In 1979, the American embassy in Tehran was stormed. 52 people, diplomats and employees, were held hostage for 444 days. It was a signal of how the Islamic regime understood power and diplomacy. International norms did not limit the regime – breaking them was a tool.
In 1994, the Jewish centre AMIA in Buenos Aires was bombed. 85 people were killed. Argentine investigators have later identified Iranian officials and Hizbollah as responsible. It was an act of terrorism of global scope.
Historical turning point
For several decades, the Islamic regime has been linked to armed groups, destabilisation and the strategic use of violence beyond its own borders. Despite this systematic “silent warfare” against the rest of the world, most countries have chosen dialogue with the regime. Not because the realities have been unknown to them, but because they were inconvenient.
When realities become brutal, they are reformulated as “challenges”. When they become extreme, they are called “complex security situations”.
But then came the moment that could no longer be wrapped up. That tens of thousands were shot over the course of two days in the streets of Iran constituted a historical turning point. That the name of Reza Pahlavi was shouted in the streets became a political demand. The response from the authorities was open gunfire.
The international response did not come immediately. It took several weeks before the United States and Israel acted militarily. Planning, intelligence and strategic assessments had to be put in place. Who should be targeted? How should it be carried out? What regional consequences would it have?
In the meantime, a deep sense of hopelessness grew among Iranians. They had believed that help would come quickly. When it did not, it was experienced as if they stood alone; that the world had turned its back on them.
When the military operation began and Ali Khamenei was eliminated, a dramatic shift occurred. People again went out into the streets.
Families who had lost their own celebrated in grief. The pain was still there, but it was mixed with a sense that something decisive had finally happened. It was not joy without loss. It was grief, but within the grief came the first trace of hope.
– The alternative is worse. The alternative is chaos
For 47 years the world has used concepts such as “engagement”, “de-escalation” and “critical dialogue” – while the Iranian regime has used concepts such as “deterrence” and “export of the revolution”.
It is an asymmetry with an almost tragicomic aspect. While Western diplomats have formulated new frameworks for talks, Iranian authorities have formulated new ranges for missiles.
The argument has been the same: The alternative is worse. The alternative is chaos. But what does one say when the region is burning?
Missile attacks against Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Jordan, as well as the attacks on Israel, have confirmed the impression of a regime that both represses internally and projects instability externally.
Over the course of three days of attacks, around 555 people were reported killed, the vast majority military personnel. The contrast was brutal: The regime shoots its own civilian citizens in the tens of thousands. In a military conflict, the main weight of the losses is combatants.
The difference raises the question: Who is the primary threat to the Iranian people?
- Donald Trump expressed support for the Iranian people.
- Lindsey Graham called for a harder line.
- Benjamin Netanyahu described the situation as a confrontation with an existential threat.
- In Europe, pressure increased to classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation.
In this light, Norway’s line must also be assessed. Norway has had contact with individuals in the political leadership in Iran also after the outbreak of the war. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Utenriksdepartementet) cooperates with a freelance diplomat regarding contact with the Iranian regime. But Trump says “No Deal”:
– There will be no agreement with Iran without an unconditional capitulation. After that and the selection of great and acceptable leaders, we and many of our brave allies and partners will work day and night to bring Iran down from the brink of destruction and make them economically greater, better and stronger than before.
Diplomatic courtesy exercise
Norway has built its international reputation on dialogue and peace mediation. But dialogue presupposes a legitimate counterpart. With whom does one negotiate when the power base in Tehran is dissolving and central actors have been eliminated or are on the run? And is a counterpart that in cold blood kills tens of thousands of civilians legitimate?
When the power base erodes, dialogue can resemble a diplomatic courtesy exercise. One sits at the table. One nods gravely. One expresses concern. At the same time, realities move in an entirely different direction.
It is possible that Norway acts out of principle. It is also possible that the principle has become a habit.
And habits in foreign policy can be dangerous. They provide a sense of continuity, even when the world around has changed beyond recognition.
In geopolitics there is one thing punished more quickly than error: irrelevance.
Norsk diplomati setter mullahenes «folkerett» over det iranske folks rettigheter
That up to 50,000 civilians were killed over the course of two days represents a moral and political earthquake that may have broken the fear in Iran – and the patience in the West.
Those who went out into the streets when the balance of power began to tip did not celebrate because they had forgotten their dead. They celebrated because they did not want them to have died in vain.
The question now is not whether the world reacts, but who understands that Iran has its historical moment and who sits down at a negotiating table to wait for a counterpart that will soon no longer exist.