<p>In behavioral sciences, the concept of verbal impulsivity is often associated with the functional status of patients with ADHD, referring to a condition where an individual tends to speak without prior thought, selects words inappropriately, or disregards consequences. It is a state where individuals may suddenly say or do something unconsidered, without reflecting on the outcomes. Psychologically, impulsivity in speech and action can have numerous negative effects on the social environment and individual relationships.</p> <p>These include increased feelings of regret, damage to social relations (such as creating misunderstandings, unnecessary biases, or conflicts), and even impacts on overall mental health, such as heightened anxiety or depression, as the individual may reflect on the consequences post-action and feel guilt or remorse. Furthermore, in severe cases, it can lead to functional brain problems, such as impaired emotional regulation, similar to the effects of verbal abuse where the individual is the source. Studies by behavioral scientists indicate that impulsivity is linked to poorer performance in behavioral decision-making. For instance, under conditions of stress or time pressure, impulsive individuals may provide faster responses, but these responses are invariably less accurate and carry irreversible consequences.</p> <p><br />But why does impulsivity in political speech and action relate to this behavioral science and psychological issue? The reality is that public opinion, both internationally and domestically, is constantly exposed to such impulsive discourse and behavior. As the international system becomes more conflict-ridden and societal tensions and crises escalate, the risk of impulsive action among politicians increases. Of course, other reasons exist, which will be discussed below. Confronting crises and the dominance of an emotional atmosphere cause verbal impulsivity in politics to become a challenge for decision-making. Impulsivity (especially the emotional variant) often disrupts decision-making because the individual tends to act—and openly articulate this—without a full assessment of options or consideration of long-term consequences. This can lead to high-risk decisions. Naturally, politicians, like any other individuals, can act and speak impulsively or hastily under the influence of psychological, social, and structural factors. According to psychologists and behavioral scientists, this behavior is often the result of a combination of personality traits, environmental pressures, and political motives.</p> <p><br />Based on psychological and political analyses, impulsivity in politicians can stem from traits such as narcissism or psychopathy, which drive them toward reckless decision-making. These traits are often linked to a desire to participate in the public sphere of politics, as politics is an arena for acquiring power and provides desirable attention. For example, narcissistic individuals may react emotionally without evaluating the consequences to protect their personal and group identity.</p> <p><br />In today's modern world, with the 24-hour news cycle, politicians often act impulsively to capture attention or respond quickly to crises. This can be driven by vast media power, the desire to boost public poll ratings, or the need to spin their personal narratives of an incident, event, or reality. For instance, politicians may exhibit explosive and agonistic behaviors to gain popularity (likes) or wider sharing of social media posts, which attracts attention and builds popularity. Nevertheless, behavioral experts categorize such behaviors as juvenile. Regrettably, while such behaviors are encouraged by political groups and parties, they also yield personal dividends for the individual by capturing public attention and making headlines via the media.</p> <p><br />Furthermore, the focus on short-term gains in politics, such as avoiding long-term reforms due to fear of immediate costs, typically increases impulsivity. All politicians and decision-makers have national agendas and duties; frustration regarding their realization can increase aspects of impulsivity in their actions and conduct. In these situations, they shift their stance, using verbal and practical impulsivity to divert public opinion from their status and functional performance. Such behavior from politicians depends not only on individual traits but also on the political system, as it can be encouraged by rewards like increased media attention. To mitigate this damage, focusing on consultative processes and risk assessment of behavior and speech is essential.</p> <p><br />Impulsivity exists entirely at the macro level, such as in governmental policymaking or high-level decision-making, and is often described as hasty decisions or thoughtless governance. This phenomenon occurs when leaders or policymakers, under emotional, political, or ideological pressure, act without a thorough examination of long-term consequences, the successful functioning of alternative options, and a lack of sufficient data or disregard for on-the-ground realities. This behavior can be rooted in leaders' personality traits (like overconfidence) or the occurrence of critical conditions, but it usually exacerbates the crisis rather than solving it. The negative effects of impulsivity in policymaking often have widespread and irreversible consequences, which political managers must contemplate solving. These damages, which have national scope, can include: economic harm, loss of human life and security, damage to international relations, tarnishing the country's international image, and resulting in governmental inefficiency and failure.