soft power on nuclear iran
by Ryan Schuette
Published: January 2, 2008
A few weeks ago the United States drew another line in the sand with Iran, officially issuing new sanctions against the Islamic republic that include freezing the assets of its key institutions, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The stare-down between Washington and Tehran prompts observers to think of the strife in new ways - or recall Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union. Instead of reverting to a familiar role, risking escalation and forcing a showdown, the United States should pursue “softer” alternatives to military action and economic sanctions. In essence, the Bush administration should tie a carrot to its big stick and ring the dinner bell.
Some readers might scoff. Why use soft power (economic incentives and diplomatic support) when, according to CNN, the very president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defied the United Nations and the current administration just a few weeks ago by declaring Iran’s nuclear armament “apolitical?” Why use it at all with a regime whose head the president of Columbia University called “a petty dictator,” and who once advocated Israel’s destruction? At best it seems contrary to our stated objectives; at worst, it makes the United States look weak. Or does it?
The assumption is that Iran will not stop seeking the bomb. This doesn’t need to be the case. Giving Iran options outside of war with the United States - like lifting sanctions, trade and economic assistance, even a path to our recognizing it diplomatically - might make a hard pill from the international community easier to swallow. This would soften our image abroad and might give us more leverage on a key front: Iraq.
Signs indicate that this isn’t just laughable. With these recent sanctions, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that she would meet with her “Iranian counterpart any time, anywhere” to discuss alternatives to sanctions, reports the BBC.
The threat of hard power is obviously pertinent. Iran’s ambitions in the Middle-East aren’t a secret. The current regime wreaks havoc in Iraq, threatens our forces there and mingles with other rogue states and networks. It actually serves our interests to be less-than-friendly with Tehran because most Arab states bristle under Persian muscle.
But neither should we go straight for Iran’s jugular, as the Bush administration has done and as it continues to do - by, for example, referring to it as part of the “Axis of Evil” or too frequently asserting the trigger finger-friendly expression about “all options on the table.” Doing so makes the United States look like a hard-nosed aggressor and Iran merely someone from the outside wanting in.
In short, it sets the tone for every rogue state wanting in the nuclear club: expect the United States to balk and do everything but go to war, and look to its “frenemies,” like China and Russia, for better treatment and good counterpoints to diplomatic pressure. Soft power gives Iran a way to save face - an escape route. It’s like opening the window to a burning house. Shutting that window, or locking it, makes the person inside more desperate. More importantly, leaving it open takes off the hawkish veneer of the person outside and makes him, the United States, look evenhanded, even approachable.
That alone probably won’t force Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. But at least by keeping one palm open, we’ll show the world that we won’t always go for our big stick.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
