Disinformation and other forms of ‘sharp power' now sit alongside the ‘hard power' of tanks and ‘soft power' of ideas in policy handbook
'The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.'
So wrote Thucydides in the 'History of the Peloponnesian War,' and the Greek historian's cold-eyed observation still holds.
But in today's world, strength doesn't always present itself in the form of armies or aircraft carriers. The means by which power manifests has expanded, growing more subtle, more layered and often more dangerous.
As a result, it's no longer enough to talk about power in purely military or economic terms. Rather, we need to distinguish between three overlapping but distinct forms of power: hard, soft and sharp.
These three concepts of power are more than just academic abstractions. They are real-world tools to, respectively, coerce, attract and manipulate the people and governments of other nations. They are used by governments to shape the choices of others. Sometimes they operate in concert; often, however, they collide.
Hard power is likely the most familiar of the three powers – and the one relied on by nations for much of history. It refers to the ability to coerce through force or economic pressure. It's the stuff of tanks, sanctions, warships and threats. When Russia bombs Kyiv, when the United States sends aircraft carriers through the Taiwan Strait or when China uses trade restrictions to punish foreign governments, that's hard power in action.
Hard power doesn't ask. It demands.
But coercion alone rarely brings lasting influence. That's where soft power comes in. The concept, popularized by American political scientist Joseph Nye, refers to the ability to attract rather than compel. It's about credibility, legitimacy and cultural appeal. Think of the global prestige of American universities, the enduring reach of English-language media or the aspirational pull of Western legal and political norms – and Western culture, too.
Soft power persuades by offering a model others want to emulate.
Yet in today's climate, soft power is losing ground. It depends on moral authority, and that authority is increasingly in doubt for governments around the world that previously leaned into soft power.
The United States, still a cultural juggernaut, exports polarization and political instability alongside prestige television and tech innovation. China's efforts to cultivate soft power through Confucius Institutes and diplomatic charm offensives are consistently undermined by its authoritarian reflexes.
The values once seen as attractive are now viewed, fairly or not, as hypocritical or hollow.
This has opened the gap for the third concept: sharp power. Sharp power operates as the dark mirror of soft power. Coined by the National Endowment for Democracy in 2017, it describes how authoritarian states in particular, but not excusively, exploit the openness of democracies to manipulate them from within.
Sharp power doesn't coerce, it doesn't attract … it deceives.
It relies on disinformation, covert influence, cyberattacks and strategic corruption. And it doesn't want your admiration – it wants your confusion, your division and your doubt.
This is the domain of Russian election interference, Chinese control of social media algorithms and the covert influence operations the U.S. engages against China.
Sharp power is about shaping narratives in foreign societies without ever firing a shot or closing a trade deal. And unlike hard power, it often goes unnoticed – until the damage is done.
What makes today's diplomatic landscape so difficult is that these forms of power aren't cleanly separated. They bleed into one another. China's Belt and Road Initiative combines hard-power leverage with soft-power branding and is quietly backed by sharp power tactics that pressure critics and silence dissent. Russia, lacking the economic heft or cultural appeal of the U.S. or China, has mastered sharp power out of necessity, using it to destabilize, distract and divide.
For liberal democracies, this creates a profound strategic dilemma. They still enjoy hard-power dominance and residual soft-power appeal. But they are vulnerable to sharp power – and increasingly tempted to use it themselves. The risk is that in trying to fight manipulation with manipulation, they hollow out their own institutions and values.
This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Andrew Latham, Macalester College
Read more:
The Thucydides Trap: Vital lessons from ancient Greece for China and the US … or a load of old claptrap?
What is isolationism? The history and politics of an often-maligned foreign policy concept
What is a 'revisionist' state, and what are they trying to revise?
Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
29 minutes ago
MAGA star Steve Bannon plays outsized role in Trump's Iran decision: Sources
By the time President Donald Trump and MAGA podcaster Steve Bannon sat down for lunch on Thursday, the president had already approved a plan on how the U.S. might attack an Iranian nuclear facility. American diplomats and their family members were being offered military evacuations from Israel, while the military began moving aircraft and ships to the region. The USS Nimitz – an aircraft carrier that can carry some 60 fighter jets – was set to arrive in the Middle East by the weekend with several smaller ships by its side. Officials said the extraordinary show of force would be needed if Trump pulled the trigger on the military option – both to strike Iran's deeply buried nuclear facility and to protect the some 40,000 U.S. troops who Iran and proxy militant groups could target for retaliation. Trump had just emerged from the Situation Room, where sources say he was warned: A U.S. attack on a key Iranian nuclear facility could be risky, even with a massive "bunker-buster" bomb believed to be able to penetrate some 200 feet through hardened earth. The bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, had only been tested, but never used in a real-life tactical situation, experts say. And the exact nature of the concrete and metal protecting the Iranian nuclear site known as Fordo isn't known, introducing the chance that a US strike would poke a hornet's nest without destroying it. Bannon, who had already spoken with the president by phone ahead of their lunch, thought all of it was a bad idea, according to several people close to him. Sources say he arrived at the White House for his previously scheduled lunch with Trump armed with specific talking points: Israeli intelligence can't be trusted, he planned to say, and the bunker-buster bomb might not work as planned. The precise risk to the U.S. troops in the Middle East, particularly the 2,500 in Iraq, also wasn't clear if Iran retaliated, he would add. A White House official insists that by the time Trump sat down with Bannon for lunch the president had already made a decision to hold off on a strike against Iran. That decision was relayed to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt who then went to the podium, telling reporters the president would decide "whether or not to go" within two weeks. Another senior administration official dismissed the idea that the "bunker-buster" bomb might not work. 'This Administration is supremely confident in its abilities to dismantle Iran's nuclear program. No one should doubt what the U.S. military is capable of doing,' the official said. Still, Bannon's extraordinary access to Trump this week to discuss a major foreign policy decision like Iran is notable considering Bannon holds no official role in the military or at the State Department. Bannon declined to comment on his lunch with Trump, saying only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 'needs to finish what they started.' 'Bannon in a lot of ways has been – day in and day out – delivering a very, very tough and clear message' against military action, said Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative, who also opposes military action in Iran. That strategy, Mills said, has been key to countering other Trump loyalists who favor teaming up with Israel for a strike. 'You can call it infantile. You can call it democratic, or both,' Mills told ABC News. 'This is a White House that is responding in real time to its coalition [which is] revolting to show it's disgusted with the potential of war with Iran.' At odds with Bannon's viewpoint on Iran are other influential conservatives. 'Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat,' Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told Fox News host Sean Hannity this week. 'If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.' According to one U.S. official, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mostly ceded the discussion to military commanders, including Gen. Erik Kurilla, commander of military forces in the Mideast, and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have spent considerable time talking with Trump by phone and in person in recent weeks about his options with Iran and the risks involved, which can be extraordinarily complicated. 'Anybody will tell you the biggest threat to the region is a nuclear-armed Iran,' the official said. 'No one wants Iran to have a nuke.' Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, pushed back on the suggestion Hegseth hasn't taken a lead role in the talks, calling it "completely false." He said Hegseth speaks with Trump 'multiple times a day each day,' and attended meetings with the president in the Situation Room. 'Secretary Hegseth is providing the leadership the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces need, and he will continue to work diligently in support of President Trump's peace through strength agenda,' Parnell said. Sources say Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also the president's interim national security adviser, has been another constant presence at the president's side during the discussions along with Trump's Mideast adviser Steve Witkoff. Once seen as one of Trump's most hawkish cabinet members, Rubio espoused a hardline stance on Iran for years and warned last month that the country was now 'a threshold nuclear weapons state.' But since then, sources say, Rubio has become much more closely aligned with MAGA's 'America First,' noninterventionist stance, adding that he is acutely aware of the political repercussions that a direct attack on Iran could bring about. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran has been enriching uranium to a dangerously high concentration and could quickly amass enough of it to build several nuclear weapons. But U.S. intelligence also cautions that its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hasn't given the order to build those devices. The question now is how soon Iran could declare itself a nuclear power after that decision was made. The uncertainty has drawn comparisons in MAGA circles to faulty intelligence in Iraq, which supporters of the movement blame for the lengthy war. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, who has warned on social media of 'warmongers,' told Congress this spring that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' When asked Friday about that assessment, Trump responded that the intelligence community 'is wrong' and 'she's wrong.' Gabbard later said her testimony was being taken out of context. 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree,' she wrote in a post on Friday. Sources say another factor could have played a role in Trump's decision to hold off on striking Iran for now despite his insistence that Iran was close to a nuclear bomb. A third aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford and its guided-missile destroyers are set to deploy early next week to head toward Europe, according to the Navy. The carrier strike group needs time to travel before it could be in a position to help protect troops in theater should Trump opt to move ahead with the strike two weeks from now. Officials caution that any success Bannon might have in pulling the president back from the brink of war could be brief. When asked on Friday by reporters if he would ask Israel to stop bombing Iran to enable diplomatic negotiations, Trump said probably not. 'If someone is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if someone is losing,' Trump said of the Israelis. 'But we're ready, willing and able and have been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens.'
