Skip to main content

The garbage can model


Cohen, March, and Olsen (1974) conferred that in organised anarchies, decisions are interpreted as the result of interrelations between a stream of problems, a stream of solutions, a stream, of participants, and a stream of choices. The garbage can model, a term coined by these authors, suggests that actors taking these decisions have no stable goals, where decisions are made without comparing goals with solutions, and are not a product of negotiation between groups of interest. The garbage can model allows the development of several reflections without closely relating intentions to actions or causes to effects (Warglien, Mascuh, 1996: 57-58).
Clearly, some of the rhetorical speeches of newly elected President Donald Trump point to his tendency to resort to the garbage can model in his proposed foreign policy.  This is particularly relevant to the nuclear deal that was struck between the United Nations Security Council and Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was concluded on 14 July 2015 by China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, the High Representative of the European Union and Iran, and was endorsed on 20 July 2015 by the Security Council through resolution 2231 (2015)).His threats to scrap the deal and re-impose sanctions might be void of substance, and filled with political hauteur, but have caused the Persian political machine to steam up and prepare for a media war.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani explained last week that Donald Trump’s victory cannot reverse the deal Tehran reached last year  - a deal that cannot be dismissed by a single government, adding that the US elections will have no effect on Iranian policies. Just today (Monday, November 14th), the Head of Iran’s Nuclear Energy Organisation stated that Iran is ready for all possible scenarios following Trump’s election, including the worst scenario. Another rhetorically-soaked statement from Iran’s side, although the position was apparently formulated in a non-garbage can approach.
It should be reminded that although the nuclear deal is in place, Iran has continued to develop military technologies, including ballistic missiles. Iran has also used ballistic missile testing and harassment of U.S. vessels to assert Iran's military power. In fact, Iran warned that it could – from a technical point of view- return to enriching uranium quickly, and that within one year, Iran can reach the enrichment levels that they have reached prior to the deal – if not surpass that level. The EU meanwhile is standing in the middle, carefully planning its investment options in oil and resource rich Iran.
Trump might be bluffing, and might have spoken out of a moment of passion. The problem of his statements however is that the international scene will remain at edge. Even if the US does not lift a finger and change a coma in the deal, and even if Tehran remains pacific and does not challenge the limitations imposed on Iran by the deal, the best case scenario is that the status quo will be maintained. Rash and thoughtless statements made by rash and thoughtless political heads through such an anarchical system of decision making will only freeze developments on the Iranian file. Whatever Mr Trumps’ political gamble in the region is, what is ensured is that his statements might be misinterpreted in Iran, and will have severe consequences on the region as a whole. A challenge of an economic nature will be responded to by a political action executed by Iranian proxies in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen. Wasting money and wasting blood are synonyms in this game – if Trump dares to jeopardise Iran’s economic opening, Tehran will not shy away from creating more stir in the region. Words will likely be met by actions from Iran’s side – and it will not be blamed.  Perhaps the garbage can model of decision making and statement drafting should be rethought by the new President.


Warglein M., Mausch, M (1996) The Logic of Organization, Walter de Gruyter, Germany

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and a new round of talks has been set for November.  
3 comments
Read more

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate before including themselves under th
Post a Comment
Read more

Wishing You a New MENA

Journalist and author of A nd Then All Hell Broke Loose: Two Decades in the Middle East   said that “Everything changed with the First World War. The Middle East was reorganized, redefined, and the seeds were planted for a century of bloodshed.” He was not entirely right. Bloodshed lasted more than a century actually. Here we are in 2019, and the Middle East and North Africa region – the infamous MENA – is still a boisterous, rowdy zone of political recrimination, military coups, conspiracy theories, historic reminiscence, oil squabbles, and religiously-infused rhetoric. Blood shed of course as well. Well, here we are.  Algeria is set to head to the polls in April. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika will likely secure a fifth mandate. If not, Algeria’s powerbrokers, mainly the military and powerful business elites will enter into an expensive bargain of security versus social and economic stability. Having vested the long-enjoyed tranquillity on a political figure, rather than a
Post a Comment
Read more