Was the Attack on the Saudi Embassy Only a 'Historical Foolishness and Betrayal'?

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister, stated that the attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran was not only 'foolish' but, in his view, a 'historical betrayal.' His judgment regarding the assault on a diplomatic building is undoubtedly a correct and accurate assessment of an event that, according to him, if it had 'not happened, today the conditions [in Iran and the region] would be different.' Zarif's characterization of such an action as both foolish and treacherous stems from the fact that attacking an embassy violates the immunity of diplomatic premises (as per the Vienna Convention of 1961) and harms the interests of the host country. Despite Zarif's correct judgment in deeming the attack on the Saudi embassy as 'foolish' and 'treacherous,' his evaluation faces two important questions. First, is the attack on the Saudi embassy the only instance considered a historical foolishness and betrayal, or do assaults on other embassies also fall under this assessment? The second question is whether there is a guarantee that such foolishness and historical betrayal will not happen again. The Islamic Republic is a 'record holder' for attacks on embassies. In the years to come, when historians write the history of the Islamic Republic, this regime will be noted as the record holder for assaults on foreign embassies. Attacks and even the bombing of an embassy building have occurred worldwide, but the frequency of these violations and their state-sponsored nature are unique to the Islamic Republic. The attacks on the embassies of Egypt, Morocco, the United States (along with the hostage-taking of their staff), Denmark, Britain, and Saudi Arabia are all recorded in the Islamic Republic's history. However, how is it that among these numerous instances, only the recent attack on the Saudi embassy is considered by Zarif as a historical foolishness and betrayal? Was it not the Islamic Republic's doctrine that one could attack the embassy of a country in protest, take its employees hostage for 444 days, and simultaneously have the leader of the regime describe it as a 'second revolution'? Is the attack on the Saudi embassy any different from similar attacks on the embassies of Egypt, Morocco, the United States, Denmark, and Britain? The question for Dr. Zarif, as an international relations scholar and now the Foreign Minister of a country that has over 100 diplomatic missions (embassies and consulates) abroad, is whether he is willing to evaluate the attack on the U.S. embassy with the same clarity he attributed to the attack on the Saudi embassy as foolish, contrary to Iran's international commitments, and against the national interests of the country. Furthermore, is there a guarantee that if the attack on the Saudi embassy in 2015 and the attack on the British embassy in 2011, which occurred in the third decade of the Islamic Republic's existence, happened, a similar event would not occur again? This question is pertinent because if in most of these attacks on diplomatic premises, especially the attack on the U.S. embassy, which was clearly endorsed by the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, there was a governing will, what guarantee is there that such an action will not happen again? Is it an incorrect argument to say that as long as the occupation of the U.S. embassy is not condemned, one can expect the same event to occur again? Would we truly have witnessed this many attacks on embassies in Iran if the attack on the U.S. embassy had been condemned once and for all by the governing bodies of the Islamic Republic? It should not be forgotten that in the scandal of the attack on the British embassy, in addition to the assault on the embassy building, the residential building of the British diplomats, which housed their families and children, was also attacked. It is astonishing that all this violation of international obligations and disgrace for this regime occurred while, according to images, the police had failed to perform their duty. There is no better evidence that the attack on the Saudi and British embassies occurred without the consent of the authorities than when we see the police (which is under the command of Ayatollah Khamenei, not the president) standing comfortably alongside the protesters while they complete their destructive actions. With this description, who is Zarif's audience when we know that the police, as the law enforcement arm of the Islamic Republic's leader, deliberately neglected their duty to allow the attack on the Saudi embassy to take place? Did that historical foolishness and betrayal, which has already inflicted numerous damages on the country, occur with the satisfaction of Ayatollah Khamenei to vent some of his anger over the execution of Sheikh Nimr? Let us not forget that worldwide, not a single country can be found that supported the attack on the Saudi embassy in protest against the execution of Sheikh Nimr. On the contrary, from the Secretary-General of the United Nations to most countries and international organizations, this action has been condemned. Among them, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as the most prominent Islamic body, condemned the attack on the Saudi embassy. Thus, an action occurred in Iran that was both a violation of diplomatic immunity and led to Iran's condemnation even among Muslim countries. Worse still, according to the confessions of the accused, they were involved in the protests and demonstrations against the Saudi embassy through publications related to the Revolutionary Guards. From these confessions, it is understood that the 'commanders' of the embassy attack are not the operatives. Hassan Rouhani, as the president, has also called for the prosecution of the commanders and perpetrators. But how is it that no names of the commanders are mentioned? Rouhani's expectation for the prosecution of the commanders of the attack on the Saudi embassy can only arise if the commanders of the attack on the U.S. embassy are also prosecuted, rather than holding positions and status in his cabinet.