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