Shayan Zadeh: Practical Entrepreneur

Without much fanfare or coverage in the west, the Iraqi government has endorsed a decision to relocate thousands of Arabs that were moved to Kirkuk during Saddam’s ruling as part of his Arabization program back to their home towns (see WSJ article – warning: paywall). This is a significant move with serious ramifications if it is really executed on the ground.

Kirkuk is a historically Kurdish town north of Baghdad and is the only Kurdish town with major oil reserves. Saddam forced many Kurdish families to leave their home through prosecution and other means of pressure so that he could have better control on this natural resource rich city. In the Kurdish circles the fate of Kirkuk under any program separating Kurdistan from Iraq has been a mystery due to ethnic mixture (and of course oil money!).

This decision is a big win for the Kurdish leaders in the Iraqi government and shows signs of mature diplomacy. To be clear, this decision endorses voluntary relocation (and compensation). It remains to be seen if many Arabs will leave Kirkuk after decades living there. But if they do, this will pave the way for an easier separation of Kurdistan from Iraq.

I personally never have been a big fan of separation of Kurdish regions from the currently ruling countries (mainly Iran, Iraq, and Turkey). However, after watching the Iraqi experiment debacle, I think dividing Iraq into 3 countries might be the only possible way to avoid a new Afghanistan for 20 years to come! But it has to be implemented very carefully in order to avoid destabilization of the whole region and major conflicts between the three parts in the long run. Kirkuk would have been one of contentious points in that plan, and there seems to be move to change that.

And if this move is any indication, I might not be alone on thinking that separation could be the way out of this mess! Only time will show…

Look what I found in the mail the other day! The national guard needs me See the images below. They somehow think I know how to speak Arabic and that I am in their target demographic: somebody that has nothing to lose and is ready to go and get killed in Iraq!

It’s a clever direct marketing piece (and you know how I have been fascinated with the clever ones since Elizabeth). But there are some disturbing things here to ponder

• National Guard Recruiting database thinks I know Arabic! If they know I am from Iran (scary to think a recruiting agency would have that type of information) then they don’t understand anything about the difference between Farsi and Arabic, which is not surprising given the depth of understanding they have shown about middle east with their tactics lately! Otherwise, their intelligence is not complete and accurate (which makes it a slam dunk).
• They acknowledge that the immigration system is broken in this country! But if you decide to sacrifice you life for this country, they will expedite the process! Are you kidding me? If I am putting my life on the line for you, the least you can do is just give me the freaking citizenship.
• They will send you a T-Shirt with Arabic written on it to wear to bootcamp! Just in case you were not getting enough crap from the drill sergeant! Very clever indeed.
• And the personalized touch: My last name on the guard jacket. Just so tempting…

Let me think for a second now: I have gone through all that trouble to get the hell out of middle-east. I have gone through the ordeal of US immigration system (and not done yet). I have also managed to build a life here for myself. So, what is stopping me from signing-up for the guard and having them ship me to Iraq to die for
no good reason? I wonder…

Wait! USCIS is scarier! Maybe it has been a strategy all along. Lure people into US. Put them through hellish immigration process. Then tell them they can have the citizenship if they risk their lives. Best replacement for draft yet.

Back in March 2006, R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs asked the House International Relations Committee for an additional $75 million to expand the departments effort to reach out to the Iranian people in order to support change and reform in Iran. $5 million of this money was appropriated to be used to reach out to young Iranians through educational programs such as scholarships, exchange programs, etc

Finally, we will expand our outreach to young Iranians who have never experienced democracy. We will spend $5 million on Iranian student education and international exchanges, providing scholarships as well as creating professional, cultural, sports and youth exchanges designed to build bridges between our two nations. If Iranians are banned from playing Mozart in Iran, we will help them to do so in our country.

Well, I guess now I know how they were actually planning to spend this money: To Fund Detaining Iranian professionals Visiting US. That’s right. It’s the same Fair and Balanced approach that we have come to expect. The administration that needs money to reach out to young educated Iranians as it alienates the same group by humiliating them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Unless you have been hiding in a cave for the past week, you have heard that something is up in the Middle East. BBC has a roundup of the events in the first week of this most recent crisis. You might say this is not the first time we have seen/heard stories of escalation of violence from this region, what is all the fuss about.

