Two news stories this week have highlighted the difficulty of employing state power – be it soft, hard, or smart – in contemporary inter-state relations. The first story is the US assertion that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been arming militias inside Iraq. "What we do know is that the Quds Force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq," said Bush. His follow-up was more telling. “I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said, ‘The Quds Force, go do this.’” Many, including Bush, see this as troubling. However, it is simply indicative of international relations today. It is not given that a government has complete control over actors and forces under their authority. Therefore, changing policy towards Iran may not stop the Quds Force’s flow of weapons to Iraq.
Similarly, in Pakistan – a major US ally – the government is still unable to suppress the al-Qaeda presence in areas which border Afghanistan. Actors within the Pakistan government may not be trying that hard. For example, the Waziristan Accord saw the 2006 release of more than 2500 Taliban and al-Qaeda members. Yet it is not clear that by the government trying harder, al-Qaeda would magically disappear from the region. This is because, as with Iran, central government may lack control of forces under its authority. The U.S. administration has identified threats from the Quds Force and from al-Qaeda. Yes it is not clear that these threats will be resolved through diplomacy with other states governments who may lack control over these forces. In short, getting other states to do what you want them to do is power. Ensuring they succeed is a miracle.
[This is a descriptive, not prescriptive, note – which is not saying that diplomacy with the states mentioned should not be undertaken. After all, in this complex world, diplomacy is often the only means by which a government can attempt to influence international politics. Yet government should be aware of diplomacy’s limitations.]
