Iran's unilaterally breaking of the seals on its uranium enrichment facilities casts grave doubts on the European attempt to show the world that major conflicts can be ended through multilateral negotiations and subtle diplomacy, without threatening, let alone exercising, the use of force.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq, numerous European public intellectuals and elected officials have severely criticized the Bush Administration for its unilateral and bullying approach to the world. The use of "soft power" has been all the rage. It was to be a foreign policy based on legitimate moves and the "power of attraction" — as Joe Nye, Jr. the celebrated advocate of the term has defined it. Nations were to be convinced or given incentives to act in line with established international norms, rather than coerced.

Iran for a while played along; it suggested more negotiations, floated new proposals, and won time for its nuclear development (possibly including a clandestine program) — while giving the Europeans the run around. Finally, in January 2006, even Iran seemed to have tired of the game and it moved ahead in open defiance of its previous international commitments.

One may say that breaking the seals is merely an attempt to up the ante before a final settlement is reached. However, there is no indication that Iran is even willing to limit its nuclear program by relying on fuel to be provided by an international consortium. (The idea calls for Iran to receive enriched uranium from abroad instead of manufacturing it, so it will be able to produce all the energy it wishes — which Iran claims is its only goal — and still be unable to siphon off the material required for bomb making. The international suppliers of enriched uranium would ensure that it is used only for peaceful purposes and expatriate the spent fuel, another bomb making material).

The limits of soft power have further been highlighted by the fact that the Europeans, which took the lead in dealing with Iran, are at loss as to what next to do. Economic sanctions — unlike economic incentives such as credits and favorable trade terms — are punitive and do not qualify as soft power. Moreover, they are difficult to impose, make stick, and render effective.

To initiate economic sanctions the IAEA must refer the matter to the U.N.; however, its 35-member board is reluctant to proceed. If it does, China may still veto the needed Security Council resolutions or water them down. Were sanctions to be imposed, experience in the Middle East shows that they often enrich the smugglers rather then cramp the styles of the governments involved, and that the population suffers rather than the elites. Iran, which is flooded with petro dollars, is in a strong position to resist sanctions as well as impose some of its own by withholding oil.

Ergo, down the road, either military force will have to be employed or — if this is impractical — Iran will become a full-fledged nuclear power. In either case, soft power will be shown up for what it is: by itself a very insufficient instrument of international relations. It turns out that just as hard power does best when preceded and accompanied by soft power, so the other way around: soft power works much better when it is known that if all else fails, hard power might well follow. There is room to rely much more on legitimate international institutions, allies, and diplomacy than the Bush Administration has done. However, there is a much greater need for hard power back up than the Europeans have been willing to acknowledge.

Iran is hardly the first case in point. The U.N. has passed hundreds of resolutions censuring nations but many have been wantonly ignored with almost no consequences, because the U.N. has so little hard power of its own. Indeed the massive slaughter in East Timor did not stop until Australian troops intervened and likewise until British troops marched into Sierra Leone and Americans into Liberia and so on.

In short, the humbling of the Europeans by Iran shows that soft power by itself will not do; it must be combined with a hard backing. The time has come for the Europeans to swallow their sense of superiority and recognize that they must work with the U.S. if a nuclear Iran is to be stopped and the numerous other international challenges that do not yield to soft power alone are to be met.

Little know PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) might serve as a model initiated and headed by the U.S. It involves the navies and Intelligence Services of 60 nations, working to stop traffic in nuclear arms and materials on the High Seas. But it also has the full blessing of the U.N. (under Resolution 1540). Thus hard and soft power are combined. Let the era of mixed power begin.

Amitai Etzioni is professor of international relations at The George Washington University and author of From Empire to Community (Palgrave, 2004. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.

Source: United Press International