The general in Iran – strategic or stupid?

Given the precarious state of the relationship between South Africa and the United States, the visit to Iran by the chief of the South African National Defence Force, General Rudzani Maphwanya, was seemingly a diplomatic blunder of huge proportions.

Alternatively, it was business as usual for an inept African National Congress (ANC) that is unable to make any of the right decisions for the benefit of its benighted people.

Maphwanya met the new chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi. Mousavi’s predecessor was killed in an Israeli airstrike a few days earlier. The position is answerable directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Also present was Major General Amir Hatami, who has been appointed chief commander of the army, the position previously held by Mousavi.

Hatami, after acknowledging that the two countries were bound by anti-colonial, anti-arrogance, and justice-driven principles, advised that South Africa had a “prioritised position” in Iran’s foreign policy approach.

Apparently, they discussed enhancing joint military co-operation and common goals, and that the political alignment between the two countries had lent South Africa a special position in Iran’s strategic outreach to Africa.

Hatami expressed the hope that this would result in “concrete joint [military] projects”.

According to Iranian state media, Maphwanya compounded an already ill-advised venture by saying that he conveyed the greetings of South Africa’s president and defence minister, affirming that the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran had “common goals”.

“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenceless people of the world,” said Maphwanya. He concluded by saying that there was longstanding mutual respect between Tehran and Pretoria, and called for deeper defence ties. This inversion of truth is truly Orwellian, and it’s what should disgust us most.

The key bone of contention for US President Donald Trump is over South Africa’s warm relationship with Iran. Iran is the key sponsor of terror globally, and the driving force of support for Hamas in its attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.

In our case, the spearheading of the “genocide” case against Israel at the International Court of Justice is particularly egregious for the Trump administration.

Hezbollah, Iran’s main proxy, was also behind the bombings of the US embassy in Beirut, and the marine barracks in 1983, in which more than 300 people died. Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation in the US and many other Western countries.

The meeting between the South Africans and the Iranians, at this particular juncture in our attempts – so far unsuccessful – to reset SA-US relations, has been described as outrageous. The kindest description has been that it was an “unforced error”, and this is probably the most accurate.

It’s bad enough for our president and the ANC in government to espouse negative views about America at present, but to cosy up to Iran indicating an intent to turn us into a geostrategic enemy of the US at the tip of Africa, is apparently crazy.

However, it’s just a reflection of the ANC’s policy in its relationship with Iran. All it does is confirm what has been obvious since before 7 October 2023 when Hamas launched its Iran-backed attack on Israel.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) maintains that, “It’s crucial to clarify that the implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy is the function of the Presidency, supported by Dirco.” It went on to say that “the remarks attributed to General Maphwanya, therefore, do not represent the government’s official foreign policy stance”. Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola will seek “further clarification”, it said.

The Defence Department said much the same thing. “The Department of Defence and Military Veterans does not make political or policy decisions on international relations.” Defence Minister Angie Motshekga took some days to confirm that she had authorised the trip.

It’s noteworthy that neither department denied the formal nature of the trip, and when Motshekga did clarify the matter, she made it unabashedly clear that she had approved the trip last year. It had been postponed once, and went ahead now.

“The president didn’t know the general was visiting Iran, nor did he sanction the visit,” Motshekga said. “The general’s administrative process for travel approval starts and ends with the minister. As much as the president is the appointing authority, he does not get involved in supervising the general’s travel. That process sits with the minister.”

Motshekga, however, has also said that the general did nothing wrong. “It’s a coincidence that it [the trip] coincides with the tensions between Iran and the US, and that we are negotiating on tariffs,” she said. “This invitation is from last year. I sanctioned it last year. The event was postponed, and they then communicated back to say, ‘Let’s continue’, but the visit had already been sanctioned.”

So, we know that Motshekga sanctioned the trip a while ago, her department organised it, and Ramaphosa may not have known that it was taking place when it did. We can’t be sure that he didn’t know about it at all.

Ramaphosa’s spokesperson said that he vehemently denied knowing anything about the trip, and he described the general’s comments as “unhelpful”.

“Unhelpful” is probably the most telling description of the general’s comments. It did not mean that the comments were incorrect or that he had acted outside of his mandate as representing neither Dirco nor Defence.

This trip became an outrage only when the public came to hear about the details from the Iranians at the very time that the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition was trying to put a further trade proposal to the US to attempt a reset of the very poor relationship with the Trump administration.

Chris Hattingh, the Democratic Alliance’s (DA’s) defence spokesperson, said, “This is not the role of a military chief. Foreign policy is the domain of the elected Government of National Unity [GNU], and must be conducted through the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, not by an unelected general freelancing on the world stage.”

Hattingh said “publicly embracing a sanctioned regime with a track record of regional destabilisation” would only deepen South Africa’s “diplomatic isolation, risk retaliatory measures, and worsen our economic vulnerabilities”.

“South Africa cannot afford to have its international standing further sabotaged by political adventurism from the military’s top brass,” he said.

It may look like “political adventurism” to most of us, but it is at one with the Presidency and Dirco’s diplomatic approach to Tehran. What caused the outrage was, first, that it had the misfortune for the government of coinciding with our ongoing tensions with the US – a case of really bad timing.

Second, it gives credence to why the ANC has doggedly kept international relations away from any of its partners in the GNU. It wants to conduct a relationship with a regime that in every respect should be avoided like the plague.

The DA has called for Maphwanya to face court martial, and for Motshekga to be fired. Neither is likely to happen. It probably hadn’t occurred to Motshekga that the diplomatic wisdom of the trip at this fraught time should have been canvassed with the president and Dirco.

However, the general will be allowed to stay on until the end of the year to retire officially, and nothing will happen to Motshekga.

The embarrassment of this whole affair is unlikely to cause the Trump administration to take any more serious action against the ANC. It’s more likely to confirm its already negative view of South Africa. Strategically, it’s likely to give further impetus to anything that may be coming the ANC’s way already.

• Sara Gon is an independent political commentator.