On June 21, President Donald Trump made headlines again when he confirmed that U.S. forces had “successfully targeted and destroyed three major Iranian nuclear facilities.” In a follow-up televised address, he issued a stark warning to Tehran: “If Iran does not pursue peace and enter negotiations, the attacks that follow will be far greater.” This juxtaposition of war rhetoric with a call for peace—“make peace or face future U.S. attacks”—is not only contradictory; it represents a structural and normative failure in international diplomacy.
As a practitioner in peacebuilding and international relations for over a decade, I am troubled not just by the substance of these events but by the underlying logic that enables them: the persistent belief that peace can be manufactured through violence. The “bomb-then-bargain” doctrine, once a Cold War relic, has become disturbingly normalised in the 21st century. This is not merely a strategic choice—it is a dangerous erosion of global norms and a distortion of what peace truly means.
The Structural Flaws of Coercive Peace
Normative Backslide: Undermining the UN Charter
At the heart of the global order lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. When powerful states such as the United States openly threaten and execute military actions while calling it a pathway to “peace,” it sends the message that violence is a legitimate—and even desirable—accelerator of diplomacy.
This is a direct affront to the principles of international law and multilateralism. It delegitimizes the very forums, such as the UN Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the EU3+3 (P5+1), that are designed to mediate complex security disputes through structured dialogue.
Strategic Myopia: The Illusion of Lasting Results
Research by political scientist Virginia Page Fortna (2008) has shown that peace agreements reached through heavy coercion are significantly more likely to collapse than those forged through negotiation and consent. Military actions may create short-term tactical victories, but they often lay the groundwork for deeper grievances, nationalist backlash, and cycles of retaliation.
Rather than neutralizing threats, coercive diplomacy often amplifies them. By striking Iranian nuclear infrastructure and demanding peace on the threat of further strikes, the U.S. risks empowering hardliners within Iran, reducing public appetite for diplomacy, and accelerating clandestine armament rather than halting it.
Peacebuilding 101: Justice Before Stability
As Johan Galtung, the founder of modern peace studies, famously stated: “Peace is not the absence of violence, but the presence of justice.” True peace is not merely the quiet that follows bombing campaigns. It is found in societies where human dignity is respected, where citizens trust their institutions, and where power is checked by dialogue, not dominated by force.
When peace is defined in transactional terms—submit or suffer—the result is not a sustainable resolution, but a delayed resurgence of conflict. Coercive peace offers neither meaningful security nor legitimate justice.
Signaling Through Strength: A Dangerous Global Lesson
When great powers use military threats as negotiation openers, they send a potent signal to the rest of the world: strength earns you a seat at the table. This legitimizes the logic of militarization for smaller states and non-state actors alike. If you want to be heard, you must first become dangerous.
In the context of nuclear proliferation, this is especially perilous. The very airstrikes intended to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions may, paradoxically, reinforce the belief among vulnerable states that nuclear capability is the only deterrent against foreign intervention.
The Path Forward: Rethinking What Peace Requires
Rather than pursuing peace through war, the international community must reinvest in the hard work of diplomacy, trust-building, and inclusive dialogue. There are viable alternatives—ones that do not rely on destruction as a precursor to negotiation.
Multilateralism, even with its imperfections, remains the best arena for conflict resolution. Institutions like the IAEA or frameworks like the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) are not symbolic—they are functional mechanisms for defusing crises before they spiral into violence.
Equally critical is investment in what peacebuilding scholars call “infrastructures of peace”: informal diplomatic channels (Track II diplomacy), regional security frameworks, and confidence-building measures that reduce the incentive for escalation. These mechanisms allow grievances to be aired and resolved without the blunt instrument of war.
Lastly, we must address root causes. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability is not occurring in a vacuum. It is embedded in a decades-long history of sanctions, foreign interference, regional rivalries, and internal legitimacy challenges. A peace strategy that offers sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable civilian nuclear compliance—paired with credible non-intervention guarantees—speaks more persuasively to Iran’s security concerns than any airstrike ever could.
The Moral Responsibility of Language
There is also a deeper cultural and moral dimension to consider. Every time peace is announced atop a smoking crater, it redefines the term itself. Language matters. When “peace” becomes synonymous with “submission after devastation,” we poison the concept for future generations. The rhetoric of enforced peace conditions people to accept domination in place of dignity, and silence in place of reconciliation.
As scholars, diplomats, journalists, and peacebuilders, we must be vigilant in guarding not just the practice of peace but also its meaning. The current global context—from Gaza to Ukraine, from Sudan to Myanmar—demands not more justifications for war, but a firmer moral imagination for peace.
Resisting the Normalization of Violence-as-Diplomacy
In 2024, the United Nations General Assembly passed a landmark resolution reaffirming the need to prevent the use of force except in cases of direct self-defense or clear Security Council authorization. Yet the events of June 21, as well as what Israel, with the support of Western powers, has done over the years to its neighbors, demonstrate how easily this norm is flouted when geopolitics trumps principles.
We must resist the creeping normalization of war as a negotiation tactic. Peace cannot and should not be coerced. It must be constructed patiently, inclusively, and with the courage to understand rather than dominate.
Let us reject the illusion that bombs can be blueprints for dialogue. Let us instead build a global order where the tools of peace—justice, cooperation, and multilateralism—are more powerful than the machinery of war.
Harry Myo Lin
Harry Myo Lin is a Myanmar-born peacebuilder, political analyst, and writer currently based in Vienna, Austria. Recognized by Time Magazine in 2019 as one of the “Young Leaders Shaping the Decade,” he has worked extensively on interfaith dialogue, human rights, and conflict transformation across Asia. He currently consults with international organizations and writes on diplomacy, governance, and Southeast Asian affairs.
