Psychological warfare before dialogue reshapes the mental balance.
According to Atlas of Diplomacy, an op-ed titled “War Before Negotiation: The Imperative of Taking Cognitive Diplomacy Seriously,” by Saeed Seifi, published in Farhikhtegan, examines the idea that news fabrication and psychological operations prior to negotiations constitute a calculated component of power strategy aimed at weakening Iran’s bargaining position through the management of public perception, domestic pressure, and a shift in the mental balance. Without the institutionalization of cognitive diplomacy, the piece argues, even formal negotiations are exposed to the erosion of psychological and social capital. What follows is a synopsis of that op-ed.
In the hours leading up to the scheduled talks between the foreign ministers of Iran and the United States on February 6 in Oman, several Hebrew‑language, Western, and Arab media outlets highlighted claims that the negotiations had been canceled, citing disagreements over the venue and the limitation of the agenda to the nuclear issue. These narratives implied that Iran, by raising new demands, had blocked the path of dialogue, while the United States was unwilling to accept those demands. A few hours later, however, with the timely release of a tweet by the Iranian foreign minister and media coverage confirming that the talks were held at the announced time, these narratives were discredited, and it became clear that the newsmaking in question did not correspond to realities on the ground. This contradiction showed that targeted psychological operations ahead of negotiations had once again been placed on the agenda, with their primary focus on Iran’s domestic public opinion.
Understanding U.S. behavior on the eve of negotiations without recourse to the theoretical frameworks of international relations reduces analysis to superficial interpretations. A range of well‑known theories indicates that what occurred was a calculated act within the logic of power. Within John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, the international system is conceived as anarchic, in which states seek to maximize relative power for survival, and negotiation is itself an arena of competition. In this logic, circulating news of the cancellation of talks is a low‑cost attempt to weaken the opponent’s psychological and social position and to alter the balance of relative power, turning the media into an instrument of pressure.
Robert Putnam’s two‑level game theory demonstrates that negotiations unfold simultaneously at the external and domestic levels, and that developments in public opinion, media, and elite discourse directly affect negotiation outcomes. News fabrication about the cancellation of talks represents an intrusion into Iran’s domestic level and an effort to raise the political cost of negotiation through market volatility, public pressure, and the constriction of room for maneuver at the external level. Within the same framework, Alexander George’s concept of coercive diplomacy emphasizes changing behavior without war by employing threats, economic pressure, and psychological costs. The dissemination of contradictory and anxiety‑inducing news is a clear instance of media pressure designed to compel flexibility before negotiations begin.
The combination of these theories shows that news of a supposed cancellation is deployed as a tool for perception management, the weakening of psychological stability, and the increase of decision‑making costs. This psychological warfare before negotiation includes the injection of informational uncertainty, the activation of social anxiety, and the transfer of pressure to the negotiating table. Previous experiences—from the Oman talks to the JCPOA and even the U.S. withdrawal from it—demonstrate that this pattern has been repeated, with psychological and economic shock serving as components of the pressure strategy. Similar examples in U.S.–North Korea negotiations also show that the threat of cancellation functions as a bargaining instrument.
At a time when Iran is confronting economic pressures, currency fluctuations, and security concerns, the impact of such operations is amplified. This situation carries messages for officials, media outlets, and society alike: timely transparency, a unified narrative, avoidance of hasty retransmission, and the strengthening of media literacy constitute key tools of neutralization. Ultimately, the absence of a coherent framework for cognitive diplomacy creates strategic vulnerability, and the management of perception and narrative—as a complement to formal diplomacy—becomes a necessity for preserving psychological capital and national power.
