cubans into the arms of the Soviets. Had Kennedy decided to adopt a policy of economic engagement, rather than enforced isolation, Havana would likely have tempered its relations with the Soviets in favor of closer ties with the Americans.

It's a lesson that is lost on the Bush administration.

4 comments:

Matt said...

Hey Jeb,

Good piece. I agree that from a practical politics perspective, trying to eject certain states from the international community can have a nasty boomerang effect.

Perhaps it's also worth nothing two other points, though:

1. The Bush administration has exercised extremely poor diplomacy on a number of fronts through out its tenure, and this - more than the substance of the policy of 'ejection' in general - is as much to blame as the policy itself. Had the US more effectively used the goodwill yielded after the 9/11 attacks and engaged in a smarter GWOT, it may have preserved enough sway to make policies like this stick.

2. Fickle allies also contribute to the bad results of this strategy. Or perhaps 'fickle' is too loaded. Anyway, allies who don't go out of their way to present a broad united front - alongside the US - when it comes to dealing with terror states, also have dirt on their hands. It is not impossible that broader, stronger pressure on both Iran and Syria from Europe and Russia could have prevented the backward slide which has characterised the recent goings-on of both these countries.

But again, to make that happen, the US should have articulated and engaged in a smarter, more focused and less ham-handed GWOT in order to make life more easy for itself.

Instead, it's got less diplomatic influence now than it's had in a very long time. From a Canadian perspective - Canada being one of a multitude of middle powers whose most important bilateral relationship is with the US - this is not a good thing.

Wil Robinson said...

Anyone catch Robert Gates' comments last week about engagement vs. containment?

He said that history will look at if there was a "missed opportunity" with Iran after 9/11...

Where was Gates in 2001 when we needed him as Def Sec?

Jeb Koogler said...

Hey, Wil - Hadn't heard that comment, but it fits with the persona we've seen so far. Gates appears to be much less of a hawk than his predecessor. Seems to have a sense for the importance of diplomacy. I also get the impression that he understands the nuances/subtleties of effective foreign policy much more than Rumsfeld.

Matt - There was certainly a squandered opportunity after 9/11 to use the world's goodwill and build a broad, anti-terrorism coalition. Yet I think that the Bush administration, in a sense, was actually okay with such an outcome. They would rather have had the world's non-cooperation than have had to tailor their response to meet other states' desires. Coordinating a multilateral campaign, in other words, would have forced the United States into a much less aggressive stance on terrorism - not a change that the administration had any interest in making.

So, while I do think we made a major mistake not establishing a global anti-terrorist coalition, I don't think the Bush administration failed in this regard out of ignorance or misunderstanding. They just didn't care. Most fundamentally, it was arrogance that drove our policy - administration officials figured that the United States was strong enough to handle these challenges without significant outside assistance and cooperation.

sexy said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,A片,情趣用品,a片,情趣用品

A片,A片,AV女優,色情,成人,做愛,情色,AIO,視訊聊天室,SEX,聊天室,自拍,AV,情色,成人,情色,aio,sex,成人,情色

免費A片,美女視訊,情色交友,免費AV,色情網站,辣妹視訊,美女交友,色情影片,成人影片,成人網站,H漫,18成人,成人圖片,成人漫畫,情色網,日本A片,免費A片下載,性愛

情色文學,色情A片,A片下載,色情遊戲,色情影片,色情聊天室,情色電影,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊聊天室,一葉情貼圖片區,情色視訊,免費成人影片,視訊交友,視訊聊天,言情小說,愛情小說,AV片,A漫,AVDVD,情色論壇,視訊美女,AV成人網,成人交友,成人電影,成人貼圖,成人小說,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人遊戲,愛情公寓,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,成人論壇


視訊聊天室,聊天室,視訊,,情色視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊聊天,UT聊天室,聊天室,美女視訊,視訊交友網,豆豆聊天室,A片,尋夢園聊天室,色情聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,成人聊天室,中部人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,情色聊天室,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