Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict

Product Information

Onuf, Nicholas (2017). "The Power of Metaphor/the Metaphor of Power," in The Journal of International Communication, 23,1. Surowiec, Pawel, and Philip Long. "Hybridity and Soft Power Statecraft: The ‘GREAT’ Campaign." Diplomacy & Statecraft 31:1 (2020): 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2020.1721092. online review Zanconato and Farian Sabahi, “Iran-Media Landscape,” European Journalism Centre, 2019, https://medialandscapes.org/country/iran. Ayatollah Khamenei also considers the strategic importance of the Middle East region to the United States and other western powers in their soft warfare:

The soft war era: The case of the United States and China

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sourcesin this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( March 2016) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) In the Leader’s views, through soft war, enemy tries to impose its own ‘badly-experienced’ and ‘failed’ democracy to other countries, particularly those in the Middle East. However he criticizes the west for their double standards in this regard; “they do not recognize Palestinian government who is elected by popular vote; they cause problems for Iraqi government which has been truly elected by the people; they fully support military coups and military coup plotters as far as they are puppets, yet they claim democracy!” (Remarks in 18th anniversary of demise of Imam Khomeini, 2007) The idea of soft war seems to be a counterargument for Joseph Nye’s theory of Soft Power. This article tries to look at the two ideas and find how they are applied in US policies towards the Middle East. The idea of soft power and its implications in foreign policy are discussed first using Nye’s and other researchers works; and further, the idea of soft war is reviewed by going through excerpts from Ayatollah Khamenei’s speeches and remarks. Limited Credibility: Iran’s top-down approach and authoritarian system undermine the credibility and attractiveness of its message and have fueled corruption.61Iranian programming is dominated by official statements, weakening its objectivity. 62In addition, the bonyadshave been accused of substantial waste, inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption. Bonyad companies compete with Iran’s private sector, though they have a significant advantage over private businesses because of their better political connections and favorable access to capital and tax exemptions. 63All of these weaknesses make Iran vulnerable to a U.S. and Western information campaign that highlights problems to populations in Iran and abroad.They are ostensibly non-profit organizations that provide social and public services, and they are legally exempt from taxation and some government regulations. Yet many also engage in commercial and financial activities like banking, trade, and manufacturing. 55Overall, the bonyads remain a cornerstone of clerical power, accounting for an estimated 10 to 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product. 56

Soft War - CORE Iran and the Soft War - CORE

According to a 2018 study in the American Sociological Review, France had greater influence on European geopolitics than Britain in the 18th century because of its cultural and symbolic power. [58] Germany [ edit ] The Soft Power 30 - Ranking". Portland. Archived from the original on 2017-10-31 . Retrieved 2018-03-28. Henry, Stacie L. Pettyjohn, and Erin York, Portfolio Assessment of the Department of State Internet Freedom Program (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2014). How civil resistance (i.e., non-violent forms of resistance) can often involve certain uses of soft power, but remains a distinct concept (Adam Roberts, Timothy Garton Ash) Parlak, Bekir, ed. (15 October 2022). The Handbook of Public Administration, Vol. 2. Livre de Lyon. p.346. ISBN 9782382363003 . Retrieved 16 March 2023. The second face of power is soft power.Chitty, Naren, Lilian Ji, and Gary Rawnsley, eds. (2023). The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power 2nd Edition, NY: Routledge. The United States and Europe have consistently been sources of influence and soft power. [37] European culture's art, literature, music, design, fashion, and even food have been global magnets for some time. [32] Europe and the U.S. have often claimed to support human rights and international law throughout the world. In 2012, the European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for over six decades [it has] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe." [38] [39] In 2019, the U.S. has the second largest diplomatic network in the world, [40] [41] the largest number of foreign journalists based in the country, [42] and is the most popular destination for international students. [43] American films, television, music, advertising, fashion, food, economic models, political culture, and literature have contributed to the Americanization of other cultures. [44] The primary educational institution used to export Iranian values internationally is Al-Mustafa International University (MIU). According to Article 9 of MIU’s founding statute, its goals include training jurisprudents, clergy, researchers, experts, trainers, propagandists, translators, tutors, and managers and promoting “pure Mohammedan Islam.” 49Its teachings reflect its conservative Shia ideology and the political goals of Iran’s top leadership. MIU, like the ICRO and IRIB, falls under the direct control of the Office of the Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Khamenei directly appoints and removes MIU’s president and trustees’ committee and holds an advisory position with the power to dissolve MIU at any point. 50 Mattern, Mark (2006). Putting Ideas to Work: A Practical Introduction to Political Thought. Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p.372. ISBN 9780742548909 . Retrieved 16 March 2023. The exercise of the second face of power often occurs in the form of a nonaction or nonbehavior by the policy makers . Unlike the first face of power , in which A makes B do something that B would not otherwise do , in the second face of power A prevents B from doing something that B would like to do.