Dr. Alireza Delkhosh presents evidence to Colombo journalists, outlining government response and external involvement in recent protests
by Our foreign Affairs Editor
This morning in Colombo, Dr. Delkhosh invited local journalists to a briefing in which he presented detailed fact-finding reports on the recent situation in Iran. During the session, he explained the sequence of events, the government’s response to unrest, and the evidence gathered on the causes and evolution of the protests, with the aim of providing journalists with a comprehensive understanding of Iran’s official perspective.
Evidence presented indicates that foreign intelligence agencies actively directed and funded armed groups on Iranian streets during the unrest.
He framed the discussion around events that began on 28 December, emphasising the importance of distinguishing between different phases of unrest and the various actors involved. According to his account, the initial protests emerged from genuine economic concerns faced by segments of Iranian society, particularly market actors and merchants who were affected by a sudden and sharp decline in the value of the national currency. He described how fluctuations in the exchange rate disrupted everyday commercial activity, creating uncertainty for traders who purchased and sold goods in the local currency and found themselves unable to predict costs or maintain stability in pricing.
Scenes of unrest in Tehran show fires and damaged public property during the protests, which authorities report were infiltrated by armed individuals seeking to escalate violence.Dr. Delkhosh explained that the fall in the value of the rial had immediate consequences beyond currency markets, as it led to rising prices for essential goods such as food, fuel, and household necessities. In his description, these developments generated understandable frustration among those whose livelihoods depended on predictable market conditions. He stressed that the Iranian government recognised the legitimacy of these concerns and responded by engaging directly with representatives of the affected groups. Committees were formed to hear grievances, and instructions were issued to state institutions, including the Central Bank and port authorities, to stabilise the market by injecting foreign currency and facilitating the rapid import of goods. He characterised this phase as one in which dialogue replaced protest, reflecting what he presented as a normal process of interaction between citizens and government in a democratic context.
The ambassador described this initial period, spanning from 28 December to 31 December, as peaceful and civil in nature. He noted that protests were limited in scope and largely confined to economic actors such as traders, guild members, and bazaar merchants. In his account, security forces exercised restraint, and the atmosphere remained calm, with no significant disruption to public order. He emphasised that this stage did not involve political opposition or demands for regime change, but was focused solely on economic grievances linked to exchange rates and inflationary pressures.
According to Dr. Delkhosh, the situation changed during the second stage, from 1 January to 7 January, when new elements began to appear within the demonstrations. He stated that the protests gradually escalated towards acts of violence, signalling a shift in their character. While maintaining that the situation remained largely under control, he suggested that Iranian authorities observed signs indicating external involvement. During this period, security forces continued to act with restraint in an effort to prevent escalation, while monitoring developments closely. He described this stage as a transitional phase in which the original economic protests began to be influenced by factors beyond their initial causes.
Former US officials publicly encouraged individuals involved in the violence, with statements interpreted as support for destabilising actions.
The third stage, which he dated from 8 January to 10 January, was described as a decisive turning point. Dr. Delkhosh asserted that armed and terrorist elements appeared openly during this period, targeting police officers, civilians, and public infrastructure. He stated that their actions included setting fire to public buildings, ambulances, buses, and private vehicles, as well as firing weapons at security personnel and ordinary citizens. In his account, these acts were designed to increase casualties and provoke foreign intervention, particularly by the United States. He emphasised that calls were made by these groups for external military action against Iran, which he described as incompatible with the behaviour of genuine citizens protesting domestic issues.
Dr. Delkhosh further stated that evidence indicated the presence and involvement of foreign intelligence agencies during this escalation. He specifically mentioned former US CIA Director Mike Pompeo, noting that Pompeo publicly acknowledged the situation in Tehran through social media, sending New Year greetings to operatives who, according to Iranian reports, were active on the streets. Dr. Delkhosh presented this as an example of external encouragement to those engaged in violent actions, asserting that such statements aligned with broader foreign involvement in the protests. He also referred to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, claiming that its personnel were present in Tehran and played a role in directing and supporting armed elements. According to his account, these operatives provided guidance, funding, and weapons to individuals involved in violent incidents, a claim he stated was supported by documentary evidence and confessions obtained by Iranian authorities. Dr. Delkhosh framed these actions as coordinated foreign interference designed to escalate instability and provoke external intervention.
Israeli operatives were reportedly present in Tehran, allegedly supplying weapons, guidance, and financial support to violent elements.
The fourth and final stage, according to Dr. Delkhosh, began on 10 January, when Iranian security forces regained control of the situation. He stated that numerous armed individuals were arrested while in possession of weapons, and that confessions would be broadcast publicly. He cited survey data indicating that a majority of citizens opposed continued unrest and attributed it primarily to foreign interference rather than domestic economic issues. He also described nationwide rallies held on 12 January, during which citizens expressed support for the government and called for action against what he described as terrorist groups. In his narrative, these demonstrations represented a clear distinction made by the public between peaceful protest and violent action.
