Diplomatic engagement and efforts do not always end up preventing a war. This is because diplomacy and war can exist at the same time. When war occurs, it does not mean that diplomatic efforts might not have been pursued before a war starts; rather, states often warn the rival before initiating a war against it and pursue the path to a negotiated settlement to the dispute.
It underscores that diplomacy often occurs before a war is initiated. This raises the question of why states choose to go to war despite having an open channel for diplomacy. This is because diplomacy requires certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order to prevent a war, including credibility and trust between both parties, flexible positions, compatible or reconcileable interests, reliable mediation, reciprocal concessions, and credible commitments.
If these factors are missing in diplomacy, the likelihood of war intensifies. Thus, if war occurs, it should not be assumed that diplomacy has failed; rather, these factors may have been absent in diplomacy, leading to the outbreak of war.
The most recent case study in this context is the U.S.-Iran conflict. Before 28th February 2026, negotiations were ongoing between both parties to the conflict but due to lack of a conducive environment, the diplomatic efforts failed to prevent a war between the United States and Iran.
In this case, diplomacy was taking place but the war broke out because the conditions required to prevent a war were missing. As a result, the U.S. and Israel went to war against Iran.
Read More: German Envoy Urges Pakistan to Boost Trade, Praises Islamabad’s Diplomacy on Iran
The war between the United States and Iran highlights that one of the five conditions for successful diplomacy was absent from the overall process. This might involve trust deficit, lack of reciprocal concessions, credibility, effective and credible commitments, flexibility, and reliable mediation. As a result, the absence of one of these prerequisites led to the outbreak of war.
These prerequisites for a successful negotiated outcome are paramount in the entire diplomatic process. Both parties must not have a trust deficit with each other because if it persists, a peaceful outcome may not be achieved. Along with that, credible commitments from both sides must be made in good faith. Reciprocal concessions and flexibility by both states are required to prevent a war and reach a mutually agreed outcome.
Lastly, reliable mediation in the diplomatic process plays a crucial role in making diplomacy successful and avoiding an escalation. However, if one of these conditions is not met in the diplomatic engagement, the likelihood of the conflict may increase.
In 2025, India accused Pakistan of the Pahalgam attack, claiming that Pakistan was involved in backing terrorists who carried out attacks in Pahalgam. However, Pakistan categorically refuted this accusation, leading to a disagreement over the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Ultimately, India’s claim that the terrorists were supported by Pakistan led to the May 2025 conflict.
Although diplomatic channels were open after the Pahalgam incident and diplomatic engagement through international diplomatic efforts, including those involving the U.S., was ongoing, the war broke out on 7 May 2025, highlighting the lack of trust between the states and contradictory interpretations of the Pahalgam incident which made the entire diplomatic struggle meaningless.
Read More: Qatar PM to Visit Tehran to Revive US-Iran Diplomacy
Similarly, the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks that occurred in April 2025 under the mediation of Oman were followed by the outbreak of war on 13 June 2025 when Israel launched strikes against Iran. During the mediation of Oman, there were several disagreements between both sides, where Iran insisted on enriching uranium for its commercial uses while the U.S. did not allow Iran to enrich uranium. Resultantly, this disagreement contributed to a full-fledged war on 13 June 2025.
This underscores that due to disagreement over uranium enrichment, diplomacy became inconclusive and the war occurred. Hence, the absence of prerequisites required for a successful diplomacy and the prevention of war became the reason for the war.
This underscores that diplomacy needs compromise from both sides in order to avoid escalation and promote peace and tranquility. However, when states’ interests remain divergent, conflict becomes inevitable, which makes a negotiated settlement difficult to achieve. In the contemporary Russia-Ukraine war, negotiations have been taking place through intermediaries but still both countries are at war because it has now become a question of Ukraine’s national interest, as it cannot compromise on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Russia seeks to acquire eastern Ukrainian territories, while Kyiv has to defend its territory by all means. Therefore, despite having open channels for diplomacy, both sides have been targeting each other, making diplomacy ineffective in achieving peaceful settlement and putting an end to further escalation.
Additionally, diplomacy is not just about communication or conversation. Instead, it consists of credible incentives, costs and consequences. When one side does not receive adequate incentives, the likelihood of escalation surges. This underscores that diplomacy is not just confined to communication between both belligerence; rather, it comprises a complete package of considerations for its successful outcome.
Sometimes, the security dilemma between two or more rivals creates strategic ambiguity and mistrust, which can make states seem reluctant to agree upon rivals’ demands. If a state prepares itself for its own defense, the other state may perceive it as a sign of threat, which enhances the possibility of war and substantially hinders the diplomatic process.
Read More: Erdoğan Urges Trump to Keep Iran Diplomacy Alive
These hurdles make diplomatic initiatives arduous to succeed and lead to the outbreak of war. The failure of negotiations does not necessarily mean that diplomacy has itself become useless. Instead, diplomacy requires conducive conditions that must be fulfilled so that war can be avoided.
Effective and successful diplomacy is primarily based on reciprocal concessions, realist compromise, flexible positions, security guarantees and reliable mediation. If any of these is missing, diplomatic engagement may collapse, resulting in a war-like situation.
Furthermore, it has been common in international politics that states sometimes go to war without pursuing proper diplomatic channels. But ultimately they have to end a war through third party mediation, arbitration, or conciliation. If diplomacy is the last resort, then why choose war as a first resort, as it always brings destruction, civilian suffering, and large-scale catastrophes.
Thus, prioritizing diplomacy can provide a strategic leverage and favourable gains if diplomacy is held in good faith by both hostile states.
To conclude, successful and effective diplomacy must meet the required conditions that include reciprocal concessions, credible commitments, compatible interests, and trust between both parties so that war can be averted in order to ensure peace, security, and tranquility in the world.
*The views presented in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Diplomatic Insight.*
Muhammad Taha Hussain
Muhammad Taha Hussain is a student of International Relations at University of Sindh. He can be reached at [email protected]
