After Iran issued public warnings to Bulgaria and stated that countries that support American operations will have to bear the consequences, the natural first reaction of a sovereign state should have been an official diplomatic demarche.
This was written by Daniel Mitov on "Facebook".
The Iranian ambassador should have been summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and asked for a clear explanation as to whether the words of the Iranian officials were a threat to Bulgaria, to Bulgarian citizens or to objects on the territory of the country?
This is not a matter of unnecessary belligerence, but a minimum standard of state dignity.
Instead, the Bulgarian Foreign Minister himself sought out his Iranian counterpart and began the conversation, at least according to the Bulgarian statement, with assurances of "good relations", "mutual trust" and the desire to develop bilateral dialogue.
He then assured Tehran that Bulgaria would not take direct military action and that the decision did not mean a change in our attitude towards Iran.
So arranged, the conversation creates the impression not of de-escalation from the position of a sovereign state, but of an explanatory regime after a threat.
In diplomacy, the order of actions is part of the message itself. When a foreign country first warns Bulgaria of "consequences," and then the Bulgarian minister calls it to assure it of his good intentions, Tehran receives a signal that its pressure has produced results. Bulgaria turns out to be the country that explains, calms down and proves that it is not hostile, while Iran continues to insist that the National Assembly reconsider its decision.
The correct diplomatic sequence would be the opposite.
1. Official protest against any ambiguous suggestion of retaliatory actions against Bulgaria
2. Insist that Iran guarantees that it does not consider Bulgarian citizens, institutions and infrastructure as a possible target.
3. Only after that, a conversation at the political level to reduce tension and clarify the Bulgarian position.
Bulgaria is a member of NATO and has a strategic partnership with the United States. It determines for itself how it fulfills these commitments within the framework of the Constitution and international law.
Iran has the right to express disagreement, but it does not have the right to claim a veto over the decisions of the Bulgarian parliament through threatening formulations.
The formulation that the decision “in no way means a change in Bulgaria's approach to Iran“ is particularly inappropriate. Foreign policy is not a promise to a foreign country that regardless of its behavior, our approach will not change. Bulgaria's approach should depend precisely on the behavior of the respective country. Including whether it makes threats to us.
The Bulgarian position in this case is problematic because it is formulated in such a way that it can be perceived as fear.
The mistake is not the conversation with Iran. The mistake is that before this conversation, Bulgaria did not publicly defend its right to make decisions on its own. It did not officially protest against the warnings of consequences. He did not ask for guarantees for the security of Bulgarian citizens and sites. And in its own statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept silent about the most critical part of the Iranian minister's position.
When the parliament has made a decision, our foreign minister must explain and defend it. Not create the impression that he is apologizing for it.