Throughout his remarks, Dr. Delkhosh repeatedly emphasised Iran’s recognition of the right to peaceful protest. He maintained, however, that no state would tolerate riots, terrorism, or attacks on civilians and law enforcement. He described the distinction between protesters and armed actors as clear, arguing that genuine protesters do not carry weapons or target civilians. He referred to forensic reports suggesting that many victims were shot from behind, which he presented as evidence of deliberate attempts to maximise casualties for political purposes.
In response to questions regarding the economic roots of the unrest, Dr. Delkhosh reiterated that the exchange rate crisis was the primary trigger. He explained how currency instability affected supply chains and pricing, leading to broader inflationary pressures. He described government measures taken to address these issues, including the injection of foreign currency and the acceleration of imports. According to his account, these steps were implemented quickly, but their impact was overshadowed by the emergence of violent actors before stability could be fully restored.
When asked about the involvement of terrorist groups, Dr. Delkhosh stated that both foreign nationals and Iranian citizens were involved. He claimed that some individuals had been recruited and paid to carry out specific acts, with payments allegedly structured according to the nature of the violence committed. He described this as part of an organised effort directed by foreign intelligence agencies, asserting that Iranian authorities possessed detailed information about payments, weapons, and operational planning.
Survey data cited suggests that the majority of citizens view external interference, rather than domestic economic issues, as the primary cause of unrest.
The discussion also addressed the possibility of a US attack on Iran. Dr. Delkhosh approached this issue from the perspective of international law, stating that no country has the legal right to attack another based on political disagreement or attempts at coercion. He referred to previous negotiations with the United States, during which he said Iran had been attacked despite ongoing diplomatic engagement. He expressed scepticism about the consistency of US decision-making, characterising it as unpredictable, but stated that Iran was prepared to defend itself in the event of an attack. He emphasised that Iran’s defensive capabilities had increased since previous confrontations and that the country would not ignore aggression.
In this context, Dr. Delkhosh explained that Iran had communicated to neighbouring countries that any US bases used for attacks would be considered legitimate targets in the event of hostilities. He stressed that Iran did not seek conflict with its neighbours and would take steps to avoid harm to them, citing past instances in which advance notice had been given before retaliatory actions. He framed Iran’s approach as defensive rather than expansionist, referring to historical narratives that emphasise Iran’s non-invader identity.
Questions regarding international support led Dr. Delkhosh to discuss Iran’s engagement with multilateral institutions. He described letters sent by Iran’s Foreign Minister to the United Nations, calling on international organisations to prevent foreign intelligence operations and external interference in sovereign states. While expressing limited expectations based on past experiences, he maintained that such appeals were consistent with international norms. He also highlighted the positions taken by Russia and China within the UN Security Council, noting their opposition to US policies towards Iran and their statements against military action.
Authorities reported that hundreds of armed individuals had infiltrated the protests, with some allegedly shooting from behind to create the impression that security forces were responsible. This image shows one suspected militant firing at security personnel. [Photo: Iranian Foreign Ministry]Despite acknowledging the geopolitical constraints faced by potential partners, Dr. Delkhosh emphasised Iran’s policy of self-reliance. He stated that Iran does not depend on other countries for its defence and would respond independently to any aggression. He presented this stance as a matter of national principle, rooted in Iran’s assessment of its own capabilities rather than reliance on alliances.
In addressing regional relations, Dr. Delkhosh described Iran’s ties with neighbouring Arab states as cooperative and interdependent. He argued that regional stability is shared and that instability in one country affects others. He cited ongoing diplomatic communication with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Iraq, describing these relationships as based on mutual understanding of security concerns. He reiterated that Iran’s actions are defensive and that it does not seek to export conflict to neighbouring states.
The briefing also touched on economic resilience under long-term sanctions. Dr. Delkhosh described Iran as a resource-rich country with decades of experience in adapting to restrictive measures. He emphasised Iran’s geographical position, with extensive borders and connections to multiple neighbouring countries, as a factor that limits the effectiveness of isolation. He referred to ongoing energy trade with major countries, suggesting that Iran’s capacity as an energy supplier cannot easily be replaced. In his view, sanctions have not eliminated Iran’s options but have instead shaped alternative economic strategies.
Dr. Alireza Delkhosh is the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Sri Lanka [Photo: Sri Lanka Guardian]Dr. Delkhosh addressed questions regarding Afghan refugees in Iran. He described Afghans as brothers and sisters and emphasised Iran’s long-standing role as a host country. He clarified that recent measures were not intended to expel all Afghan nationals but to regulate residency in accordance with legal requirements. According to his explanation, only those without legal permission were asked to return to Afghanistan, with the option to re-enter Iran through official channels. He argued that legal residency is necessary for security and administrative reasons and stated that Afghan residents with proper documentation continue to have access to education, healthcare, and social services.
Authorities reportedly prepared a detailed record of payments, instructions, and confessions linking foreign actors to the violent incidents.
Dr. Delkhosh reiterated Iran’s positions on sovereignty, security, and dialogue. His presentation sought to draw a clear line between economic protest and what he described as externally directed violence, situating recent events within a broader narrative of sanctions, regional tensions, and international politics. Throughout his remarks, he emphasised Iran’s readiness to defend itself, its commitment to internal stability, and its expectation that international norms regarding non-interference and respect for sovereignty should be upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment