Renaming the Persian Gulf: A Risky Shift with Global Diplomatic Consequences

**Editorial: Naming the Persian Gulf — A Symbolic Gesture With Real-World Stakes** Former President Donald Trump has reportedly expressed interest in changing the nomenclature used by the United States for one of the world’s most geopolitically sensitive waters: the Persian Gulf. While Trump has not formally issued a policy during his present campaign, sources close to his team have indicated a proposal to adopt the term “Arabian Gulf” in U.S. government references, a contentious name that reignites decades-long tensions in the Middle East. What may appear to some as a benign update in terminology is, in reality, a weighty diplomatic move with implications for America’s credibility, alliances, and role as a global leader. The Persian Gulf, which borders Iran and several Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, has long been the subject of a naming dispute. Historically, scholars and navigators going back to antiquity—such as Ptolemy—have referred to it as the “Persian Gulf,” a usage widely maintained in international law and by global bodies. The United Nations uses “Persian Gulf” in its official documents, reinforcing the name’s cartographic and legal legitimacy. However, since the 1960s, the alternative term “Arabian Gulf” has been championed by certain Arab Gulf states as a symbol of Arab unity and resistance to Iranian hegemony. Supporters of Trump’s reported plan argue that using “Arabian Gulf” would signal stronger alignment with Sunni Arab states—key U.S. strategic partners in the region. These include considerable arms trade and shared concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence. Indeed, such a change may be welcomed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE as a diplomatic gesture affirming America’s partnership in an increasingly polarized Gulf. As retired U.S. diplomat Gerald Feierstein noted in a 2020 interview with the Middle East Institute, “Symbolism matters in diplomacy, and names carry political cargo.” From that standpoint, the switch might be seen as reinforcing a pivot away from Iran and toward Arab allies in a highly volatile region. Critics, however, warn that such rebranding would not merely be symbolic—it would be antagonistic. Rewriting a historically established term to suit present-day geopolitics undermines the credibility of U.S. diplomacy as principled rather than transactional. Tampering with a name deeply rooted in cultural identity—particularly one tied to a civilization as historically significant as Persia (modern-day Iran)—is viewed by many Iranians, and some regional observers, as a direct provocation. The Iranian government has frequently cited the issue in its international grievances. In 2010, Iran summoned foreign ambassadors when a UN-affiliated sports event used “Arabian Gulf” on promotional materials. In 2012, it blocked the launch of a Google mapping service in the country after the platform omitted "Persian" from the Gulf’s name. These incidents serve as reminders that geographic labels are not inert; they resonate with issues of identity, sovereignty, and memory. Furthermore, reframing the Gulf’s name could undercut U.S. messaging on core liberal values such as respect for history, impartiality, and cultural recognition. “The use of historically accurate and internationally recognized names is a fundamental element of mutual respect among nations,” said Dr. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a noted scholar of Middle Eastern politics at Missouri University of Science and Technology. Disregarding this principle risks damaging the perception of the U.S. as an honest broker, particularly in an era when credibility is as crucial as power. It's also worth stressing that the United States has successfully navigated complex relations with both Arab states and Iran without needing to alter this naming convention. Diplomatic nimbleness, not linguistic alterations, has typically defined the U.S. approach to the Gulf. Presidents of both parties have maintained the status quo, focusing instead on substantive policy engagement—sanctions, negotiations, arms deals, and military cooperation. Disrupting that consensus over terminology could introduce unnecessary turbulence. Of course, not all symbolic changes are inherently harmful. Done with care and consensus, some signals—such as changing names of military bases or apologizing for past errors—can advance reconciliation and reaffirm values. But in this case, changing the name of the Persian Gulf would likely validate the complaints of critics who see U.S. foreign policy as increasingly politicized, and serve as a wedge rather than a bridge between nations. In democracies, symbolic gestures must be weighed carefully, especially when they intersect with history and international relations. The question isn’t whether names matter—they do—but whom they serve and what they signify. Is a change meant to build unity or to stoke division? To recognize legitimate diversity of identity or to erase centuries of cultural heritage? Whether or not one agrees with President Trump’s broader foreign policy philosophy, renaming the Persian Gulf should not be a partisan issue. It should be an opportunity to reflect on how America communicates its values abroad—not just through words, but through the labels we attach to people, places, and narratives. **Civic reflection question:** In an interconnected world, how should democratic nations weigh symbolic gestures—such as geographic naming—when they have tangible consequences for diplomacy, cultural identity, and international trust?