As much as the presidential election and its violent aftermath will remain a reference point to most Iranians and reformist politicians of how blatantly the rule of law and their human rights were violated, so will it continue to inform the mindset and policies of what now could be best described as the ruling hardliner elite of the Islamic Republic.
For the last week at the Steinhardt School I have examined the historical narratives of local autonomy and pluralism in America. My particular interest in examining the evolution of the US nation-state has been the relationship between environmental conditions (structures of the state, society and culture) and the individual.
Coercive diplomacy is one of the most intriguing and common practices of conducting inter-state relations and embodies the essence of the art of diplomacy: achieving political objectives and fostering a state’s national interest without waging a war. The present essay will first offer a theoretical framework on the notion of coercive diplomacy.
With American forces turning over security responsibilities to Iraqis as another step toward complete withdrawal from Iraq, I am searching for the war’s lessons and am left mostly with questions.
President Obama should not take sides in the political crisis in Iran. His critics are wrong in faulting him for not siding with the demonstrators and for not standing for the American value of freedom. Freedom, after all, is not the only core value of the American Republic. Along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Declaration of Independence also embodies the value of life.
This round of Iran’s pre-election politics was marked by the full-force entry of the Iranian women’s movement onto the political scene with a well-thought-out strategy that has mobilized many change-seeking individuals and groups within civil society.
Images of women in chador and rusari (modest Islamic dress) beaten up by security forces in the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran have dominated the news lately. Neda’s image and her brutal death in Tehran on Saturday June 20th in a protest demanding the annulment of the results of 10th presidential election in Iran has brought women’s active role in the post-election crisis into light.
It is absolutely accurate that Iran’s presidential elections began as a matter of that nation’s sovereignty. So did disputes over elections results. But after the regime in Tehran and Qom resorted to threats and violence against its own public, that administration lost its claim to legitimacy.
As disgusting as Mr. Ahmadinejad’s policies may be, we need to be very careful how we agitate and cheer the people in Iran into confronting the autocratic regime they are faced with. No matter how much we despise the actions of the security apparatus in Iran and admire the restraint and peaceful protests in the streets of Tehran, we should be conscious of the fact that as long as the Supreme Leader has not backed down from his position, there will be further bloodshed. Change is in the air – if not now, in the foreseeable future.
Even though the clash of civilisations thesis encompasses different levels of analysis from man, civilisation, and the world at large, it concentrates on solely cultural factors. Allowing these factors to override other sectors of analysis in the discipline of international relations does not necessarily lead to enhancing our understanding of world politics.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
