GJIA: Do you agree that the role of a diplomat has changed considerably over the last few decades, with shifts in communication, power dynamics, and cybersecurity? How would you describe the modern diplomat’s core mission?
Tom Yazdgerdi: We are in a period of upheaval, but much of the job has been and will continue to be unchanged: representing the interests of the United States overseas. Where we have seen a major shift in is the speed and scale of the job. Our tools have evolved—artificial intelligence, remote negotiations, social media—but they all contribute to the same mission of serving the United States globally. This also means that we are much more diverse in terms of the jobs we do overseas. We are crisis responders and economists, cybersecurity experts and public health advocates. The threats we face—from disinformation to authoritarianism to climate change —are not only more complex but also more diffuse than ever before. We still have our core mission, but the duties have evolved at an unprecedented pace.
GJIA: Bilateral talks and high-profile negotiations often take center-stage in the headlines, but what are the less visible aspects of diplomatic operations? Are there functions that often go unnoticed but are essential?
TY: Much of diplomacy doesn’t happen in front of the cameras, and that is on purpose. It is the midnight phone call to secure a medical evacuation. It is weeks of back-channel negotiations to free an American detainee. When I was in Kosovo from 2006 to 2009, we helped lay the groundwork many months in advance of Kosovo’s February 2008 Declaration of Independence. USAID helped Kosovans draft their Constitution. My political-economic section worked to secure recognition of their status, working with our European, Australian, Japanese and other allies. Our job is to be invisible until we are needed. So, we keep at it advancing U.S. interests, for instance through supporting U.S. businesses, negotiating unfair trade barriers, and helping new companies on the ground through the Foreign Commercial Service. Developmental diplomacy, which used to be funded by USAID, assisted millions towards a safer future; the Foreign Agricultural Service helped eradicate diseases threatening our interests. The list goes on. When all this infrastructure is being cut, U.S. citizens at home feel the consequences in ways we won’t notice until too late.
GJIA: You mentioned the importance of negotiations. What is the modern approach to host countries less receptive to diplomatic outreach and building strong local networks to get around such barriers?
TY: Diplomacy is about listening, not lecturing— it requires bringing strong ‘area knowledge,’ first-person experience, and outstanding foreign language skills. If you want to guarantee U.S. interests, you need a strong element of empathy to understand a host country and what its values are. Digital diplomacy has grown in recent years, but it must continue to be paired with on-the-ground presence. The famous journalist Edward R. Murrow said the “crucial link in international exchange is the last three feet.” That bridge is crossed with personal contacts, and that is as true today as when he said it in the early 1960s. The Foreign Service is the United States’ first line of defense. We are the tripwire for anything that could affect our country’s prosperity and security. That is why the loss of thousands of diplomats is so damaging. China has overtaken the United States in the number of diplomatic missions they have abroad, and we cannot afford to be penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to funding our foreign affairs budget. Diplomacy is something that pays for itself over and over, and if we are not building and maintaining our local networks, we cannot expect any future dividends.
GJIA: Social media has transformed the way we communicate, and digital platforms are battlegrounds of perception. From your experience, what has been the best way to cut through this digital noise and convey clear messaging on behalf of the United States?
TY: Credibility is important. In the age of AI-generated content and state-sponsored propaganda, being factual, human, and local is our superpower. A diplomat in a country who speaks the language is a much more credible messenger than any anonymous source on the internet. The U.S. Agency for Global Media has traditionally been a vital channel for demonstrating this; it has now been dismantled, and with it, organizations like the Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and Radio Liberty. China and Russia will now move into that space without the same principles, and we compromise our strength in projecting ourselves in this age of digital content, this ‘human value of trust.’ A host country might not agree with everything, but no one can undermine the authority of the United States if there is a credible diplomat there as a first point of contact.
GJIA: U.S. Missions today are frontline responders to crises political, social, or natural crises. How can diplomats prepare and respond to these unforeseen events?
