Expulsion of Two Dutch Diplomats; A 'Reciprocal Action' Communicated to the Foreign Ministry

Two Dutch diplomats have been expelled from Iran, reportedly as a 'reciprocal action' in response to the expulsion of two Iranian diplomats from the Netherlands in June 2018. In reaction to this action, the Netherlands summoned the Iranian ambassador, deeming it an act that would have 'negative consequences.' Subsequently, the Netherlands referred the issue of the Islamic Republic's potential involvement in the assassination of a person named Ali Motamed (who is strongly suspected of being involved in the bombing of the Republican Party in 1981) to the European Parliament and subsequently recalled its ambassador from Tehran. Tehran also recalled its ambassador from the Netherlands, thus marking a limited escalation of tensions between the two countries. It remains to be seen whether the level of tension will increase and what the European Union's position on this matter will be. However, on the other hand, while the expulsion of Dutch diplomats as 'undesirable elements' falls within the host government's authority, this brief news has raised several questions and ambiguities as follows: First: The news of the expulsion of the Dutch diplomats was not communicated by the Iranian Foreign Ministry but rather by the Dutch Foreign Ministry. In other words, if the Netherlands had not reported it, no one would have known about this issue. There is no doubt that Iran's silence in informing about the expulsion of diplomats it deemed undesirable is significantly contrary to the usual practice of countries. In other words, if the host government - Iran - has determined that a diplomat has overstepped his responsibilities and identified him as an undesirable element and expelled him, why should it not inform the public about the misconduct of that diplomat? Second: Why did the Islamic Republic's reciprocal action against the similar action of the Netherlands, which expelled two Iranian diplomats in June 2018, take place with a nine-month delay? This long duration for responding to the Netherlands on one hand and the lack of information about it on the other hand is very questionable. These questions are particularly significant when we recall that the expulsion of the two Iranian diplomats from the Netherlands in June 2018 occurred after the Netherlands accused them of involvement in two successful assassinations on Dutch soil. One of them was Ahmad Nissi, an Arab separatist from Khuzestan, and the second was Ali Motamed. Especially the second individual, due to his involvement in the bombing of 1981, could strongly have been a target for revenge. The answers to these questions must be sought in the statements of Mohammad Javad Zarif. The order communicated to the Foreign Ministry: Why did Zarif go and why did he return? Following the Dutch announcement, the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed that it had expelled two Dutch diplomats. However, it is interesting to note that the Iranian Foreign Ministry has not provided any reasons for accusing them of committing non-diplomatic acts. It is clear that this action was taken solely for retaliatory purposes, but why? Mohammad Javad Zarif stated that the expulsion of the two Dutch diplomats was a matter that had been 'communicated' to the Foreign Ministry. He did not specify which entity communicated this directive to him, but it is clear from his words that if such an order had not been communicated to him, the Dutch diplomats would not have been expelled as they had been over the past nine months. The execution of a decision made elsewhere and contrary to the Foreign Ministry's opinion indicates that there are two different viewpoints within the Islamic Republic's governance on the same issue, and ultimately, with the Foreign Minister complying with the directive of another entity, tensions with the Netherlands have increased. The increase in tensions with the Netherlands occurs while this is not the only case of tension between the Islamic Republic and a European country regarding the attribution of assassinations to its diplomats in Europe; such claims have also been made against the embassies of the Islamic Republic by Albania, Denmark, and France. France has stated that a diplomat based in Vienna was supposed to equip two Iranian-Belgians for an explosion in Paris. France has also expelled one diplomat and imposed sanctions against part of the Ministry of Intelligence. To understand what current is seeking to damage relations with the Union, it is enough to consider that Kayhan Shariatmadari has advised the Foreign Ministry to act reciprocally with France just as it did with the Netherlands and expel a diplomat from the French embassy in Tehran. The Foreign Ministry has so far avoided taking this action, and moreover, the two countries have recently decided to exchange ambassadors. France had previously stated that until the matter of the Iranian diplomat's involvement in the planned explosion in Paris is clarified, it would refrain from sending a new ambassador to Tehran to replace its last ambassador, whose mission had ended. France's reconsideration regarding sending an ambassador to Tehran indicates that some aspects of the matter have become clear to France. Macron had previously stated that he did not know which entity of the Islamic Republic was behind the explosion plan in Paris. In summary, from what has been said above, it becomes clear that one faction is seeking confrontation with Europe, while another faction, including the Foreign Ministry, is seeking to appease Europe regarding the assassination cases attributed to its embassies. If we view the issue from this angle, it will become clear why the Iranian Foreign Ministry does not show sensitivity regarding the arrest of a diplomat who intended to equip individuals for an explosion in Paris and is currently under investigation in Belgium. The Foreign Ministry considers him an infiltrator of the concerned faction. What was Zarif's resignation? What is his compliance? Zarif has declared the expulsion of the Dutch diplomats as compliance with the directive of another entity; otherwise, the Dutch diplomats would likely not have been expelled. With this description, can he claim to have preserved the position of the Foreign Ministry in foreign policy? This question arises because he had stated that the reason for his resignation was to preserve the position of the Foreign Ministry. Therefore, withdrawing his signature must have been in pursuit of his desired outcome of preserving the position of the Foreign Ministry. If this is the case, why has he complied with the directive of another entity? Who is that other entity? If it is the Supreme National Security Council, why does he not mention it? Moreover, complying with the Supreme National Security Council as a 'higher authority' is not problematic. Zarif's refusal to name the notifying entity, given that the issue of assassination in the Netherlands is raised by the agents of the Islamic Republic, directs minds to a 'security entity' other than the Supreme National Security Council. If this is the case, and Zarif has been compelled to comply with a security entity, can he claim that the position of the Foreign Ministry has been preserved? If assassinations are repeated and attributed to Iranian embassies, will this not disturb the psychological security of Iranian diplomats, each of whom might think they could end up like Assadollah Assadi? Does this mean preserving the position and dignity of the Foreign Ministry?