The juxtaposition of the war on terror by the United States (US) and the negotiations towards nuclear-free Iran by the West led by European economic and military powers will inform the understanding of the extent to which diplomacy shapes conflict aftermath, as covered in this essay. When terrorists hit American soil in September 2011, the country did not respond with talks and investigations but with threats and a full-out war on terrorism as public and foreign policy globally. The resulting debates after 9/11 continue to evaluate the execution of foreign policy (Lee, 2023). In this paper, the response to the incident and the subsequent war on terrorism will be the case for the lack of foreign diplomacy in resolving a conflict. This case will also be juxtaposed with another one where diplomacy thrived, and there was a tangible conflict resolution. The UK orchestrated the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 as a main player. The diplomacy was multilateral, with several countries shaping Iran’s resignation from pursuing nuclear weapons (Kirana & Wardhani, 2018).
The public plays a great role in shaping the priorities of their governments when resolving international conflicts. The public first by voting and secondly by engaging the media influencing their countries’ priority policies and agendas internationally, especially as administrations seek to remain relevant and retain government. These cases are seen in the US war on terror and the UK diplomacy in the nuclear deal with Iran. Irrespective of the backstory, much of the investigation reveals the power of diplomacy as an effective means to manage conflict and resolve crises internationally, albeit in the carrot and stick method where considerable military action, sanctions, and economic or political consequences feature prominently.
War on Terrorism
The Americans have always prided themselves in promoting the nation’s system of values as its diplomatic weapon. The Campaign of Truth launched by President Truman led the American public to support diverse diplomatic agencies to legitimize covert diplomatic activity by the CIA (Kennedy & Lucas, 2005). These activities included educational exchange programs to the Soviet Union and subsidized trips for sculptors, artists, religious organizations, and journalists, among other groups and professions. Diplomacy carried itself through the union of state and private groups and among groups of cultural producers, leading to the entanglements shaping the early Cold War period (Kennedy & Lucas, 2005).
WWII was the main turning point for diplomacy for the United States as national security and foreign policy took on championing values (Murray & Blannin, 2017). The promotion of democracy took another turn during the Trump presidency when there was a need to pursue constructive, results-oriented bilateral relations other than just promoting fundamental values of freedom, human dignity and how people treat each other. In this case, the nation’s interest would come first, and only after that would the nation apparatus advance values. The changes were far-reaching due to the huge network of US allies worldwide who depend on official foreign policy for their diplomatic advances. In the context of the war on terrorism, the concern was whether the US would relent on some of the actions taken by the previous administrations in ending the war on terror. Trump’s administration decided to send an additional 4000 troops to Afghanistan to win the war that had started seven years earlier (Murray & Blannin, 2005).
While it seemed that diplomacy was losing in the fight against terrorism, and the war was the only way forward to alleviate any threats to America, there were counter-diplomatic offensives that also tried to remove war from the picture and let dialogue and values prevail. Pesto (2010) explores this trajectory. In the account, the author confirms that diplomacy, even in the early Roman Empire, preceded wars rather than helping to avoid them. Therefore, the meaning and use of diplomacy in such contexts can be constructed in the following manner. The process involves intellectual activities for gathering and processing information continuously and then analyzing and making decisions based on the information. Part of these processes could come out as negotiations.
America resolved the threats against it as part of the war on terror with its military might, at least for the post-9/11 period and the subsequent actions of fighting specific terror threats across the world. In Libya, the US extended its armed drone program, which involves going to war in a virtual theatre where there are no troops on the ground. Drones and other technologies accomplish the same job of targeting and bombing. The non-conventional war in Libya was unlike the conventional war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, where the previous counterterrorism offensives took place. The targeted killing by drones still represents armed conflict as a means of responding to international threats. The program began with Yemen in 2002 and continues to be a major means of war for the US. The first success was the killing of the Taliban leader Nek Muhammad in Pakistan (Sims & Bergen, 2018). Since then, less than half of the reported airstrikes have been officially declared. The international media does not report on the air war, which helps obscure facts. The diplomatic arrangements between the US and other countries, such as the UAE, Egypt, and France, might be the reasoning behind these countries’ decision not to report the airstrikes on Libya (Sims & Bergen, 2018). On the other hand, the benefit of air strikes with drones is that the reported civilian deaths remain much lower than they would be in higher-intensity conflicts such as those in Syria and Iraq (Sims & Bergen, 2018).
The war on terror has been the biggest and longest-serving war in recent times. It offers many insights into the use of conflict to resolve international challenges a nation faces with other countries (Azizian, 2021). The US, being the most powerful, secure, and prosperous nation after the Cold War, is without rivals to its mission to shape the world to its liking. Therefore, its policies on the war on terror over the last two decades continue to affect its policies going forward and its achievement of the foreign mission where the choice of conflict remains a cornerstone to any response to threats. Despite these conflicts, the actual demarcation of a win remains fleeting (Azizian, 2021). The country with almost endless access to resources for war-fighting machinery seems to fail to win and end the war because of the foreign policies it pursues or does not pursue. An entanglement of conflict and diplomacy, as shown in the war on terror, will explain the shortcoming.
