Accommodation or Confrontation? Explaining Differences in Policies Toward Iran

Abstract

Even though democracies by and large share the perception of Iran as a threat to peace and security, they disagree over the appropriate policy response. This paper examines why some democracies prefer accommodation while others plead for confrontation. Using a new data set on democracies' policies toward Iran in the 2000s, we assess the impact of power positions, commercial interests, and domestic political cultures while controlling for government ideology. While we find little support for any impact of power positions, "cultures of dealing with deviance," that is, the discourses and practices of dealing with violations of norms domestically as institutionalized in a society's criminal law and justice system, have a substantial and statistically significant effect on state policies. Finally, we find qualified support for commercial liberalism: Whereas high levels of total trade do not have the expected effect of making states more accommodationist, high levels of trade in strategic goods such as oil do.

Public support for coercive diplomacy: Exploring public opinion data from ten European countries

“…The result also confirms previous research by Liberman (, ) and Onderco and Wagner (). Wagner and Onderco () also found that domestic punitivity is related to the likelihood of support for punitive action internationally. While the survey data do not permit further analysis, the result underlines the need for further research into individuals’ drivers of punitivity in Europe, where research is still in its infancy.…”

“…Previous research has shown that countries with punitive domestic criminal systems are more likely to be confrontationist towards countries breaking international norms (Wagner ; Wagner & Onderco ), and that democracies still exercising the death penalty are more likely to engage in militarised interstate disputes (Stein ). Similarly, support for the death penalty has been associated with higher support for war in Iraq or for the torture of terrorism suspects (Liberman , , ).…”

“…However, sanctions also influence trade exchange with the target and hence trade interests are relevant too (Drezner , ; Drury ). But sanctions can be also seen as a form of punishment (Nossal ), and indeed, previous research has related preferences for the use of the tools of coercive diplomacy to societal norms (Portela ; Wagner & Onderco ). However, research has not attempted to engage the variation at the individual level using public opinion data.…”

The ideational foundations of coercion: political culture and policies towards North Korea

“…We have examined the role of commercial interests on policies towards norm violations in a prior study on Iran, seeWagner and Onderco (2014). The ideational foundations of coercion 283 https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.…”

“… 3 We have examined the role of commercial interests on policies towards norm violations in a prior study on Iran, see Wagner and Onderco (2014). …”