America's confrontation with Iran.

• Author: Shuja, Sharif
• Pages: 50(11)

The Bush Doctrine, in line with the ideas of the neo-conservatives, suggests America's power, especially military power, is omnipotent, and that its values and institutions are universally desired and universally applicable; hence America's destiny--after the 9/ 11 event--requires it to use this immense power, pre-emptively and unilaterally if necessary, to reshape the world in America's image. The neocons themselves called it a vision for a New American Century. The US has used hard power recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many think Iran is the next target.

For a time, to many people, this radical new vision seemed right. Not any more. When things first went wrong in Iraq, its supporters said that the Bush Doctrine's good ideas had been let down by bad implementation. Now it is clear that the problems in Iraq and in West Asia are not ones of implementation but of conception. The Bush Doctrine has failed its test.

Since it became a major power more than a century ago, America has never related to other great powers as a cooperative equal. It has always seen others either as followers or as adversaries. To get it right, America will have to find a way to resolve this challenge, and that means it will have to change in fundamental ways how it thinks about itself and the world. The US frequently uses military force to prevent any possible future conflicts. However, rarely is the soft power technique used before resorting to military force. The Bush Administration and the neo-cons think military force is an appropriate weapon for the US to use against enemies that may develop nukes. The US has said publicly that it will not permit Iran to develop such weapons.

This article offers a balanced view. It argues that soft power is much more useful and progressive than resorting directly to brute force, and that the US must use soft power to deal with Iran's nuclear issue. This would make the US look better in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is time that the US became more aware of this reality.

As the world's sole superpower, with almost unrivalled economic and military dominance, the United States must make critical choices about the forms of power it employs to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Foreign policy experts are increasingly arguing that America urgently needs a new and coherent foreign policy, and suggesting what its foreign policy goals should be in the current world of globalisation.

For much of the past two decades, the United States has been relatively successful in imposing neo-liberal reforms on oil-rich nations of the "South" in order to open up their economies and resources to multinational energy companies. In countries where neo-liberal reforms were not possible, or proved insufficient, such as in Iraq and Colombia, US military intervention occurred in conjunction with economic intervention. Under President George W. Bush, the historic links between US energy policy and US foreign policy became even more pronounced, and it should be noted that the United States has been steadily expanding its control of overseas territories since the turn of the 20th century, though most Americans don't think of their government as an "empire". Now, with over 700 military bases worldwide, the US holds sway over an area that dwarfs the great empires of histories.

Leading American foreign policy expert Dr Ivan Eland in his book, The Empire Has No Clothes: US Foreign Policy Exposed, (1) delivers a penetrating argument to liberals, conservatives and all Americans, exposing the imperial nature of interventionist US policy and advocating a return to the Founding Fathers' vision of military restraint overseas.

Because of its enormous hardpower capabilities, US policy-makers have been conscious of the fact that the United States potentially can, if it chooses, significantly influence its external environment. And possession of this power has often given rise to the desire to use it.(2)

Garry Leach, editor of Columbia Journal, observes: (3)

"The Bush Administration's unilat- eralist and militaristic foreign policy has made evident the cracks in the new world order. In fact, in the face of a growing global resistance to the US-driven neo-liberal project, the Bush Administration's military and economic policies have contributed to a new world disorder. US military interventions have further destabilised already embattled nations, while the Bush White House's support for authoritarian regimes and its insistence on promoting free market reforms have spurred civil unrest among peoples of the South adamantly opposed to such policies." Since the end of the Cold War, the US has found herself fighting in the former Yugoslavia, followed by the war in Afghanistan, and then again the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

However, it would be in the interests of the United States to create internal mechanisms for a more consistent and stable foreign policy, one that is in tune with the long-term policy goals of the State Department. Inconsistent unilateral "hard power" actions by the United States have created distrust in allies and increased suspicions by those many nations who believe that the United States masks what they see as evil goals behind the rhetoric of idealism. On 3 May 2007, Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated in Washington that, in this tumultuous period, America's leadership and purpose have become more critical than ever. I would endorse the sentiments of Prime Minister Lee. There is an urgent need for the US to evolve and develop an overall foreign policy which has coherent principles and acknowledges the merits of soft power.

In contrast to hard power that rests on coercion and is derived from military and economic might, soft power...