In recent memory, every time things get crazy in this region they tend to stabilize after a few weeks of violence and then it’s business as usual, of course except for the unfortunate people whose lives were shattered by the events for ever. But nobody seems to care about them in the grand scheme of things. This time it could be different and just the thought of it is very scary.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here is the head of Senate Commerce Committee on Internet. He is going to decide on net neutrality and more…Just watch and cry.

Geitner Simmons at “Regions of Mind” has published a fascinating study titled Mapping religion in America. Although there aren’t many highlevel surprises, it is just interesting to see the concentrations and the different distribution patterns.

If you sit through any marketing class, somewhere along the way you will hear that Perception is Reality. Marketers in US business schools for years have been thought that the perceive images of their product, service, etc.. by customers is what really matters, regardless of what their product, service, etc. actually is. This notion is not limited to a business though. One can argue the same for an individual (what ones significant other thinks of them is much more important to their relationship that what one is!), for a city, for a social movement and for a country.

When thinking about countries, I believe United States brand triggers a few, at times contradictory, perceptions for different people. My personal perceptions of this country have varied through the years and below I have listed some of them:

• Land of Free
• Land of Opportunity
• Consumerism
• Hollywood Movies!

But when you limit the subject to United States Government or Unite States foreign Policy, the perceptions that you find in minds of people outside United States are very far from a rosy picture. This negative image has been a problem for the US government for many years and as US companies are competing more and more in the global market it is affecting the American business as well.

If it was an American business with an image problem, their public relations department or a brand manager in marketing would be charted with fixing the issue and turning the image around. (Obviously having a good brand/company helps the brand manager to turn the image around using a variety of marketing techniques). Fixing this branding problem in case of Unite States, the country, lies on the shoulders of chief of public diplomacy: currently Ms. Karen Hughes, President Bush’s longtime aide. Her predecessor, Charlotte Beers, a star Madison Avenue executive failed at achieving her objectives when she heavily relied on (not surprisingly) media advertising. Although I should say that US government’s policies through her tenure (after 9/11/2001 through bushes first term) didn’t help her in any way either.

Ms. hugs has chosen a different strategy for generating the sought after “goodwill”. As Wall Street Journal reports, she is trying to turn US image around by putting top CEOs on the front of the effort (subscription might be required). By tapping top US companies, she is both reaching into deep pockets for financing the efforts and rallies their companies to play a bigger role in diplomacy. This strategy seems to be paying off considering the success of her organization in raising funds for relief efforts in Pakistan’s earthquake and the Asian Tsunami in recent years.

So, how come the US companies are willing to play along and contribute to the US brand equity? One can argue that they are doing so purely for humanitarian and patriotic reason. Here, my cynicism doesn’t allow me to go along and I believe they are doing so for business reasons alongside their other more noble motives.

• The negative US image is and will hurt the profits of American companies in the worldwide market. Specially as these firms are seeing competition from non-American firms in all of their markets, the negative image is one extra challenge that they would rather not have to deal with.
• Tapping the international talent pool is becoming significantly crucial to success of these businesses. As the negative perception becomes stronger, these companies will find it harder to attract talent to their companies (and their country) and could lose in the war for talent.

Motives aside, is it the right thing to do? Well, it depends who you ask. If it helps the US government to buy some goodwill, and the American companies to compete more effective I think they certainly thing it is the right thing to do. If you ask the victims of the earthquake or tsunami, they would probably agree that that money has helped immensely and the might have a more positive image of the United States and some of participating companies. To an outsider of the transaction though, it might seem like deception, and she/he might find it a very offensive move. But then, isn’t any marketing effort deceptive? I think this type of deception is way better than dropping pamphlets from planes or covering TV airwaves. What do you think?

