By Ludovic Lavaucelle. Synthèse n°2682, Published on 20/04/2026
– Photo: 72nd United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters on September 19, 2017 Credits: Shutterstock
The crisis between the United States and Iran reveals a major shift in the way diplomatic relations are conducted. It is no longer international rules or diplomats that prevail – but direct communication between leaders via social media and the sending of special envoys. A return to feudal relations without the guarantee of the spoken word that once held sway.
The current crisis in the Persian Gulf goes beyond a simple confrontation between Washington and Tehran. It is a symptom of a profound transformation in the relations between states – a world often described as more “chaotic” and “brutal.” In fact, it marks the end of an era where diplomacy imposed institutional channels for communication, procedures that served as guidelines to switch from a state of war to a state of peace and vice versa… The style of Donald Trump, at the helm of the world’s leading power, is central: he communicates extensively via social media, addressing both his Iranian adversaries and the general public. The provocative and sometimes outrageous style of the White House occupant should not overshadow deeper movements in the West. Even in France, a major country in diplomacy long proud of its extensive network of embassies, the Quai d’Orsay no longer carries the prestige it once did: President Emmanuel Macron has not hidden his disdain for the diplomatic profession. The diplomatic staff is increasingly made up of friends of the ruling power and personalities from civil society.
The current world order being disrupted did not originate with the creation of the UN or even the League of Nations – its roots are found in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) that ended the Thirty Years’ War. Ancestor of the 20th-century world wars, this conflict had bled central Europe, and the “Westphalian world” had established the primacy of relations between states and their diplomatic institutions. The Vienna Congress (1815) – which ended the Napoleonic Wars – preserved the Westphalian heritage. In the age of social media, international relations are no longer governed by procedures stemming from diplomatic traditions or supranational organizations. Personal relationships between heads of states and impulses dictated by power dynamics now take precedence – a return to a form of feudalism where the most powerful seek to rally their vassals against their rivals… Yet the role of diplomacy is precisely to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power: “An exacting and difficult art,” as Sir Harold Nicolson – the famous British diplomat (1886 – 1968) – once said. The primacy of relations between states – usually maintained through discreet channels – is a principle undermined by the rampant use of social media messages accessible to all. A tweet is not a new form of communication: it fundamentally alters the act of communication because it is immediate and public. It eradicates the distance between deliberation and declaration – which is the space on which all foreign policy depends. This is a nuanced space between protecting national interests and duplicity on one hand, and building trust with interlocutors by telling the truth on the other. The “dark side” of the profession was described in 1604 by Sir Henry Wotton en route to Venice on behalf of his king James I: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” François de Callières (1645 – 1717), advisor to King Louis XIV a century later (“On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes”), described the other side of this art by emphasizing the honesty necessary to gain a counterpart’s trust.
It is the profession of diplomacy that is being undermined by the use of “special envoys” who often operate in opaque ways. The appointment of advisers such as Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner by Donald Trump to try to resolve the Iranian crisis are striking examples of the current evolution. We are reverting to ancient practices when kings dispatched envoys bearing messages of peace or war. The Greeks developed rules governing treaties and conflicts. The Romans viewed agreements as legal instruments justifying war in case of a breach (while manipulating them to their advantage). The Byzantines professionalized the envoy profession by providing training. However, international relations were still limited to interactions between leaders often through marriages as alliances.
The assassination of political opponents goes against international law: Americans and Israelis have resorted to it in Iran and even in Lebanon. The limits of this practice are evident in a country where power is decentralized. This shift in international relations has profound implications: Washington’s vassals no longer believe in the word of their suzerain. Saudi Arabia, for example, seeks to acquire nuclear weapons through its ties with Pakistan. The world’s leading power is undermining the international institutions that allowed it to establish its dominance in the last century. Tweets have replaced past diplomatic jousts, and that is not good news…