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: Waiting for the bomb
President Trump has a binary decision to make: Whether to join Israel's attacks on Iran or abstain. But the consequences, either way, will likely be unpredictable, messy, and possibly momentous. Markets have been blasé about the widening Middle East war that erupted on June 13 when Israel attacked Iranian nuclear weapon facilities and other targets. Stocks have barely flinched. Oil prices have drifted up, but at $75 per barrel, they're nowhere near crisis levels. The calm may be deceptive. 'The potential for major downside market surprise is more elevated than many would have it,' Terry Haines, founder of Pangaea Policy, wrote in a June 19 analysis. "Market volatility almost certainly will be larger and longer in duration than the usual geopolitical event that is contained quickly.' Trump started out talking tough about Iran's predicament, posting on social media on June 17 that he expected 'unconditional surrender' from the ruling mullahs. But Trump is clearly riven. His whole 'America first' governing theme is based on avoiding foreign entanglements, not embracing them. He calls himself a 'man of peace' and prides himself on negotiating savvy, not swordsmanship. The standoff has led to an increasingly familiar Trump tactic: delay. Trump now says he'll decide by July 4 or so whether to aid Israel in its quest to destroy Iran's nuclear program and prevent it from getting atomic weapons. During its first week of bombing, Israel was able to knock out much of Iran's air defense network, destroy many missile launchers, damage some nuclear facilities, and assassinate a number of Iranian military leaders. It's a humiliation for a nation with nine times the population of Israel and a fanatical regime that says the destruction of Israel is a foundational Israel apparently can't do, however, is destroy the Fordow nuclear complex, which is buried at least 250 feet beneath a mountain 60 miles south of Tehran. The only conventional weapon with a good shot of reaching that deep is the US GBU-57 'massive ordnance penetrator' bomb, which is so big that only American bomber jets can carry it. So Trump has to decide whether to unleash a wave of B-2 bombers over Iran with the mission to demolish the Fordow complex. Armchair generals might see this as a simple one-and-done job. It's anything but. Iran would likely retaliate, threatening some 40,000 American service members stationed in the Middle East and possibly seeking to close the Hormuz Strait, a way station for 20% of the world's petroleum. Trump needs a couple of weeks to think it over. But he's also seeking a way to get Iran to agree to limit its nuclear program through negotiations, which would fulfill his 'man of peace' declaration and avert a US war with Iran that could leave Americans dead and badly mar Trump's presidency. This explains some of Trump's manic-sounding social media posts regarding Iran. Bellicose Trump threatened to assassinate Iranian leader Ali Khameini, saying, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'supreme leader' is hiding. He is an easy target.' He also said 'everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran,' as if American weapons were about to obliterate a megacity as densely populated as New York. Yet, Reasonable Trump has been urging Iran to accept a deal he's been working on since he took office in January. A Trump deal is only necessary because Trump scuttled the last deal with Iran, which former President Barack Obama finalized in 2015. Under that deal, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear weapons development in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions. Trump withdrew the United States from that deal, saying it was too soft on Iran. But he never got a better deal. The Obama deal was imperfect, to be sure. But all of Iran's recent progress on nuclear weapons came after Trump pulled out in 2018, and Iran may now be within weeks or months of building a nuke it could launch at Israel. Trump may now think Iran is in a can't-win position. Israel represents not just the threat of force, but actual force that degrades Iranian capabilities each day. That lets Trump play the good cop, whose supposed nuclear deal offers a way for Iran to escape Israeli pummeling. And with the massive ordnance penetrator in his back pocket, Trump can threaten even worse punishment than Israel is delivering. But Iran still might not cave. It could relocate much of its nuclear material and gird for the destruction of Fordow. Some analysts estimate Iran could reconstitute its nuclear program within a year or two, especially if it forswears any cooperation with weapons monitors or nonproliferation regimes. Iran could also try to snooker Trump into a sweetheart deal, hoping he'll grasp at anything he can claim as a victory. If nothing much changes by the end of Trump's two-week decision window, will dropping the big bomb be Trump's default position? Not necessarily. Trump could simply delay a decision by