The last couple of episodes have focused on some of the big theories that shape our view of international politics and American foreign policy. In addition to providing you with summaries of no less that five theoretical frames useful to interpreting foreign relations, specifically American foreign relations, I left off last time with applying rational actor theory to President Trump and his approach to foreign policy.
Overview
In this episode, I’m going to continue on that line of thought but will be expanding the cast of characters to include the other elements of the American foreign policy infrastructure, and then apply some of the theories we’ve learned to a brief discussion on the Trump administration’s approach to relationships with Iran.
Main Topic: When it comes to Iran, Just Who is Calling the Shots?
See what I did there? To follow the news cycle, we’ve been on the cusp of war with Iran ever since Donald Trump followed up his election promise of withdrawing from the JCPOA and slamming down sanctions on Iran. Since that initial step last year, the Trump administration has pursued a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that took an ugly twist this last summer with an escalating sequence of sabotage by Iran and/or its agents (depends on who you ask) on oil shipping in the Persian Gulf. That sequence of events seemed to escalate further with an aerial attack by drones or missiles (again, depends on who you ask) on a Saudi oil facility on September.
Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, but Saudi Arabia and its American ally aren’t buying it. In their minds, the ultimate perpetrator is Iran, who has vehemently denied any hand in the attack (except maybe manufacturing the weapons system that delivered and detonated the explosives).
That countering Iran in the Middle East is seen as an American foreign policy objective is widely accepted, in addition to the less than cold regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for dominance in the Middle East.
The policy debate engages, however, on just how to go about countering Iran, what the ultimate objective is, and the degree to which American action/inaction impacts the activity of our allies, particularly Saudi Arabia and another long time adversary of Iran – Israel. Just what should be the Trump administration’s approach? Once that approach is settled on, how will it be implemented and by whom?
These questions drive us to assess foreign policy at the level of institutions and individuals, what some foreign policy analysts refer to homo bureaucraticus and homo psychologicus. These frames of analysis seek to assess the level of influence bureaucratic politics and individuals exert on a foreign policy decision.
This is where having a balanced information diet is really important. If you recall from Episode 3, I noted that a 24-hour news cycle tends to focus on the immediate elements of politics, which dominantly focuses on the personalities involved. So, many analyses of America’s conflict with Iran and its response to these most recent provocations are focused on the key individuals either making decisions or influencing decision makers. This would be people like Donald Trump, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and that guy in the Defense Department. Such a framework may make for a dramatic narrative, and certainly the experience and personalities of the individuals involved influence decision made and policies adopted, they form the preferences that we talked about in the last Episode on rational actor theory.
In an analysis that focuses on the personality of President Trump, his combative posturing, narcissism, and his transactional approach to international relations, etc it would be very easy to see how such an event as an attack on a close American ally or partner like Saudi Arabia would be cause for concern. Certainly a personality like Trump would want to hit back, right? Only, Trump didn’t hit back a few weeks ago when he apparently called off an air strike in response to tanker sabotage. What caused that? Clearly human personality and character is changeable over time and even in the moment, but perhaps there were other influences at work. This is where homo bureaucraticus and its cousin homo sociologicus fit in.
These models try to account for the institutional and group dynamics the individual personality finds itself in. Homo bureaucraticus posits that institutions are constantly vying for influence in the policymaking and budgetary processes. In the foreign policy realm in the US, this would be ground fought over by the State Department, Defense Department, National Security Agency and the intelligence community, not to mention Congress.
Each of these organizations have a particular way of doing things, preferred methods and best practices. So when it comes to Iran, each would probably advocate for different responses, and we see some evidence of this: Pompeo declaring support for Saudi Arabia saying this is an act of war, the Defense Dept. sending resources to help harden Saudi defenses, both are individual responses at the organizational policy level, but are meant to be a unified response at the strategic level.
It’s a simplified picture, but when one considers the difference between the rhetoric of a Trump tweet and the policy level outcome, you can see the different influences of homo bureaucraticus and homo psychologicus on the foreign policy process.
Conversation Starters
Should different institutions focus on proposing different policy options in a given situation, or should they seek to agree on one particular approach?
They can certainly do both, but I ask the question to get you thinking about first what your own expectation are in terms of how a government should work, and secondly to consider the pros and cons of each approach.
A decision making individual like the president could possibly craft a unique response when provided with different options aimed at achieving the same goal, but that could become overly complex and prevent timely responses. So, it’s helpful to consider what is gained and what could be lost in a policy making process where organizations work at odds, hopefully constructively, or work in unison.
The Spoken and Written Word (Podcasts and Reading)
I highly recommend that you listen to the Intelligence Matters podcast for excellent analysis and insight into the individuals and institutions that make up the American foreign policy making community. It’s hosted by Michael Morrel, the former acting deputy director of the CIA who brings an excellent analytical mind to every conversation and interview.
The CIA World Factbook is an excellent resource for looking at individual countries and/or comparing countries like the ones I discuss in this podcast – Saudi Arabia and Iran.
If you haven’t listened to them yet, you can check out Episode 3 and Episode 8 of the Tim Talks Politics podcast for content relevant to the discussion in this episode.
The Last Word
From a sig on President Harry Truman’s desk in the Oval Office:
The buck stops here.