"Positive Sanctions" and Iran's Concern Over America's Soft Power

The issuance of guidelines to ban the import of American-made goods to Iran is a sign of the concerns among conservatives within the Islamic government regarding the influence of America's "soft power" in the post-sanctions situation. Following the lifting of UN Security Council sanctions, as well as the joint sanctions imposed by the US and the European community against Iran, which are expected to gradually take effect from spring 2016, various assessments suggest that between $30 to $180 billion of Iran's frozen assets will be released. Additionally, Iran's foreign trade and international banking transactions will surpass current limitations, allowing Iranian banks to establish new relations with foreign institutions and countries. The revival of Iran's economic relations with Western Europe and the US, which have gradually diminished or been severed over the past 37 years in favor of trade development with the East, is an expectation that government pragmatists are pinning their hopes on in the post-JCPOA situation. The Iranian Ministry of Oil's efforts to hold a major oil conference in London this December to attract major oil companies (including American firms) and encourage them to return to Iran is a sign of the government's efforts in this direction, and subsequently, the announcement of an indefinite postponement of the conference indicates the government's unsuccessful attempts against conservatives who identify themselves as "worried" about soft power and Western influence, particularly from the US. The topic of "soft power" has been increasingly media-highlighted in recent years, coinciding with the intensification of regional conflicts and escalating violence worldwide. In today's world and in the realm of "soft power," various levers including economy, goods exports, scientific institutions, universities, charities, technology, innovation, medical knowledge, cinema, art, literature, language, television, cinema, and familiar and newsworthy artists and figures are included, measuring a country's power by these metrics. In the discussion of defining the dimensions of a country's power, some political theorists believe that the time for abstract reliance on bombs, missiles, aircraft, warships, tanks, and artillery has ended. The power to impose sanctions is one of the tools of soft power, categorized into positive and negative branches. Sanctioning a country is a means of exerting pressure without resorting to hard power (military confrontation and war) with the aim of changing that country's hostile behavior, a method that has rarely resulted in altering the behavior of the sanctioned country. In contrast to negative sanctions, political scientists have introduced the new concepts of "soft power" and "positive sanctions" since the 1950s, although theorists do not agree on the scope of influence of negative and positive sanctions. Two well-known sociologists, Talcott Parsons and Peter M. Blau, have specifically differentiated between negative and positive sanctions in the relations of countries and the definition of power and its application. The question posed is whether, for example, offering a $100 reward for abandoning an undesirable action is more effective than imposing a $100 fine. The behavior of Vietnam during the hot war with the US did not change after the dropping of thousands of tons of bombs, but the current positive and normal relations between the US and Vietnam have effectively brought the two countries closer together. The Islamic Republic, despite surrendering its nuclear program due to the imposition of negative sanctions, did not change its regional behaviors and even intensified its confrontation and challenges with the West in some areas. Iran's concerns and America's expectations are based on the main argument of conservatives and the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, who consider the existence and preservation of the revolution's identity their primary responsibility, asserting that the US and the West are seeking to develop relations and use soft power to exert gradual and creeping influence in Iran after the lifting of sanctions. In the view of this faction of power, which the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic strongly supports, the US aims to gradually change the identity and ultimately the nature of the Islamic government in Iran through soft power. The US, under a different guise, while outlining its expectations from the changes resulting from the lifting of sanctions in Iran, predicts a change in the identity and nature of the Islamic Republic and its gradual adjustment in envisioning the future of Iran. Barack Obama, the US President, has suggested since 2008 during his election campaign that "change" in Iran is possible, and one day after signing the Vienna nuclear agreement, he described "America's diplomacy in creating real changes (in Iran)" as effective during a press conference at the White House. Thomas Friedman, an American analyst, has predicted in a New York Times article that regime change in Iran is likely within the next decade. The common point between the Islamic Republic and the US government regarding sanctions is the lifting of them as quickly as possible. The US government considers the end of the era of negative sanctions as the beginning of positive sanctions and the use of its soft power, while the Iranian government is also clearly seeking a swift lifting of sanctions, viewing the end of this era as the beginning of economic improvement and a means to increase its power in the upcoming elections for the Islamic Council and the Assembly of Experts, an image that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic and conservatives and military figures seem worried about depicting.