The drastic restrictions imposed by the US government on Iranian diplomats traveling to New York for the annual session of the UN General Assembly once again reveal the selective and instrumental nature of Washington’s approach to “diplomacy” and “dialogue.” These limitations that prevent diplomats from moving across several streets around the UN headquarters and complicate their ability to meet their daily needs are not a simple measure of management or security. Rather, they stem from the American fear of the logic of dialogue and reasoning presented by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The UN General Assembly is one of the broadest international opportunities for multilateral interaction and inter-national consultations. All countries see it as the right platform for bringing their voices to global public opinion and diplomacy. In recent years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used this field to actively present independent and inferred positions against the unilateral American policies and allied policies, convincing many countries with the legitimacy and logic of their views. This is clearly the main cause of Washington’s unrest and its reliance on policies that restrict the voices and movements of Iranian diplomats.
The United States is well aware that Iranian diplomats, like counterparts from other countries, can freely engage in broad consultations with national, institutional and media representatives. From this perspective, the restrictions imposed are efforts to silence, or at least reduce, Iran’s voice in the international sector. Such an approach is not only a hostile act towards Iran’s Islamic Republic, but also reveals a lack of confidence and fear among American rulers facing the logic of Iran’s diplomacy.
From another angle, such treatment is clearly inconsistent with the spirit and philosophy of the United Nations itself. The United Nations was established based on interaction, dialogue and mutual respect between nations. If the host country, the United States, blocks the free presence and participation of member state delegations in side activities and diplomatic contacts, effectively undermines the neutrality and transparency expected of the United Nations. These restrictions can be considered a blatant misuse of host status and a violation of US international liability.
It is also noteworthy that the contradiction between the American slogan and its actions on this issue. Washington officials constantly emphasize the need to “solve global problems through dialogue,” but in reality, they only accept dialogue if it reflects their position. If voices that are different or critical of a policy are raised, they will resort to tools such as pressure, restrictions, sanctions, etc. to silence it. This action clearly shows that the American slogan defending freedom of expression and global dialogue is merely a shell of the empty that collapses under the slightest pressure.
Furthermore, the latest US moves could result in significant reputational costs at the international level. Washington portrays himself as an authority to comply with laws committed to international law, indicating that he is not even serious about fulfilling his legal duties and responsibilities as a host of the United Nations headquarters. This not only damages America’s alleged credibility as a defender of international law, but also raises distrust of the policies of other countries.
The problem is that instead of providing a rational and diplomatic response as a global force, the United States chooses a path of pressure and limitation whenever it faces different discourses and logics. Restrictions on Iranian diplomats fall into this same category. It is more of an action that reflects weakness and fear of Iran’s influence in international diplomacy than it reflects strength.
Ultimately, policies restricting Iran’s voice at the UN General Assembly may complicate certain diplomatic interactions, but in reality, it must be said that America’s true face reveals a real face to global public opinion rather than running through Iran. The world now recognizes more than ever that the US does not want to hear another voice, but also cannot support the fundamental principles that host international organizations. This can strengthen Iran’s position in diplomacy and demonstrate that the logic of dialogue is a powerful tool in the hands of Iran’s Islamic Republic despite attempts to limit.
MNA/6600158