Poker Diplomacy

Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed ruler of international politics, has once again gambled on relations with Iran using his trademark merchant-like logic. Although he wishes to register his name in the annals of diplomacy as a peacemaking savior, he has embarked on a difficult path to achieve it. He started the game in a way the Iranian side does not accept, a stance about which they had previously warned. Trump entered the arena with a greeting on his lips and a weapon in his hand. His soft, peaceful words were apparently designed to persuade global public opinion, while his executive order recklessly aimed the sharp edge of sanctions at Iran's diplomatic and defensive independence.

Although Trump speaks the language of force, he entered smiling, hiding his bullying behind this deceptive mask. But the Iranian politician, emotionally, lays everything on the table! If only there had been one attempt to employ the deceptive language of politics. The response of Iranian officials to this behavioral dichotomy was blunt and hasty. This response reflects an inevitable despair regarding any constructive engagement with the U.S. administration and, in the author's view, can be considered a potential strategic mistake.

In psychology, we have a term "Bad News," which refers to informing an audience of unfortunate news. Psychologists advise that in such situations, the news should be delivered in an appropriate environment, face-to-face, and in a suitable tone. Tehran's decisive and preemptive rejection of the offer to negotiate, though an understandable reaction to the existing atmosphere of mistrust, did it achieve the desired outcome? Now that Trump has also cast aside his peacemaking mask and openly resorted to threats, do we have a proportionate response, and how far will these escalating harsh responses continue?

The reality is that Iran, in its current circumstances, beyond relying on its own defense capabilities, does not hold a strong hand to display power or exert reciprocal pressure. Iran's allies in the region are more weakened than ever, and the heavy shadow of economic problems and domestic discontent has limited its room for political maneuver. In such a situation, insisting on blunt rhetoric and emotional reactions not only fails to solve any of the country's problems but will also make the cost of past strategic mistakes even heavier.

While a_s_anctions loom, crippling the nation's economy, and further economic pressures increase the likelihood of public discontent – the Achilles' heel of national security – shouldn't every opportunity, however small and seemingly impossible, be seized to reduce these pressures and prevent social crises?

The appropriate response to Trump's tactics is not necessarily confrontation and the complete destruction of the space for engagement. The necessity of avoiding blunt and unconstructive rhetoric in foreign policy should not be overlooked, especially by the executive branch of the government. Why does a president who entered the scene with slogans of negotiation and solving economic problems poison the domestic atmosphere and turn societal hope into despair with rhetoric primarily aimed at foreign consumption and sending messages to his American counterpart? This harsh and decisive approach in rejecting negotiation not only inflames the domestic situation but also, should a pivot and return to the negotiating table become necessary in the future, ties the government's hands and portrays it as unreliable and erratic.

Fundamentally, from a psychological perspective, rejecting dialogue is a sign of weakness, and in public judgment, the one who shuns dialogue fears the opponent. Even if the opponent exploitatively pursues their own interests, no one is holding a gun to anyone's temple to sign a contract. Perhaps entering into a negotiation game, even if the probability of reaching a genuine agreement is very slim, could provide an opportunity to increase resilience against external pressures. Essentially, buying time allows negotiating parties to better assess each other and make more precise decisions. Dialogue, by creating a positive, albeit superficial, atmosphere in foreign relations, can prevent economic decline, the fall of the rial's value, and the outbreak of sudden crises, giving the pressured economy a chance to breathe. Furthermore, negotiation can be an opportunity for Iran to exploit existing rifts and disagreements between the U.S. and other world powers to its advantage and garner the support of other countries against unilateral American pressure.

To better understand this perspective, one can look at the reaction of Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, in a similar situation. When Trump pressured Canada with bullying trade policies, Trudeau, instead of an emotional and harsh reaction, adopted a completely different approach. By transparently explaining the situation, he persuaded Canadian citizens to stand firm against this bullying and revived the spirit of national solidarity and resistance. Notably, he not only did not reject negotiation but, having gained public support, immediately entered into direct negotiations with Trump and, in the very first step, achieved a suspension of tariff increases. Compare this calculated and intelligent approach of Trudeau with the excitable reaction of Iranian officials, who bluntly deny negotiation. Tehran's harsh reaction not only achieved nothing but, with the setting aside of soft language by both sides and explicit threats of bombing, made the atmosphere far more tense and limited the options available.

Entering into negotiations does not mean surrendering to America's demands or disregarding national rights and interests. It is merely a diplomatic tool for crisis management. Iran's foreign policy in the current circumstances, more than ever, requires a realistic, pragmatic, and national interest-based approach. Emotional and prideful responses may be attractive to a segment of the domestic audience in the short term, but in the complex and ruthless world of international politics, emotions and slogans have no place. It is fitting that, by considering all aspects and adopting intelligent strategies, even small and hidden opportunities are exploited. When the opponent already considers himself the ruler, it is better to play "poker diplomacy" on the unstable table of international politics – where we have a better chance, not on the path the opponent desires. In the current situation, more important than having good cards is playing well in this perilous field.

Seda Weekly | February 15, 2025