Study On The United States’ Coercive Diplomacy On Iran’s Nuclear Issue（2001—2021）

Coercive diplomacy is a special diplomatic strategy,which means that a state uses non-military means,including the threat of force,to urge the target state to stop the ongoing actions or revoke the actions that have already been implemented.The revelation of Iran’s secret nuclear facilities in 2002 caused intense unease in the international community,and the United States refused to have direct contact with Iran on the nuclear issue.It was not until 2006 that the United States showed its willingness to resolve it through diplomatic channels,and Iran’s nuclear issue opened up the room for a political solution.From 2001 to 2021,the United States mainly implemented coercive diplomacy against Iran on the nuclear issue,but the effect was limited.Iran has made great progress in nuclear technology.The question that this paper focuses on is: What is the difference between the threat of force against Iran during the Bush administration,the Obama administration and the Trump administration? What is the reason for this change? What is the reason for the limited effect of the coercive diplomacy implemented by the United States on Iran’s nuclear issue? What is the trend of the Biden administration’s coercive diplomacy toward Iran?After sorting out the factors that affect the outcome of the coercive diplomacy in the academic circle,this paper proposes an analytical framework for the coercive diplomacy implemented by the three US presidents on Iran’s nuclear issue during their tenures.This framework contains two dimensions of factors: one dimension is the strategic factors of coercive diplomacy.They are whether the threat of force is credible and whether it gives positive incentives to the adversary.The first factor relates to whether the target state will launch a military counterattack,whether it will obey,and the cost-benefit issue of the coercive state,and the second is related to whether the target state will comply with the coercive state’s demands.Among them,the degree of credibility in the threat of force is not only affected by the strategic factors of the coercive diplomacy,but also provided by the degree of domestic and foreign support.The degree of domestic support mainly includes two factors,that is,the attitude of the domestic public and the Opposition.The degree of foreign support mainly refers to the support it has received from other countries and international organizations.Another dimension is the environmental factors that affect the target state’s determination to resist coercion.The factors of the two dimensions together determine the degree of effectiveness of coercive diplomacy.This paper evaluates the effect of coercive diplomacy from the perspective of USIran interaction.Firstly,it analyzes the strategic factors of the coercive diplomacy of the three U.S.presidents.The policy goals of the Bush administration,the Obama administration,and the Trump administration are to change the Iranian regime,temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear technology level,and weaken Iran’s regional influence.The scope of the goals is narrowed.The means used are comprehensive.Among them,the threat of force tool has weakened its credibility due to various unfavorable conditions at home and abroad.All three presidents offered “carrots”,and only President Obama responded to Iran’s core concerns,resulting in a deal with Iran.Secondly,it analyzes the environmental factors that affect Iran’s determination to counterattack.The relative rise of Conservatives has weakened the strength of Reformists,thus making the Khatami administration’s attitude toward the United States from moderate to tough.Support at home and abroad has made Ahmadi-Nejad’s administration tough on the United States.During the Rouhani administration,domestic public opinion and the foreign policy of“constructive interaction with the world” created an opportunity for Iran to reach an agreement with the international community.After the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal,the rise of Conservative’s force at home and cooperation with major powers and neighboring friendly countries or armed groups to reduce the negative impact of external sanctions made Iran symbolically tough on the United States.At present,the Biden administration is dealing with Iran’s nuclear issue with the principle of “diplomacy first”.On the premise of not giving up economic sanctions and military pressure,it will continue to use multilateral arrangements to achieve contact with Iran.The paper argues that the coercive diplomacy has shown a trend of declining credibility in the threat of force and capricious political compromises.Changes in the situation at home and abroad have contributed to this trend.Iran,on the other hand,has shown astonishing resilience amid economic woes.With limited international support,Iran’s foundation for survival under external pressure is largely provided domestically.The paper argues that the coercive diplomacy imposed on Iran’s nuclear issue by the three U.S.presidents during their tenures has the characteristics of “both hard and soft”.“Soft”positive incentives do not meet Iran’s core demands.Among the “hard” coercive threats,the status of economic sanctions has risen,while the credibility of the threat of force has been weakened.Iran continues to operate and counteract despite external pressure,because the arrangement of the political system provides space to release social pressure;the “resistance economy” guarantees survival and regional military superiority.The United States’ coercive diplomacy has not achieved its political goals.Cooperation under the framework of concert of major powers is an important way to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue.