Research On Coercive Diplomacy In The Iranian Nuclear Issue

Iranian Nuclear Issue is one of the hot issues concerning current international security. It reflects the contradiction at three levels--international, regional and national. With a view to maintaining international security and the authority of International Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, the international community requires Iran to abide by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards, so as to ensure that Iranian nuclear program serves the purpose of peaceful civilian use. Most of the countries in Middle East on one hand show their understanding of Iranian nuclear aspiration, but on the other hand they fear that Iranian nuclear program will be used for military purposes. Therefore, they take advantage of Iranian Nuclear Issue as an excuse to compete for the development of their own nuclear programs. Iranian Nuclear Issue highlights the contradiction and conflict between Iran and the United States. The United Sates strongly urged Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and to stop its nuclear program, for fear that Iranian Nuclear Issue will pose a threat to the security of the Middle East and the whole world, thus endangering U.S. global strategy and its security interests in the Middle East.Coercive Diplomacy is one of the primary means taken by the side of coercer for the purpose of regulating and resolving international conflicts. Coercive Diplomacy is characterized by the fact that the side of coercer requires its opponent to take actions or change policy by means of diplomatic mediation, not excluding the threat of using force. Coercive Diplomacy not only emphasizes the function of diplomatic means in terms of negotiating and coordinating to alleviate the international conflict, but also stresses its function of compelling the opponent to escalate the international conflict. The side of Coercer even threatens to use the force to promote the diplomacy, forcing the opponent to satisfy its demands; otherwise the opponent will be severely punished. Coercive Diplomacy requires that the side of coercer should formulate explicit strategic objectives, possess the capacity of achieving these strategic objectives, set the deadline for the opponent to satisfy the demands, keep a sound channel for the two sides to exchange information, make a timely assessment of the efficiency of the coercive diplomacy and make preparations for the subsequent actions. Coercive Diplomacy mainly manifests itself in the fact that the coercer makes diplomatic requirements to its opponent, imposes sanctions and even resorts to sanctions and persuasion, increases the intensity of threat and most probably issues the ultimatum.In Iran Nuclear Issue, there not only exists coercive diplomacy that the United States implements towards Iran, but also the counter-coercive diplomacy that Iran carries out towards the United States, so that the United States and Iran enter a state of mutual coercion. Since the United States and Iran have so far not resumed their diplomatic relations, the coercive diplomacy that the United States implements towards Iran is strongly characterized by sharp extendedness, mainly manifesting itself in its features of sanctions and persuasion, the threat of using force, diplomatic coercion and ultimatum. The Counter-coercive Diplomacy taken by Iran towards the United States is characterized by inequality between the small state and the great power, mainly embodying the features of counter-sanctions, counter-threat, counter-diplomacy and ultimatum.In Iranian Nuclear Issue, because of the differences existing between the United States and Iran in terms of such aspects as their comprehensive National Strength, foreign policy-making efficiency, international support acquirement, perception of security and threat, the United States has gradually won the initiative and international legitimacy in spurring the UN Security Council more than once to pass the resolutions to impose sanctions upon Iran. However, Iran refuses to stop its uranium enrichment related activities, insisting on its rights to peacefully use nuclear technology in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This fact, to some extent, testifies the validity of four theoretical hypotheses of Coercive Diplomacy:firstly, the more powerful the coercer is, the more likely it will succeed; Secondly, the more democratic the coercer is in its mechanism of foreign policy-making, the more consistently Coercive Diplomacy will be implemented, and thus the more likely it will succeed; thirdly, the more international support the coercer is able to win, the more legitimacy its actions will represent, and therefore the more likely it will succeed; fourthly, the more threat the coercer feels, the stronger political resolve the coercer will show in implementing coercive diplomacy, but as a result the less likely the coercer will succeed.As far as Iranian Nuclear Issue is concerned, there exist three analytical models concerning Coercive Diplomacy:the Challenge-response Model helps to analyze the mutual implementation of Coercive Diplomacy between the United States and Iran, and to explain the cause and process of escalation and alleviation of Iranian Nuclear Issue; the Rational Choice Model serves to analyze the cause and process of cost-benefit calculation among the relevant sides in Iran Nuclear Issue; the Political Resolve Balance Model is conducive to analyze the cause and process of the mutual balance of policy-makers’political resolve in the United States and Iran. The four influencing elements of Coercive Diplomacy are also closely related to the political resolve of foreign policy decision makers.Currently, Coercive Diplomacy is still the major means through which the international community and Iran regulate Iran Nuclear Issue. Although there exist some limitations with Coercive Diplomacy, it may still serve to promote the understanding between different sides concerned and help to resolve the international conflict. The United States and Iran can work to avoid the use of force to resolve Iran Nuclear Issue, thus not threatening the security of the world and Middle East. Given the present situation, Iran Nuclear Program is more likely to be oriented towards non-weaponization than weaponization, while there exists greater possibility that Iran Nuclear Issue will be solved through diplomatic means rather than through the means of using force.