The Power of Naming: Why "Persian Gulf" Still Matters in U.S. Diplomacy

**Words Matter: The Case of the Persian Gulf and U.S. Diplomatic Language** In international diplomacy, few tools are as powerful—or as fraught—as language. Words can affirm alliances, provoke hostilities, reflect history, or rewrite it. That is why the Trump administration’s reported intention to alter the official U.S. terminology from “Persian Gulf” to the “Arabian Gulf” warrants more than a passing glance. While it may seem symbolic on the surface, such a linguistic shift carries deep historical, cultural, and geopolitical implications. Understanding those complexities is essential if we are to conduct foreign policy that is both principled and pragmatic. Historically, the term “Persian Gulf” has been the internationally recognized name for the body of water nestled between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. It appears in documents as early as the 5th century BCE, including the works of the Greek historian Herodotus. The United Nations has reaffirmed that “Persian Gulf” is the correct geographical designation, as reflected in multiple declarations and resolutions, including UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) reports. Most global atlases, encyclopedias, and databases follow this standard. Despite this, some Arab governments—particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—have long advocated for the competing term “Arabian Gulf,” a name they argue reflects modern political realities and pan-Arab identity. Advocates of the Trump-era shift might argue that aligning with this usage shows solidarity with key Arab allies and helps to further isolate Iran, whose regime has become increasingly antagonistic toward both its neighbors and the West. In this light, changing terminology could be construed as a form of soft power, reinforcing U.S. alignment with Sunni Arab states in the broader context of regional strategy and containment. However, such a decision risks undermining the credibility and consistency of U.S. foreign policy. Diplomatic language should reflect not only current alliances but also historical accuracy and international norms. According to Dr. Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh, a political geographer and author of *Security and Territoriality in the Persian Gulf: A Maritime Political Geography*, the name “Persian Gulf” is rooted not in nationalism but in centuries of cartographic convention and scholarly consensus. Altering it to suit contemporary geopolitical moods undermines objective standards in international relations and risks inflaming existing tensions. Moreover, the symbolic nature of such a name change should not underestimate the real-world consequences it might engender. For Iranians—both the government and the broader public—the name “Persian Gulf” is a significant marker of cultural identity. Even opponents of the current regime view it as a matter of national pride. A shift by the U.S. could further harden anti-American sentiment within Iran, complicating diplomacy not just in bilateral relations but also in multilateral efforts around nuclear proliferation, regional security, and humanitarian issues. In other words, a simple lexical alteration could have unintended ripple effects that make consensus-building more difficult. That said, proponents of the name change are not without valid concerns. U.S. foreign policy has long struggled to balance historical alliances with evolving strategic interests. Arab allies, particularly in the Gulf, are critical partners in areas ranging from oil supply to counterterrorism. Trump-era proponents likely viewed the rebranding as a way of reassuring these states of American loyalty during a tense period marked by the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the maximum pressure campaign. Still, symbolic overtures must be weighed against long-term stability and diplomatic consistency. As Ambassador Barbara Bodine, former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen, noted in an interview with the Middle East Institute, “It is not wise to weaponize language in ways that back us into diplomatic corners.” A democratic society, with its built-in checks and deliberative mechanisms, should be skeptical of making such impactful changes without broader consultation, clear strategic benefit, and a recognition of historical truths. Ultimately, names are more than mere labels—they are vessels of history, identity, and power. They should not be altered lightly or used as instruments of factional foreign policy. While the U.S. must diplomatically engage with both Arab allies and Iran, this engagement should be built on a foundation of mutual respect, consistency, and an honest reckoning with history. In balancing symbolic gestures with strategic interest, we might take a page from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose administration resisted Arab-led lobbying to adopt “Arabian Gulf” even at the height of Cold War alignments. Official State Department records from the late 1950s reflect a clear view that “Persian Gulf” was the only acceptable term, reaffirming the importance of adherence to international standards despite geopolitical pressures. As citizens in a democracy, we must ask ourselves: What role should historical truth and linguistic integrity play in the language of our foreign policy? In an age where words are increasingly politicized, how can we ensure that even symbolic changes reflect broader values of honesty, diplomacy, and respect for our shared global history? Let us not forget that in diplomacy, as in civic life, the words we choose echo farther than we expect.