Growing international demands for accountability over Iran’s naval activities in South African waters have thrust the nation’s foreign policy into a sharp dilemma, balancing historic alliances against escalating Western pressure.
The controversy stems from recent joint naval exercises involving the South African and Iranian navies. The international community, galvanized by a resurgent U.S.-led “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran, is pushing for tangible economic and military consequences for South Africa’s cooperation.
The situation is further complicated by conflicting reports suggesting that South African naval officials may have proceeded with significant Iranian participation in the drills despite instructions from President Cyril Ramaphosa to limit it. An official inquest into the matter is pending.
Dr. Oscar van Heerden, a scholar from the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for African Diplomacy, provided critical context in a televised interview, arguing that the reaction is overblown and rooted in a longstanding bilateral relationship.
“Anyone who’s peddling [a change in relationship] is not taking cognizance of that particular history,” van Heerden stated. He detailed Iran’s material and symbolic support for the anti-apartheid struggle, noting that South Africa formalized diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic shortly after democracy dawned in 1994.
Addressing the alleged defiance of presidential orders, van Heerden dismissed notions of a “coup” or open rebellion within the military. He suggested the more likely explanation was a “miscommunication” or “speaking at cross purposes,” exacerbated by an unfortunate coincidence of timing.
“The naval exercises have been planned a long time in advance,” he explained. “Who would have known that by the time it takes place it would coincide with the appropriations and means committee of the United States Congress deciding our fate with AGOA?”
The potential threat to South Africa’s benefits under the U.S. African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade pact is a key subtext to the diplomatic friction. Van Heerden reframed the core issue as one of national sovereignty.
“To what extent should the president or the South African government allow a foreign country to dictate to South Africa about foreign policy choices?” he asked. “If there is a foreign policy choice that we want to do exercises with Russia, China, Iran and so on, does it behoove the United States to want to bully us and control us?”
He defended the drills as non-political, with a purely practical rationale: to coordinate the protection of the Indian Ocean sea route from piracy and resource plundering. “It’s certainly not a South African Navy that is wanting to send a political message to Washington DC,” van Heerden asserted.
When questioned on perceived contradictions in South Africa’s vocal stance on human rights in Gaza compared to a quieter approach on Iran, van Heerden pushed back against the framing. He cited “a lot of misinformation and disinformation,” arguing that recent violent protests in Iran were hijacked by coordinated attacks on state infrastructure, prompting a government crackdown.
“The truth of the matter is,” van Heerden concluded, “you know, as they say, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
As the internal inquest proceeds, the South African government finds itself navigating a fraught geopolitical landscape, caught between historical loyalties, its stated principles of non-alignment, and intensifying economic pressure from Western powers demanding a clear distancing from Tehran.