The renewed military confrontation in the Persian Gulf and US attacks on military and civilian targets inside Iran do not necessarily signify the collapse of the political memorandum of understanding reached between the two sides. They were, however, accompanied by a deeply troubling development that reflects a broader decline in the political culture of senior US officials.
Agreements may be violated, ceasefires may collapse, and crises may reignite. Yet what poses the greatest danger to the future of international politics is the transformation of political language. Language is not merely a vehicle for communication, it also shapes political reality.
Donald Trump's remarks on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara offer a striking example of this shift. Referring to Iran and its decision-makers, he used language widely viewed as offensive and degrading while simultaneously declaring the understanding with Iran to be over. Such rhetoric no longer belongs to diplomacy; it is the language of anger, humiliation, and exclusion.
In international relations, words matter because they are often fired before bullets are. Dehumanizing language transforms a political actor into an enemy stripped of legitimacy. When an opposing government or negotiating party is instead labeled with derogatory terms, the moral and psychological barriers to violence are lowered. History has repeatedly shown that wars often begin in language before they begin on the battlefield. This is not an issue limited to Iran.
What emerged in Ankara reflected a decline in standards of political discourse at the highest levels of US leadership. For decades, the United States sought to portray itself as a champion of a rules-based order, dialogue, and diplomacy. Even at the height of the Cold War, US presidents generally distinguished between criticizing governments and insulting individuals through offensive rhetoric. Today, that distinction appears increasingly blurred.
This is where the degradation of politics begins: when political leaders substitute labels for arguments, choose humiliation over persuasion, and replace responsible discourse with inflammatory rhetoric designed to mobilize public opinion. It is a process that shifts politics from the realm of reason to the realm of spectacle, where the harshness of language replaces the depth of analysis.
From a strategic perspective, this style of rhetoric also carries serious consequences. The language of hostility narrows diplomatic options, makes a return to negotiations more difficult, and traps both sides in a cycle of escalating confrontation. When national leaders publicly insult one another, political compromise becomes more costly because any retreat may be perceived domestically as abandoning their own confrontational rhetoric.
More concerning is that this trend extends beyond a single crisis. Academic research indicates that since 2016, the tone of American political discourse has become markedly more negative, with Donald Trump playing a particularly prominent role in that shift. Consequently, what is unfolding today in the Persian Gulf is not an isolated reaction but part of a broader pattern in which emotion, hostility, and humiliation have become recurring instruments of political conduct.
Today's world requires greater restraint in political language than ever before. In a region where every statement can affect energy markets, maritime security, and the lives of millions, the responsibility of political leaders extends beyond commanding armed forces, they must also exercise responsibility in their choice of words. Politics that loses its language of restraint ultimately risks losing its reason as well.
For this reason, the most dangerous dimension of the current crisis created by the US may not be military escalation in the Persian Gulf, but the normalization of rhetoric that replaces reasoned argument with humiliation and diplomacy with hostility.
If such language becomes the norm in international politics, the damage will extend far beyond any single country or region. It will erode the moral credibility of the international system and diminish the dignity of politics at the highest levels of power. This is the hallmark of what may be called the degradation of politics, a degradation that begins with words but can ultimately shape the destiny of nations.