[cross posted on Genius Moment]

In recent days some tech companies have come under fire both by bloggers and the US politicians in the Congress. So, why is the US government getting involved in this matter? I think the roots of their involvement runs much deeper than just these few Internet incidents.

The US government has always felt that it is entitled to (and obliged to) not only comment on how other governments are running their countries, but also prescribe how all countries should be run. Different administrations have spent their foriegn policy capital on this topic to different degrees. Some think they should get involved only when there is a direct link to US security and prosperity, while others have been more active on the world goverance scene.

The US government not only tries to achieve this prescribed goverance both through foriegn policy and by asking/telling private companies what is proper and what is not. We have seen examples of the later in many cases (e.g., Oil Companies and Iran, Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986) and it seems like the Internet companies are going to get a of dose of this medicine soon, unless they act first with some type of industry self-regulation.
One can argue for and against this global involvement and I don’t want to take sides in this post. For me personally the more interesting question is where the entitlement comes from. A friend of mine recently helped me to track the entitlement back to US history. Starting with Thomas Jefferson, some US polititions have believed that it’s their responsibility to support liberating revolutions around the world. Jefferson believed that

this ball of liberty . . . will roll round the world

aided by the beacon of the US Declaration of Independence. He even tried to get US government involved in the French reveolution.

This basic belief seems to have be driving a lot of foreign policy decisions through out the United State’s history, with the most recent major one being Bush’s plan to bring democrecy to Middle East. I think the current craze about Internet companies giving in to Chinese authorities stems from the same doctrine.

During the past couple of days it has been interesting to see the western leaders scramble to define their countries’ strategy for dealing with the Hamas’ landslide win in the latest Palestinian elections. It is obvious that none of these leaders thought Hamas would win this election and on top of that, they didn’t even have a plan B, just in case.

Unfortunately, the policy makes in western countries have always struggled in understanding and foreseeing waves of change in the Middle East primarily because they have little knowledge about the people in this region and their pulse! I don’t blame them; they rely on numerous think-tank studies, reports from their advisors, and almost up to the minute polls in their own countries. And when they make predictions about regions where they don’t have access to that vast amount of analyzed (and over analyzed) information, it’s not surprising they usually miss!

However, the worst outcome of this ignorance has been their reaction. Hours (maybe even minutes) after Hamas was believed to have won the election, state leaders showed their reactions in a series of (in my opinion) ill advised comments ranging from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi calling the Hamas victory “very, very negative” to President George Bush warning that US aid to the Palestinian Authority may be cut after Hamas’ surprise election win.

Being familiar with the mentality of Hamas leaders to some extent, I don’t believe these tactics will really have a positive effect toward solving the Palestinian/Israeli problem in the long run and would definitely not help to move Hamas towards getting away from terrorism! In my opinion, cutting financial aid is actually the sure way to move Hamas away from moderation and into arms of the likes of Iranian president, Ahmadinejad while giving their radical strategies more support within Palestine (and Arab world in general).

My plea to the world leaders is to carefully study the situation before using the most obvious defensive tactics. You have shown you don’t know what is happening there. Therefore, we can understand if it takes you a while to develop a strategy given the new realities. So, please take your time before making rash decisions and making ultimately harming comments and threats.

I will be writing more about this issue soon (as soon as I get some time on my hand!). But I wanted to highlight some development. With the recent seal breaking at the research facility in Natanz, EU’s big 3 finally seem fed up with the new Iranian administration. As BBC reports, EU calls for UN action over Iran. Since Bush administration is having “some” credibality trouble handling the Iraq situation back home in US, it is very unlikely they will have supper tough stance at this time, but it will be interesting to see how far the IAEA (and eventually UN Security Council) will go.

As for US public, they are already feeling some pain from this development as the gas prices moved up around 30 cents in the last couple of days mostly attributed to the Iran developments. If sanctions end up being the solution of UN, more economical suffering for Iranian public is to follow. It is amazing how regular people are the ones that always pay the price for these international developments. On the other hand, they voted for their goverment, so they are at least indirectly responsible for whatever their government does.

More on this soon. I promise to have my thoughts in a more organized manner then.