Iranian Diplomacy: It’s Quiet And Effective
At its core, diplomacy is the art of bargaining between statesmen and other international actors. This process takes place within the framework of national interests – the driving force behind all diplomatic actions. It’s important to remember that these negotiations occur in an anarchic international environment, where the effectiveness of diplomacy is often tied to the ‘solid construction of internal power’.
During the war, a country’s military and deterrence power is the most critical aspect of building domestic power. And the greater the military power, the greater the possibility of diplomatic bargaining. According to Iranian literature, the stronger the battlefield capabilities, the more effective diplomacy.
The regional diplomacy of the Iranian foreign minister has so far succeeded in removing the shadow of a large-scale regional war from Iran’s head and keeping Israel in the swamp of Gaza and Lebanon.
The practice of diplomacy before, during, and after a crisis is a complex and nuanced process. Each phase has its own distinct rules and requirements. Before the crisis, diplomacy is primarily about deterrence. During the crisis, it shifts to scene management. And after the crisis, it transitions to bargaining. Understanding these phases is crucial for navigating the complexities of international relations.
By Klatzwitz’s theory that “successful negotiation takes place after the war”, the winning side enters into negotiations and bargaining (directly or indirectly) with the aim of political stabilization of the war and the losing side to maintain honor and prestige.
These days, Iran and Israel are on the verge of an uncontrollable direct war. In order to get out of the war of attrition with Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is trying to make the dimensions of the war regional and international while bringing the United States and Iran into an active conflict. Iran, however, wisely refuses a direct war and responds to Israel’s threats and assassinations within the framework of deterrence theory. The fundamental question is whether Iran’s deterrence has been effective or not, and by the way, Iran’s action has increased the greed of the Zionists to expand the war.
The answer to this question will be determined when Israel’s response to the True Promise II operation is carried out.
If Israel’s reaction is merely a showoff, Iran’s deterrence has been effective, and if their response is a large-scale military operation, the deterrence isn’t effective.
What makes deterrence effective is the combined power of battlefield and diplomacy. Battlefields involve military action, and diplomacy conveys the message of action clearly and directly.
Tehran’s activation of diplomacy after the True Promise II operation is aimed at clearly conveying Iran’s message to the United States, Israel and their regional partners. This message probably contained punishment and incentive packages.
From the signs and evidence on the scene, it appears that the Zionists, currently, do not have the will to respond to war, and their response will be a showoff.
If Israel’s response is just symbolic, the battlefield and diplomacy have both won in Iran. Diplomacy has succeeded in turning Iran’s deterrent power in the political arena into a great political victory. Currently, evidence shows that Iran is on the verge of this victory.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s regional diplomacy is unpretentious and practical. He has succeeded in conveying Iran’s message clearly and transparently to the influential actors in the region to prevent the occurrence of an endless pandemic war.
Diplomacy sometimes has a positive aspect: objective results appear in perspective. However, sometimes it has a divestment side, the results of which are not evident on the surface but actually defuse the crisis.
The regional diplomacy of the Iranian foreign minister has so far succeeded in removing the shadow of a large-scale regional war from Iran’s head and keeping Israel in the swamp of Gaza and Lebanon.
