Author Description

“Carrot and Stick” is the current diplomatic approach used by the U.S. Department of State regarding Iran. The term carrot and stick does not translate well in Persian. In fact, it portrays the image of a master standing in front of a donkey using carrots as a reward for appropriate behavior, and beatings when the donkey steps out of line as to teach a memorable lesson. For it is the donkey that is not smart enough to understand commands, nuance, altruism, and balance. Reward and punishment motivate the donkey to bend to its masters will. This is an offensive image in the mind of the Iranians, the descendants of the rich and advanced Persian culture. Cultural sensitivities aside, is the carrot and stick approach the proper one when dealing with the Iranians? It is not the carrot and stick analogy with all its simplicity that is most applicable, but tit for tat. Both sides have loosely followed tit for tat since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. What do the events of the past thirty-three years in which the U.S. and Iran have squared off in what David Crist titles a “Twilight War” teach us about dealing with Iran tactically, operationally and strategically? 1 Is it appropriate to bend to Iranian will while respecting Tehran’s interests and expect altruistic policies to be reciprocated accordingly? Are the interests of the United States and Iran so wholly opposed that any divergence from Realpolitik will be viewed as weakness ultimately compromising U.S. interests? As the drums of war with Iran beat in cyclical patterns within policy circles in Washington, it is important to include the lessons of the past in application of strategic and tactical decisions of the future.This monograph analyzes a significant number of recent incidents between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. Basis for the analysis is the tit for tat model (taken from Game theory as described below). The independent variable is the character of confrontation and the dependent variable is the nature of r