US coercive diplomacy ...
Page 1
Washington wanted to signal that, alongside diplomacy, it is prepared for war. Another likely reason relates to the multifaceted nature of the negotiations; given that the talks could touch on various issues, the presence of a senior military commander would allow him both to present his views and to provide expert input to the Trump team.
While Iran’s foreign minister has described the talks as “a good start,” Washington immediately pursued a path of intensified pressure, without rolling back its regional military deployments. How do you evaluate this approach, and what impact will it have on confidence-building and the continuation of negotiations? Under these conditions, how do you see the future of the talks, and is there genuine will on the US side to reach an agreement?
I believe the United States is not acting in a contradictory manner. Its approach toward Iran is grounded in what is commonly referred to as coercive diplomacy, or diplomacy backed by force. Within this framework, Washington seeks a diplomatic solution, but will resort to military action if diplomacy fails.
During Trump’s first term, the administration largely pursued a policy of maximum pressure, in which the use of military force did not play a central role. In coercive diplomacy, however, military power and force are integral components of the framework itself. This explains why the United States, even while continuing negotiations, is simultaneously attempting to keep the military option on the table and thereby make its diplomatic message appear more credible.
Naturally, however, if Washington places excessive emphasis on force and coercion, the prospects for successful diplomatic negotiations will decline. This may be one of the reasons financial markets have reacted cautiously to the outcome of the latest talks. Despite participating in negotiations, the United States continues to escalate pressure, impose tariffs on Iran’s trading partners, and sanction Iranian officials and companies. This, in effect, undermines the credibility of diplomacy, disrupts the necessary balance between diplomacy and force, and reduces the likelihood of success.
Given the continuation of US military movements and simultaneous threats in the region, how decisive do you see Iran’s deterrence factor in keeping diplomacy on track?
Iran’s deterrence factor certainly plays an important role. The key issue, however, within deterrence theory, is the extent to which Iran’s message about regionalizing a potential war is perceived as credible by the United States. At times, threats are issued but not taken seriously by the other side, and as a result they lack the desired impact. It appears that, judging by the scale of US military equipment deployed to the region, Washington has taken Iran’s threat of regionalizing a conflict and targeting US bases in the event of war seriously. The United States is therefore seeking to establish three different layers of defense in the region in order to contain Iran’s threat should a military confrontation occur.