TY: Ideally, you want to have enough intelligence and connection if not to prevent crises, then at least better anticipate them. This becomes harder if we are seeing a 20 percent cut in the Foreign Service’s workforce. You cannot wing a crisis–embassies constantly run simulations, update contingency plans, and coordinate with capitals, friends, and allies. One major policy I support for improving crisis responses is the idea of a ‘Diplomatic Reserve Corps,’ which has gained traction on Capitol Hill. It would involve an experienced and dedicated group of individuals with an immense wealth of knowledge that can be deployed quickly during a given crisis. Yes, it would cost money, but it would more than pay for itself when needed. If you look at U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to staff our embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, we had to beg, borrow, and steal from other U.S. missions. Therefore, to avoid these zero-sum games, having a team of experts, including active duty, retired, and outside professionals you can call on goes a long way.
GJIA: How can one ensure the policies that are crafted in Washington align with realities on the ground? Conversely, is there a risk of diplomats misrepresenting U.S. priorities?
TY: Diplomacy is a two-way street. Washington sets the goals, but people on the ground provide the context and feedback. The value added we provide as diplomats working overseas is incredibly important. With this, strong internal communications and a culture that values these insights is essential, because when these break down, strategy can turn into siloed thinking. We need to maintain this because credibility with host nations depends on honest reporting and adaptability, which is what diplomats do. They are the best reporters in the world. What they are seeing on the ground informs policy and can provide credible alternatives in case things go awry. To help with this, the State Department has something called the ‘dissent channel,’ which AFSA helped launch. It is a mechanism that goes directly to the Secretary of State’s office to offer a well-considered alternative to current policy in a given area. Of course, this does not guarantee it will be acted upon, but at least it will be heard, and ensures that better and more developed foreign policy choices are selected.
GJIA: As global dynamics continue to shift, do you think the State Department needs to rethink its mission and operational model? What remains an area of strength, as opposed to areas that face challenges?
TY: I remember when CNN first came into being alongside the birth of the 24/7 news cycle. One of my supervisors told me “Don’t try to compete with CNN.” Now, I say “Don’t try and compete with stuff on the internet.” Our role is focused on implementing the foreign policy initiatives of the President of the United States. A diplomat is present to use all the contacts and means at their disposal to ensure our interests are being protected. We will never be a 24/7 news service. Any change that does come has to reinforce and not replace our core values of professionalism, non-partisanship, expertise, and a strong sense of service. The United States has one of the few foreign ministries around the world that ensures our diplomats can speak the local language. As we look at what awaits us, we always have to keep this in mind. Since diplomats today need to do a lot more than before, we will continue to use all the new tools as they become available.
In this time of wholesale elimination of foreign affairs agencies, this is becoming increasingly difficult. Every ‘reduction in force’ directive from the White House means another loss of talent and expertise. We need to mobilize public support to defend the diplomats who serve U.S. citizens. Congress must exercise its oversight role and protect the Service from politicization, and we as the United States’ diplomats must reaffirm our direct connection with everyday U.S. citizens. As I said, a diplomat is a country’s first line of defense, and we must always stand ready to meet the challenges of our time with the timeless principles of trust and presence.
. . .
Tom Yazdgerdi is a member of the Senior Foreign Service and has served from 2019 to 2023 as the AFSA State VP. Before that, Mr. Yazdgerdi served as director of the Office of South Central European Affairs, political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, head of the U.S. Consulate Kirkuk, and deputy political counselor for Iran affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He also served as political-economic chief and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pristina during the run-up to and aftermath of Kosovo’s independence.
Before joining the Foreign Service in 1991, Mr. Yazdgerdi worked on Capitol Hill. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Cornell University and a master’s degree in Central European history, security studies, and American diplomatic history from The Fletcher School at Tufts University.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Interview conducted by GJIA staff.
Image Credit: Cris Constantin, Unsplash Content License, via Unsplash.
