Twenty years ago, Harvard's Joseph Nye famously coined the term "soft power" to describe what he saw as an increasingly important factor in international politics -- the capacity of "getting others to want what you want", which he contrasted with the ability to coerce others through the exercise of "hard" military and/or economic power. The question of soft power, when it comes to Iran, is contentious. Most analysts seem prepared to acknowledge that the Islamic Republic's soft power in the Middle East rose significantly in the first several years of this decade. But many Western analysts now argue that Tehran's regional soft power has declined over the last couple of years, following the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, the fallout from the Islamic Republic's June 2009 presidential election, and the imposition of new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Others -- including the two of us -- argue that Iranian soft power remains strategically significant and is perhaps even still growing. In this regard, we are struck by two developments this week. First, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to Beirut -- the first visit by an Iranian president to the Lebanese capital since President Mohammad Khatami went there in 2003. Although White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the visit demonstrated that Ahmadinejad was continuing his "provocative ways" and that Hizballah "values its allegiance to Iran over its allegiance to Lebanon", the Iranian president received what the Christian Science Monitor's Nicholas Blanford described as a "rapturous" welcome from tens of thousands of Lebanese who turned out to greet him on his drive into Beirut from the airport. We include striking photographs of Ahmadinejad's reception in Beirut today on www.RaceForIran.com.
During his trip to Lebanon, Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Dahiya, a heavily Shi'a southern suburb of Beirut, and tour southern Lebanon. We would anticipate strongly positive and enthusiastic reactions from populations in both settings. As Rami Khouri aptly put it today, see here, in The Daily Star,
"If Ahmadinejad, as planned, goes to south Lebanon and visits Hizbullah-controlled villages near the Israeli border, we should expect political emotions to go through th roof in both the pro-Iranian and anti-Iranian camps. This will not be a surprise, because Ahmadinejad overlooking the northern border of Israel in the company of his Hizbullah allies is a nightmare for most Israelis and many of their friends in the West, while for Hizbullah and its allies in the region this would be a prize-winning moment of defiance to be savored for a long time."
We do not believe that any Western leader -- or even any Arab leader -- could travel to Beirut today and move about in an open motorcade, as Ahmadinejad did, let alone do so and attract crowds of tens of thousands of eager well-wishers. Security concerns alone would preclude such a scenario. And this is the reality even though the United States and its European and Arab allies have put significant sums of money and political capital into trying to consolidate a "pro-Western" political order in Lebanon.
If Iran today has substantial soft power in the Middle East -- as we believe it does -- it has that power in no small part because it has picked winners rather than losers as its allies in key regional theaters. Whether we speak of Hizballah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, or Shi'a Islamist parties in Iraq, Iran's regional allies are genuine political forces -- that is, forces that win elections because they represent important and unavoidable constituencies with legitimate grievances. And, in many cases, those allies engage in what their constituents believe is thoroughly laudable resistance against what those constituents see as America's (and Israel's) hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. Again, Rami Khouri put it very well:
"The United States and other Western powers are unhappy with the Iranian-Hizbullah link because these two parties represent an advanced form of indigenous Middle Eastern defiance of Western power, threats and sanctions. Western global powers are not used to having smaller Middle Eastern countries or movements ignore the orders or threats that emanate from Washington, London or other Western capitals. Lebanon has been a central test case of American support for the majority in the Lebanese government that confronts Hizbullah in some respects, so this visit represents a blow to Washington's strategy of bringing Lebanon firmly into its orbit."
Second, Colum Lynch, of the Washington Post and Foreign Policy, published an interesting piece today, see here, on the United Nations General Assembly's election of Germany, India, and South Africa to rotating seats on the UN Security Council. (It should be noted that, while Turkey will give up its rotating seat on the Security Council at the end of this year, Brazil will stay on the Council for another year.) As Lynch writes,
"The election provides these emerging powers, all of whom aspire to become permanent members of the council, with an opportunity to show their stuff on the global stage. But it also poses a challenge to the United States. New members India and South Africa, as well as current member Brazil, differ sharply from the United States on everything from the use of economic sanctions to constrain Iran's nuclear program to the importance of human rights in international affairs. And they plan to be assertive about that opposition."
All of this underscores an important strategic point that we have been making for some time -- in relative terms, the United States is becoming less capable of achieving its stated policy objectives in the Middle East and the Islamic Republic is becoming more capable of achieving its objectives. This reality should prompt a fundamental recasting of America's "grand strategy" in this critical part of the world.
A version of this post will appear on RaceForIran.com
James Zogby: Unhelpful Provocations
Sam Sedaei: Ahmadinejad in Lebanon: A Love Story
Iran has constantly displayed its intentions for regional hegemony by creating and backing insurgent groups in Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, etc.
Then they have what is clearly a nuclear weapons program (no one who deems that they are seeking only nuclear power builds only one plant that could power .01%). The West isn't buying this and neither are the Arab countries.
Anthony Cordesman
http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/conventional-military
Western guilt is no excuse justifying Iranian imperial ambitions.