</p> <p><br />When Napoleon Bonaparte, lacking precise logistical planning, relying excessively on the speed of victory, disregarding realities, and based on an emotional and uncalculated decision, invaded Russia with over 600,000 soldiers, he made an impulsive decision. Reports from officers about problems (like supply shortages) were ignored, and targeting cities like Moscow was done without a clear exit strategy. The consequence of this decision was France's catastrophic defeat due to cold, disease, and shortages, which reduced the French army to fewer than 100,000 soldiers and contributed to Napoleon's downfall. Similarly, when Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union occurred in 1941, Hitler, violating the non-aggression pact with Stalin and poorly estimating the strength of the Red Army, launched Operation Barbarossa. It was an impulsive decision made by ignoring logistical challenges (like the Russian winter) and focusing on his racist and emotional ideology. The consequences: massive losses of 150,000 Soviet soldiers in the first week and 3 million prisoners by October, and the inability to capture Moscow. It was a turning point in World War II that led to Nazi Germany's defeat and cost millions of lives. These examples show that macro-level impulsivity not only creates temporary failures but can change the course of history.</p> <p><br />The institutionalized and structural internal processes within Iran's diplomatic apparatus are tools that can prevent the emergence of impulsivity in the country's foreign relations and diplomacy. In crisis situations, the stronger, more agile, and more updated these processes are, the stronger and more rational the positions and decisions will be. Conversely, if they are weaker, slower, and more emotional, decisions and positions can suffer from the disorder of impulsivity, even if they are made more quickly. The dominance of an emotional atmosphere resulting from journalistic performance, the proliferation of yellow and quasi-yellow media, the prevalence of the virtual hyperreal environment, and the discourse of political influence and pressure groups on the diplomatic apparatus can affect the effective functioning of these decision-making processes and structures.</p> <p><br />By the same token, the prevalence of verbal impulsivity among decision-making bodies, legislators, and policymakers can have various causes. Without prejudging all such statements and merely extracting points based on the external effects of such positions, it can have various domestic reasons, including: attracting public attention (to the speaker, to the issue, to the effects). Perhaps the most negative and destructive forms of impulsivity are those statements and positions that have economic consequences for an entire society or psychological and security consequences for a large segment of a country's population.</p> <p><br />Diplomats typically use rhetoric as a tool to articulate their country's positions and policies and to engage with a specific audience or country. This use is purposeful, precise, and employed for a defined objective. Although its application is limited and occurs prudently in situations of crisis or issues in foreign relations, its frequent use indicates perilous tension in security and foreign relations. However, in normal foreign policy conditions, impulsivity cannot and must not have the motive or platform to emerge, even if its application appears popular. It is evident that with the expansion of communication technologies and the digital and media world, the domestic and foreign boundaries of politics in countries have been broken. The statements and actions of even the most minor decision-makers, politicians, and political elites have vast international effects. One cannot assume that because a speaker made a statement or took a position in a small gathering or a limited place, it will have no international effects. For this reason, one cannot be indifferent to preventing the negative impacts of such behaviors on foreign policy, which can have irreversible historical and long-term consequences for a nation's destiny.</p> <p><br />World history is replete with such impulsivities from politicians who have caused harm and loss to their country, nation, and land due to uncalculated remarks. The provocations in the second Russo-Persian War, aimed at revenge and with the legitimate goal of reclaiming lost territories, which led to another defeat and a quarter-century of failure, stand before us as a mirror. But what must be done?<br />Apart from behavioral scientists recommending techniques such as mindfulness, practicing reflection before speaking, or psychological counseling to reduce impulsivity as much as possible and improve decision-making, if these behaviors are persistent, they are considered a type of mental disorder requiring immediate treatment.</p> <p><br />On a broader, macro, and national level, this disorder of official discourse must always be treated. The path to treatment, aside from establishing continuous methods and guidelines for the mindfulness of decision-makers and politicians to prevent verbal and practical impulsivity in politics, is the creation of institutionalized and structural processes for necessary consultation before expression and the advance and continuous justification by those holding national-level discourse positions.</p> <p><br /><b>Mohammad Javad Shariati, Senior Expert at the Center for Political and International Studies</b><br /><b>(Responsibility for the content of this article rests with the author and does not reflect the views of the Center for Political and International Studies.)</b></p> <p></p>