another two weeks or find some other formulation for basically doing nothing. Delay, in fact, is becoming Trump's go-to tactic. Trump has thrice delayed the date by which social media platform TikTok must sell itself to a non-Chinese buyer or go dark in the United States. Congress passed a law requiring that last year, but it did give the president the leeway of postponing enforcement, and Trump has taken advantage of it. The new deadline is Sept. 17. Trump also delayed the 'reciprocal' tariffs on dozens of nations reaching, in some cases, into the high double digits. Trump postponed those until July 9, saying that he expected to negotiate dozens of trade deals by then that would obviate the need for tariffs. As the deadline draws near, however, there have been hardly any announced deals. A buoyant stock markets suggest that investors think Trump will delay those tariffs yet again. But Trump also risks losing credibility with his counterparts if he always delays and never makes good on his threats. If Trump doesn't get the job done with Iran, the Islamic theocracy could hobble along as a wounded but dangerous combatant willing to take bigger risks. Trump will look like a bluffer who brags about a giant bomb he's afraid to use. He might discover that keeping America out of foreign wars doesn't make the nation better off, after all. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
The Hill
42 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israel says it hit Iran nuclear research facility, killed top commanders as both trade strikes
Israel on Saturday said it struck an Iranian nuclear facility in Isfahan and killed two top commanders as the clash between the two Middle Eastern countries expands and President Trump weighs direct intervention. Israeli Air Force fighter jets later in the day also moved to strike military infrastructure in southwestern Iran, according to an Israeli military statement. Saeed Izadi, leader of the Palestine Corps of the Quds Force and Behnam Shahriyari, commander of the Quds Force's Weapons Transfer Unit in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were pronounced dead by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) early Saturday. Israeli officials in a social media post said Izadi was 'one of the main orchestrators' of the Oct. 7, 2023 attack from Hamas. The IDF said Shahriyari was responsible for weapons transfer from Iran to proxies across the Middle East. Israeli officials said he was killed while traveling in western Iran. 'His elimination represents a severe blow to the ability of the terrorist organizations surrounding Israel to regroup and strengthen after being heavily damaged by the IDF during the war,' the IDF wrote. The IRGC has not confirmed the deaths but Akbar Salehi, Isfahan province's deputy governor for security affairs, did confirm damage to their nuclear site in Isfahan, per The Associated Press. Israeli forces, Salehi said, struck the site twice within 24 hours, crippling two centrifuge production sites as a part of their objective to eliminate Iran's nuclear development programs. Iran fired 40 drones overnight on Friday that were intercepted by Israel according to the IDF. 'We've been able to take out a large amount of their launchers, creating a bottleneck — we're making it harder for them to fire toward Israel,' an Israeli military official told AP on the condition of anonymity. 'Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.' The escalation of tensions comes as Trump still weighs his options on U.S. involvement, but has warned Iran not to attack American troops. Citizens are also being evacuated in Israel, per US officials. ''Operation Exodus'' is helping US citizens evacuate Israel. We can't part the Red Sea, but are parting the 'Red Tape' to help people who wish to leave,' U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee wrote in a Saturday post on X. Foreign leaders gathered in Geneva to seek to assist in quelling the violence in the region via diplomacy on Friday, however, talks quickly reached a stalemate as Iranian leaders pushed for consequences on Israel. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again and once aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed,' Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters. The United Nations issued a Friday release after the meetings in Geneva condemning Israeli attacks while denouncing the strikes as a violation of international law. Israel first hit Iran's nuclear facilities on June 13, prompting tensions to escalate in the region as US nuclear talks with Iran collapsed. Iran's Health Ministry spokesman Hossein Kermanpour said in an online interview with NewsNation, The Hill's sister station, on Friday that since strikes began, over 3,000 Iranians have been injured, 90 percent of whom are civilians. He said at least 400 people have been killed. The spokesperson added that the youngest injured is a 4-year-old boy, and the youngest victim is a two-month-old baby. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
