In May 2025, former President Donald Trump once again oversaw the long-term geopolitical debate by proposing the Persian Gulf as "Arabic golf" or "Arabic Gulf." This step has appeared, although not unprecedented. sharp condemnation from Iran and provoked renewed debate over historical nomenclature, regional identity, and the potential consequences for U.S. foreign policy.
Historical and Geographical Background
The Persian Gulf, an important water between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, has both strategic and symbolic importance. Stretching roughly 990 kilometers (615 miles), it serves as a key conduit for global oil exports, with significant military and economic interests tied to its access.
Historically, the name Persian Golf has been in use for over two thousand years. Old texts, including those of Greek geographers such as Ptolemios of the Golden Age of Islamic and Arabic historians, consistently referred to the body as "Persian Cave" or "Khalä" J al-Färisä (Persian Golf). United Nations documents and international cartographic standards also maintain the use of "Persian Gulf" as the official name.
However, some Arab states—particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain—have long promoted the alternative term “Arabian Gulf.” Their argument hinges on cultural and political perspectives rather than strict historical precedent. This disagreement over terminology intensified after the 1960s, following the rise of Arab nationalism and the decline of British colonial influence in the region.
Trump’s Announcement and Motivation
Trump’s public hint at renaming the Persian Gulf came ahead of a planned tour of key Middle Eastern allies. During a speech in Florida and later on his social media platform Truth Social, he stated that he would consider changing the name as a gesture of solidarity with U.S.-friendly Arab nations. "We need to stand with our allies—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar—they know what's right. Maybe it's time we call it the Arabian Gulf," Trump posted.
Behind this statement lies a deeper strategic calculus. Trump has consistently pursued close relations with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. During his presidency (2017–2021), he authorized major arms sales, supported their stance against Iran, and even moved away from multilateral agreements like the Iran nuclear deal. The renaming proposal can be interpreted as an extension of this pro-Gulf Arab policy, designed to further alienate Iran while tightening U.S.-Arab alliances.
Iran’s Reaction and Cultural Response
Iran reacted swiftly and firmly. The Iranian Foreign Ministry called the proposed renaming "an insult to the Iranian nation and a denial of over two millennia of recorded history." Officials stated that Tehran would view the name change as an act of aggression and pledged to raise the issue with the United Nations.
Moreover, the Iranian public and diaspora responded with a wave of digital activism. Hashtags such as #PersianGulfForever and #StopChangingHistory began trending on social media, accompanied by maps, historical documents, and petitions aimed at reaffirming the legitimacy of the traditional name.
Iranian newspapers and scholars emphasized the cultural importance of the term “Persian Gulf,” framing Trump’s comments as an attempt to erase Iranian identity from a region long associated with its influence. Editorials highlighted that the name change was not only historically inaccurate but also deeply provocative in the context of escalating regional tensions.
Global Diplomatic and Scholarly Reactions
International organizations and academics also voiced concern. A group of UN experts in geographical names has repeatedly confirmed the only official name of Persian golf. UNESCO and the International Hydrographic Organization support this position, maintaining that changing geographical names for political purposes undermines global consistency.
Many European diplomats viewed Trump’s comments as a potential obstacle to peace-building efforts. The European Union, which remains involved in negotiations related to Iran’s nuclear program, warned that such symbolic provocations could derail diplomatic progress. A senior EU official anonymously stated, "Renaming the Persian Gulf now sends a message of hostility at a delicate moment."
Academics from universities across the world published open letters urging governments to resist politicizing geographical names. They argued that terms like “Persian Gulf” should remain above political manipulation and grounded in scholarly consensus, not nationalistic agendas.
Domestic Reactions in the U.S.
Within the United States, reactions were mixed. Supporters of Trump praised the move as bold and aligned with American allies in the Middle East. Republican lawmakers sympathetic to Gulf states' policies viewed it as a step toward strengthening defense and economic ties with wealthy Arab nations.
However, many foreign policy experts, historians, and even some members of Trump’s own party criticized the idea. Former State Department officials pointed out that the U.S. military, intelligence agencies, and diplomatic corps have long used “Persian Gulf” in official communications, and sudden changes could create confusion and damage credibility.
Think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations issued reports warning that symbolic acts like renaming the Gulf could alienate non-Arab regional players, including Iran, and further destabilize an already volatile part of the world.
Strategic and Military Implications
Beyond symbolism, the renaming carries strategic consequences. The Persian Gulf is home to several U.S. military bases, particularly in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. U.S. naval operations in the region are often coordinated through the U.S. Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain.
Changing the name in official communications could complicate military coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint naval exercises, especially with international coalitions that continue to use the established name. It could also be perceived as tacit approval of Gulf Arab positions on regional issues, further drawing the U.S. into intra-regional rivalries.
Moreover, some military analysts warned that such a move could provoke retaliatory measures by Iran, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or intensifying proxy conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
The Power of Names in Geopolitics
The broader issue at play is the power of names in shaping political narratives. Geographical terms are not merely descriptive—they carry historical weight, cultural identity, and symbolic power. Renaming a body of water like the Persian Gulf is not a neutral act; it reflects an intentional reshaping of history and influence.
Similar disputes have arisen elsewhere: the Sea of Japan/East Sea controversy between Japan and Korea, the Macedonia/North Macedonia naming debate, or disputes over the naming of cities like Jerusalem or disputed territories such as Kashmir.
Trump’s proposal, therefore, sits within a larger pattern of geopolitical name-changing, where language becomes a tool of soft power, recognition, and legitimacy.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s proposal to rename the Persian Gulf is more than a symbolic gesture—it is a provocative maneuver with significant diplomatic, cultural, and strategic consequences. While aimed at bolstering alliances with Arab nations, the decision risks alienating Iran, undermining historical integrity, and destabilizing a sensitive geopolitical region.
Whether or not the change is ever formalized, the controversy reveals the enduring impact of language in international relations and the fine line between symbolism and provocation. In a world increasingly shaped by narratives, the name of a gulf may seem trivial—but in the Middle East, where identity and power are fiercely contested, even a name can set off ripples that reach far beyond the water’s edge.
0 Comments