Diplomacy weapon or tool?

Why is it that we expect diplomats to use their positions as weapons? We look at the idea of diplomatic sanctions or the breaking off of diplomatic relations as a good thing. The point of diplomacy is to keep lines of communication open. Even if a country has leveraged economic sanctions against another, has public denounced its conduct, or even is at war, diplomats should always be communicating. If war is a failure of diplomacy, then nations should have the expectation that diplomats will work constantly throughout a military conflict to try to end it at any point.

I’m thinking about this because of Britain’s decision to withdraw diplomats from Iran following Iran’s detention of some of their diplomatic staff. Not that it wasn’t an unprovoked and improper act, but how are we supposed to communicate that if we withdraw the very people whose job it is to do so? Iran, and really any country in its situation, has proved itself to be resilient to world opinion. The more we denounce them, the more they’ll close up and oppress their people. We need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence to pressure them to change.

If we start using diplomacy as a weapon, as a threat towards other countries, we defeat its entire purpose. Worse, we risk pushing reclusive countries further into their shells, limiting our ability to deal with them rationally, and ultimately harming their citizens. Iran is a good example. We need to stop thinking about ways to punish Iran’s government and start thinking about ways to help its people and pressure its government to do the same. That’s the true aim of diplomacy.