Don't Gamble on Small Gains

Reports of a potential intention to officially change the name "Persian Gulf" in U.S. government documents, coinciding with Donald Trump's visit to the region, have drawn considerable attention. Before he wagers on a meager profit in this potentially costly gamble, it is imperative to draw his attention, and that of those party to this endeavor, to several key points:

The name "Persian Gulf" is not merely a geographical term on maps; it is a historical identity etched into the fabric of human civilization and the collective memory of the world. From ancient Persian inscriptions and the tablets of Darius the Great to classical Greek and Roman texts, and authoritative international documents across centuries, this body of water has always been known by this name, transforming it into a heritage that transcends national borders, a treasure belonging to all humanity. Any attempt to distort this name is not only a disrespect to an ancient nation but also a mockery of history, our shared human heritage, and undisputed historical documents.

Just as Arab nations proudly host and safeguard Islamic holy sites, an honor respected worldwide, Iranians see themselves as the historical guardians and inheritors of this waterway. The love for Iran and its territorial integrity is not a fleeting emotion for Iranians; it is a deep-rooted conviction, an inseparable element of their national identity. This is a belief that has united the ancient nation of Iran through the severe storms of history – from countless wars and invasions to natural disasters. For an Iranian, the homeland (vatan) is a concept beyond mere geography; it is honor, identity, and the reason for existence. In critical junctures, its defense takes precedence over any other consideration.

Perhaps in the calculations of some of Trump's advisors, Iran's internal political disputes are seen as an opportunity to exert pressure or alter geopolitical balances. However, contemporary history, especially in recent decades, attests that in critical moments, when Iranians perceive their national entity and historical identity to be under threat, all political leanings and even internal grievances fade in the face of supreme national interests, transforming into astonishing unity and steely cohesion.

In such circumstances, Iran, transcending any particular government or sovereignty, becomes the sole axis of unity. Those advisors who, by presenting a flawed and exaggerated picture of Iran's temporary vulnerabilities, push Trump towards such controversial decisions are repeating a historical strategic error. Any assault on Iran's symbols of identity will not only fail to weaken the country but will, conversely, act as the most potent catalyst for national solidarity, mobilizing all of Iranians' potential and actual capacities against a common threat.

Trump, renowned as a skillful negotiator and businessman, should well understand that sometimes, to achieve a "big deal" that is sustainable, one must forgo temporary profits and "small deals." The "small deal" here is a symbolic and short-term appeasement of some regional allies by changing the name of the Persian Gulf. While this might initially appear as a symbolic concession, in practice, it will have little impact on the fundamental equations of power and interests in the region, and will only provoke the deep-rooted sensitivities of the Iranian nation, further fanning discord between them and Arabs.

However, a "bigger deal" looms on the horizon: the opportunity for constructive engagement with Iran—a vast, untapped market with extraordinary economic potential. Iran's unique geostrategic position as a bridge between East and West, its access to open waters, rich energy resources (the world's second-largest gas and fourth-largest oil reserves), and significant industrial and human infrastructure, make it a far more valuable potential partner than generally perceived.

In contrast, some Arab countries in the region, despite their oil wealth, are not comparable to Iran in terms of population, strategic depth, and diverse economic and human capacities. Investing in Iran's stability and development is an investment in the stability and development of the entire region. Any decision to change the historical name of the Persian Gulf will, in the collective conscience of the Iranian nation, be no different from an attempt to undermine the country's territorial integrity. It could close off, or at least greatly complicate, potential avenues for future cooperation with a country that is a significant regional power in terms of history, culture, and human capacity. Is a symbolic concession to allies who may not be very reliable partners in the long run worth sacrificing the opportunity for constructive engagement with a regional power possessing immense potential?

The history of Iran-US relations has seen many ups and downs, but it also includes successful experiences of negotiation and reaching complex agreements. The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), regardless of its ultimate fate, demonstrated that Iran, when faced with seriousness, mutual respect, and consideration of its national interests, is capable of engaging in difficult negotiations and achieving diplomatic solutions.

The true "art of the deal" lies not in upending the game table or making unilateral concessions, but in finding common ground and building bridges that secure the interests of all parties. Iran, with all its complexities, can be a negotiating partner that, in the long term, secures America's strategic interests in the turbulent Middle East better than any other option. Instead of fueling tensions through actions like changing the historical name of a body of water, which only leads to increased mistrust, an intelligent strategic pivot can create new space for engagement and cooperation. Such an action [changing the name] will set the region on an irreversible path of tension and crisis.

At a time when the Middle East needs peace and stability more than ever, igniting a new fire of conflict could lead to a catastrophe of unpredictable dimensions; a catastrophe that would not only jeopardize global energy security but also record your name in history as the initiator of an era of turmoil and instability. To Trump and his advisors, it must be said: "Review history; devise plans for peace and coexistence, not for conflict and confrontation."