Every Iranian provinces were the seat of central government of Iran one time or another during Iranian history, unfortunately foreigners are only familiar with Greek coined "Persian" and wrongly assume they are a monolithic block of people which were/are the only ruling power inside of Iran since antiquity, correct name is Iranian and Iranians always demand for a better government even during best of times, nagging is their pastime :)
There really is no viable alternative in Iran other than those who are running the show now. Extracting microscopic concessions from them can go a long way toward increasing peace and stability in the region.
Obama administration has so far been less than fruitful in moving American foreign policy toward a diminished confrontation posture where there has been raging conflicts of interests. We need some major new foreign policy initiatives that demonstrate our greater goodwill and intention to resolve pestering conflicts in the world.
Iran wants to increase its influence in the region and the world by means of nuclear and asymmetric blackmail. This is not an issue of Iran being able to achieve self determination which seems to be the populist propaganda slogan.
Seriously, do they know what Obama and Hillary know, or what they are doing, what they say to foreign leaders, the actual subjects of negotiations?
I hope not, and I doubt it. But somehow their analysis is insightful, not.
I guess sometimes the Party does indeed find you.
due it's military might, that pariah status is not shared by governments of the people of the world except in private
Iran is losing it's pariah status due its power among the people of the world
due to it's moral might (simply the legality of it's actions and it's standing firm for it's rights) , that power is not respected by governments of the people of the world except in private
Well I guess we have very short memories ... of Iranians being beat up and carted away by the current regime.
Thankfully, most everyone knows what a vile tyrannical regime this is and who are the good guys and who aren't ....
when it comes to Iran, there are many that believe that its regimes actions are a thousand times more moral and honorable than that of the US regime, death for death, injustice for injustice, vile act for vile act, the facts may also support this (even if you discounted nagasaki and hiroshima). Also, considering how the US political system, while allowing for freedom of expression and much personal liberty, is subservient to capitalist interests to such a point that EFFECTIVE representative democracy has been subverted, disfranchising the voting public from their their right to direct government in a meaningful way. And finally in terms of social and economic well being of the voters the US government gets an F as much as the Iranian if not a double F....
so really in terms of vile murderous and illegal actions on the world stage and the EFFECTIVE disfranchisement of the voting public to the benefit of a military industrial complex, the US regime is way ahead of the Iranian
the voters, the peoples of both nations may be moral, proud and fair minded on average, but both governments have a lot to answer for with the US having a lot more to answer for than Iran
It is very rare to read such an objective article without propaganda nowadays.
In this particular case a better title for the article could be:
Iran's "Soft Power" Checkmates U.S. Power.
(You can't spend and war forever... Ask the Romans, or the English)
2) Even if "we can blow them off the map" and is done, would we be safe ? Assuming we somehow would be, would you be able to get to work with the price of oil ?
3) Ask the Iraqis. They will tell you that Iraq is the worst example of how the US army tipped its hand, it showed unless you have a population behind you, you are free to invade, build bases and stay trapped inside. They might also say, don't believe us, look at Afghanistan.
It seem softpower is a better strategy.
they would not take any action against iran because without them they never would have won the election
then their cut and run policy in lebanon is brought hezbollah to power.
this was compounded by bush ii with his invasion of iraq. it eliminated the only regional power able to stand up to iran.
way to republican/conservatives. guess we can expect more of the same
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Sarah Palin March 8, 2010
come on sarah where were you born. Show us the birth certificate
The Iranian leadership is well aware of this fact.
R/ PRONESE
no we cant and they know it.
as long as we wont develop alternative energy they know they are in the drivers seat.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Sarah Palin March 8, 2010
come on sarah where were you born. Show us the birth certificate
Link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Note that the country of Iran is not on this list.
No credit to Sarah Palin on her knowledge of the politics of oil I see. Just an attack.
More Coffee.
R/ PRONESE
It is also the same mentality the keeps the starving hoards from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) from crossing the DMZ and marching South to Wando, South Korea.
More Coffee.
R/ PRONESE
God is truely great.
Iran created Hezbollah, an international organisation by the way, to overtake Amal, the tradition Shi'a Lebanese faction, because Amal did not want a war with Israel, and Khomenist ideology fantasises a genocidal war against Israel as the crucial part of getting Sunni Arab Muslim states to recognise the "leadership" of Iran and unite Islam.
they defeated the good ole us of a once and . . .
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Sarah Palin March 8, 2010
come on sarah where were you born. Show us the birth certificate
the two biggest aids they have to their power both came from reagan.
first his cut and run policy in lebanon
second his ending of the program to make the good ole us of a energy independent. instead we "let the market place decide" this gave iran and other radical islamic terrorist all the money they need to carry out attacks, build nuclear weapons, etc.
lenin said "we will hand the capitalist and they will sell us the rope." the modern islamic terrorist says "we will destroy the great satan and sell them the oil to finance it."
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Sarah Palin March 8, 2010
come on sarah where were you born. Show us the birth certificate
But... we can do without the Saudis, IMO.