Iran’s Ambassador to Armenia Addresses Armenian People, Urges Peaceful Civic Dialogue

In a piece addressed to the Armenian people, Iran’s extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador to Armenia, Khalil Shirgholami, argues that the latest events in Iran—though, as always, influenced by the atmosphere created by Western media—have spotlighted two familiar, consequential questions. He asserts that the issues are meaningful not only for Iranians but for all societies that have faced crisis, transition periods, and social strain. The ambassador frames the first question around the boundary between civilian protest and violence, and why maintaining that boundary is vital for any society’s health and stability. The second question concerns external actors: in such moments, why do some prefer unconstructive interference, heightening tensions and destabilizing rather than fostering dialogue and tolerance?

He emphasizes that peaceful protest is an integral part of social and political life in every country. No functioning society can advance its development without the right to express discontent and demand changes. At the same time, he notes that, in Iran, Armenia, and many other places around the world, history shows that when protests move beyond the civilian sphere and merge with threats to public safety, destructive actions, violence, and instability ensue, the first victims are the society itself and its social capital.

For Armenia’s public, the ambassador says, this pattern is not unfamiliar. He recalls that political violence and the radicalization of protests—especially when intertwined with geopolitical competition or external pressure—target stable democracy, citizen safety, and well-being, producing only instability, social harm, and eroded public trust. Accordingly, he frames the distinction between lawful protests and destructive violence as an accepted national principle in Armenian political culture, one that transcends partisan divides and remains essential to national cohesion.

On the level of both words and deeds, Shirgholami stresses that rejecting violence does not amount to repudiating the right to protest. Rather, it is a stance of protecting society—defending citizens, national security, daily life, and the possibility of gradual, peaceful resolution of problems within the country. Historical experience, he notes, shows that movements that either consciously or inadvertently escalate tension and destructive acts often revive a crisis cycle that exacts a heavy price from all involved. During such destructive episodes, national symbols and cherished signs—like the flag—are misused, and agitators and separatists, ignoring the country’s past and the people’s national identity, become willing to accept external factors or other states playing a role in determining their fate. They can become so immersed in the atmosphere of upheaval that some even desire an external aggressor to attack their land to realize their supposed aims. The group behind these actions tends to live outside the Iranian borders, drawing social support from “external backing” and wielding incitement and the misappropriation of emotions to inflame protests.

The ambassador portrays the defense of those advocating reactionary secession as a tragic echo of a century-old catastrophe. He invokes historical currents in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s when some movements viewed Nazi Germany’s aggression toward its own country as a “path to salvation,” a “political purification,” or a “restoration of national order.” He lists figures such as Jacques Doriot and Marcel Déat in France, Anton Mussert in the Netherlands, Ioannis Rallis in Greece, and Horia Sima in Romania as exemplars of leaders who harmed their nations by leading their peoples toward catastrophe. The parallel is meant to remind readers that such currents, while divergent in origin, share the same dangerous impulse: to gamble with the fate of a country in pursuit of extremist aims.

Iran, like Armenia, is a cradle of ancient civilization. The ambassador notes that Iran’s cultural memory—embodied in myths such as Rostam and Sohrab and the broader epic tradition—offers not only heroic poetry but a warning about the dangers of acting hastily or misjudging dialogue. Within this mythic context, Afrāsib is invoked as a force seeking to incite internal conflict by pitting father against son, aiming to destabilize Iran from within. The tale is presented as a cultural cautionary reminder: when violence supplant reason and conversation, an entire nation risks ruin. Across ages, Iran has risen from setbacks and continued to endure—an arc the ambassador insists is a shared heritage with Armenia, another ancient land with a long memory of defending sovereignty and pursuing dialogue under pressure.

Shirgholami describes this reflection as a report, not a judgment, intended for a friendly neighbor. For constructive dialogue about Iran, he proposes universal principles: rejection of violence, preservation of civil security, respect for national sovereignty, and a clear boundary between peaceful protest and destructive conduct. He stresses that these principles are not exclusively Eastern or Western, nor are they the property of any government or opposition. Rather, they are the minimum norms to help any society navigate disagreement without sliding into chaos, ensuring that legitimate grievances can be addressed through orderly, peaceful means.

As the ambassador to Armenia, Shirgholami concludes that both nations have lived at history’s crossroads, and both know that instability is easy to provoke but difficult to end. The shared experience of two ancient peoples, he suggests, offers valuable grounds for deeper mutual understanding and solidarity. He closes with a hopeful exhortation for continued companionship and restraint, hoping that both peoples can preserve the space for peaceful discourse even amid disagreements, and that external actors will respect each country’s right to chart its own path toward stability and development.

Final note: the ambassador’s message is framed as a constructive, cross-border appeal to prioritize civil safety and dialogue over violence and destabilization, underscoring shared values while acknowledging distinct national experiences. The path forward, in his view, lies in principled, nonviolent civic engagement and respect for sovereignty as a common foundation for enduring peace between Iran and Armenia.

In a world of shifting alliances and geopolitical strains, this appeal to universal norms—peaceful protest within the boundaries of public safety, respect for sovereignty, and avoidance of externally driven destabilization—seeks to reinforce resilience and mutual trust between two ancient neighbors navigating a complex regional landscape.