Hard vs. Soft Power on a Nuclear Ambitious Iran

Shiran Zecharya

GVPT200 Shirk

Blog 2

Hard vs. Soft Power on a Nuclear Ambitious Iran

In the past decade, there has been a great deal of debate among foreign policy makers about the use of hard and soft power abroad and which is most effective in promoting a nation’s interests. As the potential threat of a nuclear Iran continues to resonate as another year comes to a close, leaders from all areas of the world, particularly President Obama and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, fall on all regions of the spectrum of how to approach the impending danger of nuclearization. Some aggressively support the use of hard power in the form of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities such as Netanyahu. Others are reluctant to use force and whole heartedly back the use of soft power by means of diplomacy, negotiations, and appealing to the Iranian people, such as Obama. While it is difficult to conclude which route the United States and Israel should take, it is clear that both options could have negative implications for the future of global stability and progress.

Last week, Netanyahu spoke at the White House to warn the US not to warm up to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, too quickly. The Prime Minister rightfully observed that although Rouhani is generally liked and viewed as progressive among Americans and Obama recently broke 34 year silence between the two countries, his underlying motivation in reaching out to the US is to ease sanctions and buy time for its nuclear program. Furthermore, Netanyahu rightfully pointed out that although Rouhani was popularly elected, his nomination had to be approved by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has historically supported radical interpretations of Sharia Law and the advancement of Iran’s nuclear weapon. Therefore, although Rouhani is seemingly progressive, he still answers to Khamenei and the network of clerics that dominate Iranian democracy. Israel tends to support hard power policies in Iran because Iran has repeatedly attacked its ontological security by means of rhetoric and its physical security by indirectly supporting hostile Arab militant groups. Furthermore, Netanyahu enjoys overwhelming domestic support for taking a hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear development. Therefore, it is likely that Israeli leadership will continue to seek support from the US in using military action in Iran.

President Obama has stated publicly that he prefers to seek forms of soft power such as diplomacy and negotiations, rather than a preemptive strike, in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, but he is not taking military options off the table entirely. Some critics even argue that Obama has not been using enough soft power with Iran, asserting that the President should appeal to the growing young and educated Iranian public, where a majority of people do not have cell phones and the government has placed a ban on Twitter, by means of technology and economic openness to gain influence. Americans tend to support soft power in Iran because they are reluctant to use force in a post Bush Doctrine era that consisted of coercion, preemptive war, and unilateral action. Therefore, the American public will make it extremely difficult for Obama to subject to Netanyahu’s inclination to use hard power.

One of the main reasons why neither the United States nor Israel has acted yet is because both hard and soft power policies hold potential consequences. A preemptive strike may end up not as an end to a problem, but the beginning of a new one and cause war, especially if the strike is unilateral or if it is bilateral and lacks international support. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a strike would be successful in damaging or even delaying Iran’s nuclear program. Conversely, the use of soft power may not be enough to prevent Iranian nuclearization and a nuclear Iran not only poses a direct threat on the stability of its vulnerable neighbors in the region such as Afghanistan, but also on the United States and Israel. As tensions continue to rise and time continues to pass, the United States and Israel must combine their policies and join forces with the international community in stopping Iran and maintaining peace and cooperation and preventing conflict and war.