For a few years, the US policy in the Middle East turned diplomatic and less military as the country let its allies like Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia bear the cost of policing the region (Malis, 2021). These partners must deal with emergent local dangers like terrorism (Yom, 2020). The lack of or the slowdown of a military offensive in the region also allowed other international actors like China and Russia to increase their diplomatic presence and influence in the region’s internal conflicts and threats through military, economic, and diplomatic engagements (Yom, 2020).
The fact that the war on terrorism is presented today as a non-diplomatic approach is vivid. However, the war’s end was unimaginable as decades of fighting and foreign policy exposed varied political dynamics (McIntosh, 2022). The war has been ongoing through different administrations, each with varied foreign policy agendas. Yet, the underlying mechanism has been the mix of diplomacy with covert military action outside the initial military offensive in Afghanistan launched by the Bush administration.
Iran Nuclear Deal
From 2013 to 2015, Iran was in negotiations with six countries: England, France, Germany, the United States, Russia, and China. Britain was a big participant, using the media as part of its diplomacy. In this case, disseminating information through the media influences coverage to the extent of influencing foreign policy (Kirana & Wardhani, 2022). Therefore, it becomes the government’s interest to shape media attention and rhetoric. The UK media influenced parliamentary policies and greatly changed rhetoric as Iran went against the JCPOA (Hafezi, 2023). In this case, the action by Britain suggesting refusal to lift sanctions, which goes against diplomatic arrangements, could be attributed to the changing sentiment about cooperation between the two countries and suggest changes in the UK’s viewpoints among its partners in the fight against nuclear weapon development.
The modern diplomatic practice is complex and involves a set of skills, institutions and extra-institutional relations at an international level. The activities do not remain within the thresholds of formal contracts. The actors are not always government representatives in the participating industries (Presto, 2010). There is a much bigger arena involving informal institutions and non-governmental organizations. Intellectuals, analysts, and researchers all play a part. Today, many countries insist on multilateral relations rather than bilateral ones. Large international organizations play a critical role, especially in the globalization process. Nevertheless, the functions remain the same: representing the given country abroad and promoting its interests and goals. As such, diplomacy continues pursuing the same goals in this decade as it did in the past (Presto, 2010). A nation’s foreign policy will be reflected in the diplomatic offensive of the nation in bilateral and multilateral endeavours abroad.
Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a threat to global stability. The UK and its allies, after perceiving the threat, went on a diplomatic mission to end the Iran nuclear programs. Using a range of resources and threats against the nation, the international partners succeeded in using diplomacy to avoid conflict. However, the latest report shows Iran has taken steps to violate the nuclear deal, and the country announced its intention not to abide by restrictions on its nuclear development programs. Meanwhile, the US allies, including the UK, will have to do more to ensure that the country does not end up developing the weapons and gain the capability to deliver them. The Iran Nuclear Deal or the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was an ambitious diplomatic outcome to end Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
One of how Iran can be countered in its charm offensive is through the maintenance of a positive military balance in the Middle East. Another way is through the ban on arms transfer to the country. Furthermore, the continued pressure using sanctions on the country while also pursuing the JCPOA dispute resolution mechanism, as shown by Britain, France and Germany, might be the way forward (Brookes et al., 2020). Additional diplomatic efforts that will ensure a more restrictive and permanent nuclear agreement with the country are also on the table.
Even though Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons, there has been almost a decade of no announced delivery capacity thanks to the negotiations among international partners and the joint suppression of the nuclear efforts (Brookes et al., 2020). The lack of military intervention in Iran by the international countries is a win for foreign diplomacy. It provides this case as an example of when diplomacy succeeds in resolving conflict. However, the fact that Iran continues to see the existing JCPOA as inadequate to stop its actions waters down the claim of a diplomatic success story. If anything, years of diplomatic investments in the peace program might have been failures (Alcaro, 2021). Iran still follows the incentive to normalize economic relations with Europe, and the latter uses this carrot-and-stick method to entice more acceptance of its conditions and sanctions towards re-engaging Iran in nuclear diplomacy (Alarco, 2021). Besides European countries, the US has also been at the forefront of threatening Iran with military action while focusing on diplomacy on the sidelines of this rhetoric. The US started the nuclear talks with the Geneva deal in 2013 and melted the ice on Iran’s international participation in talks with international participants (Mazhar & Goraya, 2014).
The place of nuclear weapons in international politics is unlikely to go away soon (Antonia, 2020). The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between Moscow and Washington was among the first diplomatic wins in the twilight years of the Cold War. Now, the JCPOA is offering the current age’s best win if it can succeed at ensuring that Iran does not end up with nuclear weapons (Antonia, 2020). However, in analyzing the outcomes and the current developments, it is important to acknowledge the two poles of power often coming to the negotiations from different perspectives, needs, understanding, foreign policies, and obligations. Even if a state is to follow an international interest, it must also examine and support its national interest. These conditions will then prolong the realm of negotiations among nations involved in the JCPOA and affect their interpretations of the actions of each member on either side of the situation.
