[Wang Son-taek] Diplomatic messaging without prudence

Recent reporting on the bravado and fear of US President Donald Trump by The Wall Street Journal offers a revealing glimpse into his communication style.

In public, Trump projects confidence, issuing forceful, combative and often self-styled heroic messages through social media and frequent calls with journalists. Yet in private settings, according to the report, he displays anxiety and uncertainty about the course of the war.

This contrast is not merely a matter of personality. It exposes a deeper problem in the nature of the diplomatic messages themselves and how they were produced and delivered. This is not simply about undiplomatic language. The issue is not what was said, but how diplomatic messages were formulated, transmitted and accumulated over time. The gap between public messaging and private assessment raises a more fundamental question: What happens when diplomatic messages are issued without prudence?

Diplomatic messages are not ordinary statements. They are signals sent into a complex environment where meaning is not controlled by the sender alone. For this reason, prudence has long been the core principle guiding diplomatic messaging.

Prudence involves judgment about whether to issue a message, when to deliver it, how strongly to phrase it and how it will interact with other messages already in circulation. It is, above all, the discipline to limit communication and preserve coherence across channels. In diplomacy, restraint is not the absence of communication, but its highest form.

Over the course of the Iran crisis, this discipline in Trump’s messaging appeared to break down. Instead of forming a coherent signaling strategy, his messages on the war and diplomacy accumulated into a fragmented and often contradictory stream. The problem was not simply that some messages were harsh or unconventional. It was that diplomatic messages were issued too frequently, without sufficient coordination, and without regard for how each message would affect the meaning of others.

To understand the risks of such communication, we must consider the structural conditions under which diplomatic messages operate. First, negotiation counterparts can never be controlled. Once a message is delivered, it is subject to interpretation, reinterpretation and strategic use by the other side. A message intended to signal resolve may be read as inflexibility, or even as insecurity.

Without prudence, the sender loses control over how messages are received and exploited. When Trump used vulgar language on social media, the Iranian side could reasonably interpret it as a sign of agitation or insecurity, especially given Iran’s continued resistance and the volatility of the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, diplomatic messages are directed simultaneously at multiple audiences. They are not only addressed to adversaries, but also to allies, competitors, neutral states and domestic constituencies.

Each audience interprets the same message differently. This creates a tension between domestic political communication and international signaling. Messages that resonate with domestic supporters can narrow diplomatic options.

At the early stage of the war, Trump publicly declared that large-scale strikes would lead to regime change in Tehran, unconditional surrender by the Iranian leadership and the elimination of its nuclear capability. These confident declarations raised expectations significantly. However, when those expectations were not met, doubts and disappointments about both Trump and the US grew.

The domestic dimension is particularly consequential. Strong and frequent messages can be politically effective in mobilizing support and shaping favorable narratives in the early stages of a crisis. Trump may view his approach as a way to preempt unfavorable coverage and reinforce his political base. Yet diplomatic messages designed for domestic consumption often generate external constraints. They increase the cost of policy adjustment and make compromise more difficult without appearing inconsistent.

Third, diplomatic messages are subject to a boomerang effect. Once issued, they become part of the strategic environment and can return to constrain the sender.

Public commitments limit flexibility, provide justification for an adversary’s response and influence how third parties assess the situation. In this sense, diplomatic messages do not simply convey policy; they reshape the space in which policy can be conducted.

Trump’s approach also reveals a failure to balance clarity and ambiguity in diplomatic messaging. The concept of "strategic ambiguity" has often been used to preserve flexibility while signaling intent. However, too much ambiguity erodes credibility while clarity locks policy.

Effective diplomatic messaging requires calibration of both approaches. Messages must be clear enough to convey purpose, yet flexible enough to preserve options at the same time. During the crisis, this calibration appeared to collapse, with some messages unnecessarily explicit and others inconsistent or shifting.

The consequences of diplomatic messages without prudence are significant. An excess of messages reduces the signaling value of each one. Fragmented communication weakens the authority of official positions. Real-time reactions displace deliberation.

Most importantly, inconsistency between public messages and underlying assessments undermines credibility. Credibility in diplomacy is not built on the volume or intensity of messages. It is built on coherence, restraint and alignment between what is said and what is believed. When messages multiply without discipline, that alignment breaks down. Even strong language can then signal vulnerability rather than strength.

This episode illustrates a broader lesson about diplomatic messaging in the digital age. New communication tools enable leaders to issue messages rapidly and directly, bypassing traditional filters. These tools can sometimes enhance influence, but they also magnify the risks associated with undisciplined messaging. Without prudence, more messages do not produce more control; they produce less.

In diplomacy, the problem is rarely that too little is said. The greater danger lies in the accumulation of messages issued without effective judgment. Diplomatic messages do not travel in a straight line; they interact, overlap and inevitably return with consequences.

In the end, the strength of diplomatic messaging lies not in frequency or force, but in restraint and coherence. Messages issued without prudence do not strengthen a country’s position. They weaken its ability to shape outcomes and, in some cases, its ability to control them at all.

Wang Son-taek

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. He is a former diplomatic correspondent at YTN and a former research associate at Yeosijae. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.