Diplomacy Is Dead
Few are afraid to throw a punch, many are afraid to look weak
“Aggression could become the new language of global politics.”
Since July 31, when Ismail Haniyeh, the chief of Hamas, was assassinated in Tehran, the gears of diplomacy have been turning. As Iran’s Ayatollah ordered a direct strike on Israel, over Haniyeh’s hit, diplomats in capitals across the globe have been taking every conceivable step to stop a regional war. From dialogue (like sharing that Israel only hit Haniyeh, not civilians) to discouragement (threatening new sanctions if Iran goes too far), every option has been exhausted.
And, for a short period, it looked like progress was being made.
For almost two weeks, there was silence, no retaliation from Iran. And, even with several attacks by Hezbollah, new reports proposed that Iran was rethinking a move against Israel, in part because of diplomatic efforts by the US, along with the potential for a major regional conflict to begin.
However, it is clear now that these efforts were without gain.
According to the US and Israeli intelligence, Iran will strike Israel, potentially within the next 24 hours.
The European efforts to dissuade Tehran have been rebuffed. A call between the UK prime minister, Keith Starmer, and his new Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian, the first such call since 2021, only resulted in more Iranian resistance. The joint-statement, by the US and its European allies, calling on Iran to “stand down,” an unorthodox move, coupled with the very public announcement by the Pentagon of US guided-missile submarine moving into the Middle East, signal that the West is preparing for a major Iranian attack.
Amidst the big guessing game over what Iran will do, the timeline since July 31 reveals something else: diplomacy is effectively dead. Like a patient with no pulse, diplomacy is no longer beating.
This is a massive, structural change, a blow to the post-World War II order.
While the Israel-Iran fight may be the revelation, there are several culprits for diplomacy being on the deathbed: a pandemic that caused nations to hibernate and rethink everything, including integration and reliance; a global rivalry between the US and China that is fracturing the globe on multiple levels; the outbreak of the Ukraine war that is shattering the global architecture; the unprecedented terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas, which unleashed four, ongoing wars across the Middle East (Israel-Hamas, Israel-Hezbollah, Israel-Houthis, and Israel-Iran).
The death of diplomacy puts every stakeholder, from major economies to global companies, on dangerous footing, as without diplomacy, the world could begin to destabilize.
Global Instability
Without diplomacy, and the belief that order, harmony, and peace can triumph, the global landscape will shake like never before. This means instability is the new status quo.
Whether it is trade corridors or circulation of raw materials or movement of manpower, diplomacy quietly kept the world, and the global economy, humming a certain way. Without it, the outlook of governments changes. When situations boil over, they will manage tensions, and the fallout, differently.
Take Norway’s decision to begin stockpiling grain, in the midst of global geopolitical instability, along with worsening climate change. It is an acceptance by Oslo, that stability is not returning to the world stage, and that, to protect the Norwegian society, unilateral action has to be taken, even if it jeopardizes other nations.
For Norway, it is an implicit acceptance that the ongoing geopolitical crisis are not going to be resolved, especially the immediate challenges, like Ukraine in the case of Scandinavia. This is likely a belief shared by many other capitals in the region. And the world.
This is not to propose that diplomacy is about to disappear. But, instead, that the belief in capitals, that the diplomatic path is viable, has weakened to an irreversible degree.
In many ways, diplomacy acted as a buffer, a series of checks and balances, creating space between a flareup on one side, and on the other side, the potential for collision. This space has shrunk, and in some flashpoints, it is completely used up. The speed at which tensions flare, will force governments to take quick action, from economy to defense, in order to shore up their own borders, creating new “shocks” on the world stage.
As the world assess global flashpoints, without diplomacy, the actions nations could take could further derail markets. Will Saudi Arabia restrict oil exports if Israel-Iran flareup worsens, as world powers fail to stop Tel Aviv and Tehran? Could India stop certain agricultural exports in response, even as the global community seeks to keep resource markets open?
Dangerous Turns
The calculations for countries completely changes with diplomacy being shot. Everywhere global stakeholders turn, danger could exist, as nations increasingly throw punches in order to dissuade further action.
A new logic could begin to spread, where the “expression of power” - like launching an assault - is the first step that governments take, replacing dialogue or attempts at peaceful resolution.
Consider the sheer amount of flashpoints where this logic could become the prevailing behavior:
Azerbaijan-Armenia
Serbia-Kosovo
Saudi Arabia-Iran
India-Pakistan
South Korea-North Korea
China-Taiwan
India-China
Philippines-China
Russia-NATO
And, added to all this, are the unconventional conflicts quietly being waged, from Egypt-Ethiopia (over water) to Israel-Turkey (over religion and culture) to Argentina-UK (over disputed land).
Without diplomacy, the trajectory of these flashpoints completely changes. The idea that tensions or disagreements can be reigned in is fading. And, the expectation, that one side bites their tongue, or is given a win in one area, for a loss in another, has to be rethought.
If peaceful resolution is increasingly viewed as unachievable, then countries will find it strange to agree to unfair terms or accept one-sided agreements, even if regional or global stability and order hang in the balance.
Aggression could become the new language of global politics.
Western Power
While the death of diplomacy affects the whole world, in particular, it affects the West.
The systems of diplomacy that exist today, from the United Nations to regional forums, have either been constructed by Western capitals, or have been supported by them. When the world turned to certain institutions or forums to resolve problems, it drove Western power.
It meant that when crisis emerged, the world turned to the West, directly and indirectly, to provide a solution, and the West remained in the leadership position.
But, with diplomacy up in the air, this is no longer the operandi of governments.
What this leads to, such as countries turning to alternative institutions, such as China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI), or regional forums overtaking global forums for conflict resolution, eats into Western power. The West will no longer be able to call the shots, or control conflicts, the way it used to. As the logic of governments changes, increasingly revolving around aggression, the impetus to turn to Washington, London, or Paris, will take a nosedive.
Of course, the West has many options to deter aggressive action by nations. But, even these cards may no longer have the intended effect. The threat of Western sanctions, which once made everybody dance differently, might not intimidate the same way, as governments look at Russia, under the barrage of 10,000 sanctions, and yet, the Russian economy is growing faster than every G7 nation, creating doubts as to the effectiveness of Western economic action.
With diplomacy in free-fall, the West stands vulnerable. One of the main ways Western nations have “steered” the globe (diplomacy) is collapsing, opening the floodgates for countries to either redefine diplomacy in their own ways, or turn to Western adversaries for solutions.
Conclusion
Short of a breakthrough in the last moment, by all measures, Iran will strike Israel, potentially with its proxies, like Hezbollah. And, once this happens, Israel is sure to strike back, igniting a powder keg that for decades the world has sought to keep from exploding.
In the pending back-and-forth, what many will miss, is that diplomacy will take a backbench. It will move from being the frontline to the reserves. And, this model is likely to spread to various flashpoints, as governments watch the clash in the Middle East and increasingly believe that a stable and peaceful world is becoming more and more unlikely.
There is, however, a silver lining. As diplomacy collapses, and flashpoints spiral, potentially destabilizing the globe, much of the world could watch in horror. The consequences of diplomacy dying could be what jolts capitals to put aside their differences and deter a permanent, dangerous decision.
But this rapprochement of diplomacy is unlikely in the short term. Instead, for the world to reach a point where diplomacy is once again the objective, it may need to witness turmoil and the threat of greater damage.
And, the path back to diplomacy, may begin with what takes place next in the Middle East.
-Abishur