Fragility of diplomatic engagement

Express Tribune

4 hours ago

In his book, Diplomacy, former US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger writes that diplomacy is the "art of enhancing power." Further, he states, "When statesmen want to gain time, they offer to talk." He believes, "The bargaining position of the victor always diminishes with time. Whatever is not exacted during the shock of defeat becomes increasingly difficult to attain later."
Termed the art of negotiations, diplomacy however failed to prevent the recent conflicts - between Israel and Iran war; Russia and Ukraine; and, India and Pakistan.
According to AI "Diplomatic engagement refers to the practice of actively communicating, negotiating, and building relationships with other nations and their representatives to achieve specific foreign policy goals. This engagement can involve governments, international organisations, and even non-state actors, and it plays a crucial role in maintaining peace, promoting cooperation, and addressing global challenges."
When US President Donald Trump abruptly left the G-7 summit held in Canada this past week and used highly undiplomatic language threatening Iran of dire consequences for not surrendering unconditionally, it shows how fragile the power of diplomacy is. By rendering support to the Israeli aggression against Iran, the US President adheres to what Jewish state wants: complete destruction of the Iranian nuclear programme and regime change in Tehran. Other G-7 leaders also supported Israel and its attack on Iran. It seems, the West instead of 'peace' wants to promote 'war' diplomacy. But using diplomacy to coerce Iran and relegate before Israel will have adverse implications on global affairs.
The failure of diplomacy led to war as it happened in the case of the US attack on Iraq in January 1991 when the United Nations failed to seek a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis. 'War diplomacy' cannot work in the case of Iran because it is a country which is resilient and the custodian of an ancient civilisation. Instead of declaring Israel an aggressor because of its highly unjustified attack on Iran launched on June 13, the West, particularly the US, wants the regime in Tehran toppled and Iran's nuclear installations destroyed. Iran has so far faced Israeli attacks and can also cope with the US military intervention. Trump's highly irresponsible threat to Iran to unconditionally surrender is a reflection of war diplomacy. Why didn't he criticise Israel for scuttling the US-Iran nuclear talks scheduled to be held in Oman on June 15?
The US-Israel nexus for regime change in Iran and dismantling of its nuclear installations is well-planned and well-timed. Both the US and Israel know that Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and cannot come for Iran's rescue. Tehran has lost its support in Syria. Hamas and Hezbollah stand neutralised too because of the regime change in Syria. Barring Yemen, no Arab or Muslim country is standing behind Iran in this critical moment. The US-Israeli confidence in targeting Iran also got an impetus because of the domestic political schism and severe economic crisis. The enemies of the Iranian regime believe that in the event of an US-Israeli attack there would be no help from outside, and the Iranian people will rise against the clergy and topple the regime. It may be wishful thinking but one needs to ponder how Mossad penetrated deep into Iran which helped Israel eliminate several Iranian nuclear scientists and generals.
The only power which has come openly against American threats to Iran is China making it clear that Washington cannot succeed in its pursuits. Certainly, despite its overt policy not to get itself involved in armed conflicts, China is capable of helping Iran in confronting a joint US-Israeli attack. Iran is the last bastion of anti-Americanism and its anti-Israeli stance is quite clear. If there is a regime change in Iran, it will mean failure of diplomacy. Like Libya, Syria and Iraq, Iran would be plunged into chaos with adverse regional ramifications.
When there are no rules and principles in international relations and when Israel and the US use rhetoric to justify regime change in Tehran, there is little time for the Iranian regime to act. If the US militarily sides with Israel, will Iran not retaliate by targeting American forces deployed in the Gulf and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz? Faced with a do or die situation, will Iran not take extreme measures for its survival?
When diplomacy failed and the Iran-US nuclear talks were sabotaged by the Israeli attacks, the G-7 countries, instead of using diplomatic channels to de-escalate the situation, sided with the Jewish state. Iran is not like Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Afghanistan under the Taliban which can be easily occupied by American forces. Any attempt for regime change by subjugating Iran would have devastating implications. An ordinary Iranian would resist a foreign occupation. Furthermore, despite the years of sanctions, Iran has managed to erect a command and control system underground capable of meeting any foreign occupation.
Fragility of diplomatic engagement in contemporary global scene focusing on the Israel-Iran war needs to be examined from three angles.
First, for a long period of time, Iran has favoured diplomatic engagement by reaching a nuclear deal in 2015 under Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with five permanent UNSC members - China, France, Russia, the UK, the US - as well as Germany together with the European Union. Diplomatic engagement worked till 2018, but then the first Trump administration withdrew from the deal and imposed sanctions on Iran. It means diplomatic engagement cannot be a one-way traffic. The US and Israel preferred the use of force over diplomatic engagement.
Second, why was Israel, which has more than 200 nuclear weapons, allowed by the West to carry out an attack on Iran? Diplomacy was used as a tool of hypocrisy by the US and West to deprive Iran of its nuclear capability but allowing Israel to remain as the only nuclear state in the Middle East and go ahead with its genocidal acts against the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.
Third, it's not only Israel and the US which violated rules of diplomatic engagement; India also undermined diplomacy when it carried out attacks against Pakistan on May 7. Diplomatic efforts by the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia worked for a ceasefire in the case of Indo-Pak conflict, but there is no such effort as regards the ongoing Iran-Israel war.