Presidential order, naval defiance: Iran’s role triggers inquiry

A defence inquiry has been launched into whether Defence Minister Angie Motshekga and senior military officials defied a direct instruction from President Cyril Ramaphosa to exclude Iranian warships from a multinational naval exercise off Cape Town, reigniting questions about Iran’s influence within South Africa’s government and the erosion of civilian control over the military. 

The controversy centres on the Will for Peace exercise, held in South African waters between 9 and 16 January and involving naval forces from South Africa, China, Russia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. Despite Ramaphosa’s reported instruction that Iran be restricted to observer status, Iranian warships were seen manoeuvring alongside other navies in False Bay, triggering a political backlash and international concern. 

Opposition parties and analysts say the episode raises serious constitutional concerns. The president is commander-in-chief of the defence force, and any failure to execute a lawful instruction strikes at the heart of civilian oversight. 

The founder and former leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Tony Leon, said the issue wasn’t merely diplomatic but constitutional. “It just heightens the dysfunctionality of the government and the fact that he’s not in control of the military,” he said. 

Leon warned that while South Africa’s limited military capacity reduced the risk of an outright breakdown, the symbolism was serious. “In another country, alarm bells would ring at such a moment that the military is unconstrained and not being reined in by civilian commanders.” 

Motshekga has ordered a formal board of inquiry to determine whether the president’s directive was “misrepresented or ignored”. She has denied defying Ramaphosa, insisting that the instruction was communicated and that any failure would be uncovered by the inquiry. The investigation will examine how the instruction was handled within the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and whether it was implemented. 

The DA has demanded answers in Parliament, arguing that the episode suggests either a breakdown in command or a willingness within the defence establishment to sidestep executive authority. Darren Bergman, DA MP for planning, monitoring and evaluation in the office of the presidency, said the issue had far-reaching diplomatic consequences. “The involvement of Iran against the instruction by the South African president was a serious threat to our international standing, which is not on a cemented footing with the likes of the United States,” he said. 

It couldn’t be dismissed as miscommunication, Bergman said. “Communication in the military is key, and if our generals and minister cannot take simple instruction from the commander-in-chief then one or two heads need to make way for those that can and will.” 

The controversy has also renewed scrutiny of South Africa’s relationship with Iran. Iranian participation in the exercise came amid heightened global attention on Tehran’s human rights record and growing protests inside that country. Critics argue that Iran’s inclusion reflects a pattern in which South Africa’s foreign policy increasingly aligns with authoritarian states despite official claims of non-alignment. 

The South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) condemned the government’s decision to host the exercise, describing it as a “damning indictment” of the African National Congress’s (ANC’s) stated commitment to human rights. The SAZF said South Africa was hosting joint naval drills while Iran was violently suppressing nationwide protests, accusing the government of providing logistical and political cover to an oppressive regime. 

In its statement, the SAZF said the decision revealed “the ANC’s true allegiances” and exposed what it called “the utter hollowness of its rhetoric on human rights”. It described Iran’s leadership as “a merciless oppressor that executes protesters, imprisons women for daring to defy compulsory veiling, muzzles journalists, and unleashes brutality on minorities”, and said South Africa was hosting the exercise while Iranians were “braving the certainty of arrest, torture, or death” in nationwide protests. 

The SAZF also challenged the silence of other parties in the Government of National Unity, asking, “How can parties committed to constitutionalism, human rights, and pragmatic foreign policy tolerate this alignment with tyrants?” and warning that failure to speak out risked “complicity in this moral failure”. 

International reaction has been swift. The US criticised South Africa’s hosting of the exercise, with the US embassy in Pretoria publicly expressing concern over Iran’s participation and warning that the drills undermined South Africa’s stated policy of non-alignment. In Washington, Republican Senator Jim Risch, the chairperson of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described South Africa’s military engagement with Iran, Russia, and China as “open hostility” toward the US, cautioning that such actions risk damaging diplomatic relations at a time when South Africa’s continued access to preferential trade benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act is under scrutiny. 

Security analyst and professor at the University of Cambridge, Glen Segell, said the episode pointed to a deeper problem of authority. “What’s even more concerning is the uncertainty surrounding who authorised this, raising questions about who is truly in charge in South Africa,” he said, pointing out that Iran’s presence served Tehran’s strategic aims by signalling power projection and strengthening ties with Russia and China. 

Within the defence establishment, senior naval officials have defended the exercise as operationally necessary, stressing that it focused on seamanship, navigation, and maritime safety rather than combat training. Navy leadership has insisted that participation in multinational exercises doesn’t imply political alignment. 

However, confusion over Iran’s role has been compounded by inconsistent public messaging. On 13 January, the SANDF posted on Facebook a list of vessels participating in the sea phase of the exercise, and explicitly included the Iranian corvette Naghdi alongside ships from South Africa, Russia, China, and the United Arab Emirates, which contradicts repeated statements from government sources that Tehran’s vessels wouldn’t take part in active manoeuvres. That post was subsequently deleted without explanation, prompting speculation that the defence force removed evidence of Iran’s involvement after the fact. 

Around the same time, a journalist from the South African Broadcasting Corporation posted on X that Iran had been downgraded to observer status or withdrawn, but no official clarification was issued to reconcile that claim with the deleted SANDF communication listing Naghdi as an active participant. The Department of Defence later released a statement saying that Ramaphosa’s directive had been “clearly communicated to all parties”, and would be investigated to see if it was “misrepresented and/or ignored”, but it didn’t address why the original SANDF post was removed or explain the conflicting accounts of Iran’s actual participation, which deepens uncertainty about whose account reflects reality. 

The board of inquiry is expected to provide a report shortly. Its findings will determine whether disciplinary action follows and whether Parliament escalates its oversight role. Until then, the presence of Iranian warships in False Bay remains a potent symbol of unresolved questions about who exercises authority in South Africa and how far Iran’s influence now extends within the state.