Link:
http://www.businessday.co.z
a/articles/topstories.aspx?
ID=BD4A254241-------------------------
Iran wins by using its ‘soft power’ Greg Mills
THE losers in the war in Lebanon, at least in terms of global opinion, are Israel and those governments seen to have implicitly or otherwise supported the Jewish state’s action. Lebanon is a major loser in terms of infrastructure, economy, and the further undermining of its previously already slight territorial and political control. The damage to Hezbollah is difficult to ascertain — politically emboldened, but militarily wounded. The real winner in the war in Lebanon is Iran. But the extent of its victory is not yet public or clear. In the battle of public perceptions, its victory was assured in the Islamic world and further afield the moment Israel launched what many saw as a disproportionate military response to the abduction of its soldiers.
But Tehran’s real victory will come in the aftermath of battle, during reconstruction. While the international community spends a fortune on inserting a peacekeeping force, Iran will fund the rebuilding of Hezbollah communities, dishing out aid, captivating communities and ensuring religious patronage. While the Iranians reportedly assisted in arming Hezbollah with advanced wire- and laser-guided antitank weaponry and large numbers of relatively crude ground-to-ground missiles, their real advantage will come after the sound of gunfire through the use of “soft power”.
Where the west will have elaborate procedures to ensure its aid money is spent properly, the Iranians will resort to much blunter but likely more effective, and certainly faster, tactics. While the west speaks of “effects-based operations” in post-conflict societies, in reality it conducts value-based operations, focusing on the delivery of assistance in line with western liberal governance norms and standards of transparency and accountability.
The term soft power, as opposed to military hard power, is American, created by those who wanted the US to exploit its advantages of economic and cultural power better in winning the contest for hearts and minds. But while the phrase may be American it is others, notably Iranians, who show mastery at putting it into practice, and not just in places like Lebanon.
Neither are the Iranians alone in using soft power to win over communities. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the Brotherhood has been doing it for years in Egypt. Where communities lack medical care, the Brotherhood uses doctors to offer free consultations as a condition for membership. These opportunities are doled out in disadvantaged communities, strengthening lines of patronage and support for the Brotherhood’s aims. It uses lack of government delivery to its advantage.
Aid delivery in a country such as Afghanistan is a tortuous affair. Bureaucratic procedures and security ensure the ratio of expenditure (on security forces, consultants, administration and other forms of bureaucracy) versus aid delivered is much lower and slower. Because the west delivers by its own rules, local actors can seldom use the money to their own advantage and in the way their system operates and understands, as patronage and for political power as much as the goal of socioeconomic development.
Another feature of western aid is how little credit donors receive from recipients for what is genuinely massive assistance. The link between the new school or mini power station, and the white aid workers in their white four-wheel-drives is rarely made, while many in the aid community regard aid as essentially neutral. This is not how Hezbollah and their backers see it, and they want and make sure they receive every drop of political credit going.
Such effective use of soft power is also hard to object to, let alone counter. Arguing against the supply of guns to terrorist organisations is one thing, but, whatever their motives, if the Iranians also seek to influence societies by funding reconstruction, how can we protest? In the global contest for hearts and minds, policy makers may be overfocusing on their opponents’ guns rather than their butter.
How Iran will use its victory remains to be seen. It is unlikely, however, to be encouraged to seek compromise with the west over its nuclear issues. It probably now fears less the military advantage enjoyed by Israel, the US and others. Whatever tactical damage they can mete out will pale in comparison to the public diplomatic advantage Iran would gain as a result — a David and Goliath contest with the weak exploiting the enemy’s strength. But Tehran is not weak, just very astutely playing the game to its own rules.
‖Dr Mills heads the Brenthurst Foundation in Johannesburg and, from May to September, has been seconded as a special adviser to Nato in Kabul. He writes in his personal capacity. This article was co-authored with an ISAF colleague who cannot be named.
posted by DefSFGeoff 
