Diplomacy in contemporary international relations is no longer confined to formal channels or closed-door negotiations between governments. Instead, it has expanded to include the public sphere, with its images, narratives, and popular mobilization. Within this context, public diplomacy has emerged as a key instrument of political interaction, whereby domestic public opinion is transformed into a message directed beyond national borders, capable of influencing both allies and adversaries.
Public diplomacy operates by engaging foreign publics rather than official elites alone, relying on non-military tools such as media, symbolism, and mass mobilization. In this sense, it constitutes an extension of state power that functions at the level of perception and strategic signaling rather than direct coercion.
At the height of US threats to launch a military strike against Iran, Tehran resorted to this form of diplomacy by orchestrating large-scale, pro-regime demonstrations. These mass rallies were not intended solely for domestic consumption; they were carefully staged to be read regionally and internationally as a political message indicating that the Iranian system was not facing external pressure in isolation from its society, but rather rested on a mobilizable and cohesive social base.
The demonstrations conveyed that any military escalation would not necessarily trigger internal fragmentation or popular backlash against the regime. On the contrary, they suggested the likelihood of a rally-around-the-flag effect, whereby external threats reinforce domestic cohesion. In this context, the public was transformed from a potential internal vulnerability into an element of non-military deterrence, complementing Iran’s conventional power resources.
At the level of Iran’s allies, this popular mobilization played a significant symbolic and political role. Images of massive crowds signaled regime resilience and reduced expectations of rapid collapse in the event of conflict. This perception contributed to stabilizing allied positions, reinforcing the belief that confronting Iran would entail high and uncertain costs, not only militarily but also politically.
For the United States, the message was equally consequential. Strategic decision-making does not assess military capabilities in isolation from societal cohesion. The Iranian demonstrations suggested that a military strike would be unlikely to weaken the regime internally and might instead strengthen its legitimacy. This factor increased the anticipated political and strategic costs of military action and undermined assumptions about a swift or decisive outcome.
The Iranian case illustrates the dual function of public diplomacy. Domestically, it reinforces political legitimacy and converts external threats into tools of internal mobilization. Externally, it shapes the strategic perceptions of allies and adversaries alike, embedding popular mobilization within broader deterrence calculations without resorting to direct force.
In an international environment where the boundaries between domestic and foreign politics are increasingly blurred, power can no longer be measured by military strength alone. The ability to manage public narratives, mobilize society, and transform the street into a cross-border political signal has become a critical dimension of state power. Public diplomacy, in this sense, stands out as one of the most effective non-military instruments of contemporary international confrontation.
*Mohammad Tarhini
Graduate Researcher in Political Science
M.A. in International Relations
Energy Security & Quality Management Specialist*
Source: Al-Manar English Website