Stanford University

Third Way, A: normalizing relations will help both sides

Paragraphs

Recent developments in Iran have convinced advocates of both softer arms-control approaches and more hard-line regime-change strategies that their analyses are correct and their policy prescriptions are working. The arms-controllers see a Tehran more willing to negotiate; the regime-changers see increasing repression. Though evidence for both claims can be marshaled, neither offers balanced insight into Iranian behavior or a sensible strategy for breaking the decades-long impasse in U.S.-Iranian relations. We need a novel approach, a third way simultaneously pursuing arms control and democratization by means of engagement, not coercion.

Quoted in Bookforum

and Iran-Va-Jahan

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Boston Review
Authors
Michael A. McFaul
External URL

Unfinished Business in Europe

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - To make his case, [Bush] has a powerful historical experience to draw upon: the end of the Cold War. Regime change in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union fundamentally enhanced American national security. If Iraq possessed Russia's nuclear arsenal today, the United States would be in grave danger. Two decades ago we feared this same arsenal in the hands of the Kremlin. Today we do not. The reason we do not is that the regime in Russia has become more democratic and market-oriented and therefore also more Western- oriented.
All News button
1

Clinton's Moscow Mission

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

When presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin meet in Moscow next month, issues such as

START II, NATO expansion, trade with Iran and Iraq, and Russia's new draconian law on

religion are likely to dominate the agenda. To historians of US-Soviet relations, this agenda

should sound familiar as arms control, European security, regional conflicts, and human rights were the main components of most summit agendas between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This old agenda suggests that the promise of a new post-communist strategic partnership between the United States and Russia has not been realized. Especially as Russia continues to struggle in reforming its economy, many in the US have now concluded that engagement with this "basket case" is not worth the trouble--better to walk away from the failing project of internal reform and prepare instead to contain future external aggression.

All News button
1

What About Iran?

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - President Bush has outlined a strategy for dealing with Iraq but not with Iran. Although the goal may be the same--democratic regime change--the options being discussed for Iraq do not apply to Iran. Because the fate of the two countries are intertwined, it is imperative that President Bush explicitly make the distinction and articulate his policy toward Iran before proceeding with his plans for Iraq. The Bush administration must stop treating Iran as a unitary actor and instead recognize and support the allies of liberty there, while seeking to contain the capabilities and ambitious plans of their enemies.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1

How to Reinvigorate the Relationship

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - To most analysts of international affairs, whether based in London, Moscow or Washington, President Vladimir Putin's behavior during the run up to the U.S.-led war in Iraq was very predictable. From a classic realpolitik perspective, Putin behaved rationally. Russia had concrete interests in the preservation of the status quo in Iraq, and U.S. military intervention threatened those interests.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1

Democracy as a New International Norm?

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - Critics of the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cited the violation of state sovereignty as their chief concern. Invoking the United Nations Charter, opponents of these wars warned that American violation of Afghan and Iraqi sovereignty was illegal, immoral, and threatening to international order.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1

A Reshaped Role for the U.N.

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - The United Nations and its Security Council have never been the ultimate authority in deciding issues of war and peace. During the Cold War, the Security Council was so deeply divided that it rarely voted on anything meaningful. After the Cold War, the U.N.'s role expanded but its effect on world affairs remained limited. For example, the Clinton administration did not seek U.N. approval of the NATO-led war against Serbia. Nor did the United States and Great Britain seek U.N. approval for their last major bombing campaign against Iraq, in 1998.
All News button
1

Reshaping the Middle East: Winning a Lasting Peace in Iraq Will Take More than Tanks

Authors
Michael A. McFaul
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
Michael A. McFaul - Protesters who marched around the world last week were wrong to assume that American inaction against Iraq will make their children safer or the Iraqi people better off. (Wouldn't it be nice if the Iraqi people could express their opinion about their country's future rather than having to listen to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein or street protesters speak on their behalf?) The protesters were right, however, to question whether war against Iraq will produce more security at home and real freedom for the Iraqi people.
Hero Image
McFaul
All News button
1
Subscribe to Middle East and North Africa