The Power of a Name: U.S. Diplomacy and the Persian Gulf Debate

**What’s in a Name? The Persian Gulf, U.S. Foreign Policy, and the Power of Language** In April 2019, members of the Trump administration reportedly supported using the term "Arabian Gulf" in official U.S. documents and communications, diverging from the historically and internationally recognized term "Persian Gulf." While such a change might appear minor or symbolic at first glance, it raises important questions about the relationship between language and diplomacy, the weight of historical precedent, and the United States’ role in an increasingly complex Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. For over 2,500 years, the body of water separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula has been known as the Persian Gulf. Greek geographers, including Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, referred to it as “Persicus Sinus,” or Persian Gulf, a nomenclature that carried into modern European cartography and international usage. The United Nations affirmed this terminology in two documents published in the 1960s and 1990s, asserting that "Persian Gulf" is the only historically and legally correct name (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, 2006). However, beginning in the 1960s, some Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, began promoting the term “Arabian Gulf” as a way to assert their national identities and counterbalance Iran’s regional influence. This was not merely a semantic debate but a reflection of rising Arab nationalism and sectarian tension, particularly following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought a theocratic, Shia-led government to power in Iran — a system viewed with deep suspicion by the largely Sunni Arab monarchies of the Gulf. The Trump administration’s flirtation with adopting “Arabian Gulf” as official U.S. usage may be interpreted as a symbolic alignment with America’s Arab Gulf allies against Iran, particularly in the context of the maximum pressure campaign that sought to isolate Tehran diplomatically and economically. Yet such linguistic posturing risks undermining the United States’ credibility as an impartial diplomatic actor by appearing to take sides in an emotionally and politically charged dispute over nomenclature. Critically, changing established terminology for political convenience sets a troubling precedent. As Dr. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University’s Baker Institute, explains, “Language in diplomacy is carefully chosen and historically grounded. Undermining established norms in naming conventions can strain relationships and reduce trust in U.S. consistency” (Foreign Policy, Ulrichsen, 2019). That said, language is not static. Its evolution can be influenced by shifting geopolitical alliances and domestic interests. The Trump administration’s support for "Arabian Gulf" may have stemmed from attempts to deepen ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council nations — vital partners in counterterrorism, energy markets, and regional security. Trying to forge solidarity with these states in the face of Iranian influence is both understandable and, to a degree, strategically justifiable. Critics of the Iranian regime — citing its support for militia proxies, ballistic missile development, and human rights violations — may see the nomenclature change as a symbolic rebuke. Yet such a move is likely to antagonize Iran and alienate other international actors that value objectivity and respect for international standards. As Karen Pfeifer, professor emerita of economics and Middle East studies at Smith College, noted, “Renaming seas and territories for political ends distorts historical truths and invites tensions that could otherwise be avoided through diplomatic clarity and cultural sensitivity” (Middle East Report, 2020). Moreover, muddying the terminology may have unintended consequences for academic research, intelligence cooperation, and cross-border initiatives that rely on standardized cartographic and legal terms. If each power rebrands geographical regions to serve its immediate interests, confusion and contestation are sure to follow. In evaluating the broader stakes of this issue, democratic societies must consider not only their short-term strategic alliances but also their long-term commitment to historical accuracy, global credibility, and inclusive governance. The term "Persian Gulf" is not merely a gesture to Iran; it is a recognition of the deep historical roots of a name that has transcended empires and ideologies, codified through international consensus. Still, this debate opens the door to valuable civic inquiry. Language carries power. It can sow division or build bridges, reinforce identity or challenge it. Irresponsible changes to official language risk inflaming tensions, but thoughtful discourse about naming practices can promote mutual understanding and respect among peoples. To that end, navigating the line between diplomatic flexibility and symbolic integrity is no easy feat. It requires humility, historical knowledge, and a commitment to values larger than any particular administration's agenda. As citizens, we must ask: In an age of increasing partisanship and rapidly shifting alliances, how should we — the people — hold leaders accountable for the language they use on the global stage, especially when it reshapes our nation’s image, values, and strategic goals? Let us not forget that names matter — not just to those who utter them, but to those who live with their consequences.