No Harm, No Foul?
The terms of diplomatic agreements matter, even if they’re never fulfilled.
As I’ve discussed several times before, including on the Rational Policy Podcast, the US has locked itself in a seemingly perpetual cycle of negotiation and escalation with Iran, despite Tehran’s behavior remaining entirely unchanging. Right now – at least for the time being – we’re in the diplomacy phase, with another agreement with the Iranians apparently just over the horizon. Naturally, this agreement will fully open the Strait of Hormuz and settle many of the issues between the warring parties. Just like the last one did. And the one before that. And the one before that.
Of course, I could go on and on about the profound foolishness of negotiating with the Iranian regime and wax poetic about the myriad ways in which they’ve conclusively shown that they couldn’t care less about the agreements they sign, but you can read that essay over at National Review. I could discuss why diplomacy in this particular case is a fruitless endeavor and suggest alternative approaches to cutting the Gordian knot of Iran, but you can read that one at The Dispatch. I could discuss the Strait of Hormuz itself and the oft-misleading narratives that have been promulgated around it, but you can give that one a perusal here at Rational Policy. Instead, I’ll take a broader view and tread some slightly newer and more expansive ground by talking about why words and terms matter so much in diplomacy.
Proponents of diplomacy with Tehran argue that there simply is no harm in the approach, as any agreement is contingent on Iranian cooperation. They claim that no concessions are really being made as long as Iran chooses recalcitrance and fails to comply with the terms we set. In fact, luring in the counterparty with giveaways that you already know won’t materialize might even be a selling point for the pro-negotiation faction. But this is a terribly ignorant way to view diplomacy and will lead to disastrous outcomes in the future. Why? Because words matter in diplomacy, far more than they do in nearly every other area of politics.
I have long believed that actions and policies matter more than political rhetoric; a politician can say that he is a moderate, but if he supports radical policies, those words are meaningless. This is basically how I felt about the entire Biden presidency, wherein he spoke like a center-left Democrat but governed like a Liz Warren progressive. Don’t get me wrong, rhetoric does matter in domestic politics. When Donald Trump talks like a mobster or hurls gratuitous insults at his rivals, he coarsens the discourse and lowers the reputation of the office. When he claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, he creates very real and serious problems, sometimes even indirectly fomenting violence. This sort of thing can have real world consequences. But overall, political rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. And voters often understand it as such, otherwise we wouldn’t have had Donald Trump as our president twice.
In diplomacy, however, things are different. Every last word, phrase, or sentence is parsed for meaning several times. Entire nations hang on what terms are used. Even synonyms can hold wildly divergent connotations depending on the context and the audience. One party may find the inclusion of a term necessary, while the counterparty may not care at all. Terms can be used to signal internally, externally, or a combination of both, with each involved party having competing motivations and aims. Languages and translations matter immensely and can alter the meaning of the whole deal if drafters are not careful to ensure exactitude across drafts. History also plays a huge role here, and nations have long memories. Terms used in previous treaties or agreements could ease current negotiations or cause a spat that ends them prematurely. Centuries-old embarrassments or triumphs can come back with a vengeance when referenced, even obliquely, via specific phrases. The terms of treaties are regularly used as casus belli for future wars, with the ‘wronged’ party seeking martial recompense or one party using specific wording to seek greater advantage.
All of that is to say that words matter quite a bit when it comes to the drafting of international agreements. And every last word that is given the imprimatur of the United States of America is critically important. When Washington agrees to something, it creates a new reality on the ground. Because of this, the fulfillment of diplomatic agreements matters a whole lot less than the terms agreed by both parties. People, governments, and militaries all alter their behavior based on these terms, seeking to test their durability or take advantage of their implications. Future negotiations will incorporate the terms agreed in the past, even if those agreements were never executed in full. They still serve as a new starting point and change the calculus for all parties involved in talks. They also reveal what each party’s limits are, can hint at pressure points or weaknesses, and speak to goals, base motivations, and interests. Once made, concessions cannot be reversed or taken back. They will impact relations between countries for decades, if not longer. Every future discussion between these nations will incorporate these terms. They simply cannot be escaped, which is why one must be extraordinarily cautious about what one agrees to, even if final agreement is unlikely to materialize.
Additionally, diplomatic agreements don’t only impact the countries making them. Other nations involved in the conflict, present in the region, or even further afield and largely uninterested in the specifics of the matter at hand can be influenced heavily by diplomatic agreements. If a party looks weak in one theater, enemies in other theaters will take advantage of this and seek to replicate the feat. Concessions made to one nation will be sought by others, with good reason. Wording used in one agreement will be pursued in others; those same terms may hold different meanings in each instance, yet their inclusion once will ensure they are sought again. Alterations to the status quo do not remain siloed to one area of the map, but change the facts on the ground everywhere. As a true global superpower, America must be wary of this and act accordingly. We cannot afford to kneecap ourselves worldwide for temporary or illusory diplomatic gains in one region.
When it comes to the specifics of any potential agreement with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz – even if the concessions America makes are never actually carried out – this is especially salient. Maritime chokepoints that flow through international waters are incredibly commonplace on the world map. Many are far more critical to global trade than Hormuz, notably the series of straits that run down the eastern coast of mainland Asia, through the South China Sea and into the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Granting concessions to Iran that allow it to exert legal control over Hormuz would immediately and permanently destroy the international system of free navigation that America has defended and promoted for nearly a quarter of a millennium. It would grant license to every bad actor who just happens to find himself located alongside a key waterway. It would basically legalize rank piracy, as long as the maritime highwayman in question has at least a fig leaf of geography to cover him. This is, to put it mildly, a very bad outcome that we should wish to avoid. And the way we do that is by ensuring that our words are chosen very carefully and are firmly and totally backed by our actions.
Words matter to an incredible extent in international relations, especially during negotiations between nations. In this respect, diplomacy is far more like legal work than it is politics. Treating it with the appropriate level of seriousness depends on understanding this distinction. If one pretends that diplomacy is an analog for domestic partisan politics, failure is guaranteed, whether now or later, whether in-theater or further afield. But if one understands the need for clarity, precision, and caution, then success is far more likely. Unfortunately, it seems like our current crop of leaders cannot help but treat everything as an extension of the domestic political Thunderdome; when facing the canny negotiators of Tehran – or, for that matter, their Russian or Chinese counterparts – this does not bode well. We can still turn this around and cut our diplomatic losses, but we need to start treating these negotiations and the agreements that result with the same deadly seriousness with which we treat outright war. Because if one is not careful in diplomacy, war will be the inevitable result.