Is Diplomacy Effective?
Before answering whether diplomacy is effective, one must acknowledge that conflicts in the international sense do not end in literal terms. However, objectives of an end, or changes of situation, arise to which point one may claim an end. For instance, the signing of the Iran Nuclear Deal was an end to the diplomatic onslaught, albeit the beginning of a new setup that now has parties engaged in subsequent diplomatic efforts. The war on terror by the US ended somehow with the first onslaught of military action. However, it seems to be still ongoing because of continued terror threats and changes in international dynamics of cooperation among US allies when fighting terrorism threats.
There is limited understanding of all the avenues through which diplomacy acts out. Hope is one of the often-understudied areas in diplomatic practice. When political changes arise, states turn to novel diplomatic types, as shown during the transition from Trump to Biden administrations in the United States and the subsequent foreign policy considerations for the war on terror (Lacatus & Blanc, 2023). The same is likely true for the United Kingdom during Brexit and the subsequent willingness to negotiate under existing terms or form new terms when it comes to the Iran nuclear deal. The preferred way of negotiations in the Biden administration shifted from that of the Trump administration. Rather than be seen as asking allies to take up their share of the costs of diplomacy and the war on terror, the Biden administration is shifting towards supporting allies more with its resources internationally (Lofflmann, 2023). The Obama administration was on a course correction when it embraced cooperative engagement and multilateralism, but it still also relied on military action to achieve its means (Lofflmann, 2023). However, the Bush strategic vision of US primacy is ongoing despite the various changes to foreign policy, which suggest that diplomacy plays second fiddle to armed conflict.
Conclusion
The overwhelming evidence in this essay is in support of the effectiveness of diplomacy in ending crises internationally. Diplomacy is an effective tool for reaching desirable conflict resolution outcomes. The Iran Nuclear Deal is an example of an international crisis that diplomacy solved. It is a salient example because there were several countries negotiating to have the same position on one side and enforce this position through foreign policy to influence Iran’s action towards its nuclear development efforts. In the war on terror, diplomacy continues to play a big role in ensuring the US has a range of allies to depend on to establish its military and diplomatic offensives across the world especially in the Middle East. However, the nature of the ongoing threat has made it difficult to claim the objective success of diplomacy in resolving conflict in this example.
References
Alcaro, R. (2021). Europe’s Defence of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Less than a Success, more than a Failure. The International Spectator, 56(1), 55-72.
Antonia, P. O. P. (2020). Diplomatic negotiations and the Iran Nuclear Deal-between the realistic and liberal paradigms. CES Working Papers, 12(2), 100-110.
Azizian, N. (2021). Easier to get into war than to get out. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Brookes, P., Schaefer, B. D., & Phillips, J. (2020). Iran Nuclear Deal: Next Steps. Heritage Foundation Issue Brief, (5030), 2.
Hafezi, P. (2023). Iran media claims British-Iranian facing execution had links to scientist killing. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-irna-says-british-iranian-alireza-akbari-played-role-assassination-2023-01-12/
Kennedy, L., & Lucas, S. (2005). Enduring freedom: Public diplomacy and US foreign policy. American Quarterly, 57(2), 309-333.
Kirana, Y. and Wardhani, B. (2018). The preference of media press in Britain and British policy in Iran’s Nuclear Crisis. In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) – Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Pacific Region, (629-634).
Science and Technology Publications.
Lacatus, C., & Blanc, E. (2023). Diplomacy of Hope: Transatlantic Relations in the Transition from Trump to Biden. Foreign Policy Analysis, 19(4), orad026.
Lee, P. K. (2023). George W. Bush’s post-9/11 East Asia policy: enabling China’s contemporary assertiveness. International Politics, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00486-0
Lofflmann, G. (2023). The Bush Doctrine redux: changes and continuities in American grand strategy since ‘9/11’. International Politics, 1-22.
Malis, M. (2021). Conflict, cooperation, and delegated diplomacy. International Organization, 75(4), 1018-1057.
Mazhar, D. M. S., & Goraya, D. N. S. (2020). Geneva Deal: Beginning of a New Era between Iran-Us Relations. South Asian Studies, 29(1).
McIntosh, C. (2022). A ‘continuing, imminent’ threat: the temporal frameworks enabling the US war on terrorism. International Relations, 36(4), 568-590.
Murray, S., & Blannin, P. (2017). Diplomacy and the War on Terror. Small Wars Journal. http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/diplomacy-and-the-war-on-terror
Sims, A., & Bergen, P. (2018, June). Causalities in Libya since the 2011 NATO intervention. In International Security. New America.
write