South Africa’s defence and foreign policy credibility has come under scrutiny with political parties represented in parliament formally requesting urgent action on the inclusion of Iranian warships in a naval exercise.
This was after the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) commander-in-chief President Cyril Ramaphosa instructed that Iran be excluded from active participation.
Iran, a South African ally in the Middle East, is in direct conflict with Israel, and the US has threatened increased tariffs on countries close to Iran. Its involvement could further complicate an already tense relationship between SA and the US.
The DA has called for an urgent debate in parliament while ActionSA has written to parliament’s joint standing committee on defence requesting an immediate inquiry.
Both parties are querying the involvement of the Iranian navy in a Brics naval drill after Ramaphosa’s instruction that it be exempted.
Yet, Iranian naval vessels were observed participating in the “Exercise Will for Peace 2026″ off Simon’s Town.
In a statement, the DA said “What is now unfolding looks less like confusion and more like defiance within the SANDF”, the DA said in a statement. “When senior officers publicly signal one direction and events on the ground follow that direction, parliament is entitled to ask a hard question: was lawful civilian authority ignored?”
The party said parliament must establish whether a presidential instruction existed and, if so, why it was not enforced.
ActionSA rejected the internal board of inquiry announced by the defence minister, arguing that it cannot be a substitute for parliamentary oversight. In its submission to the committee, the party said: “If an instruction was issued by the president and communicated as stated by the minister, the public must be assured that it was carried out.” ActionSA warned that any failure to comply would constitute a breach of the constitutional chain of command.
Lack of clarification
The defining feature of the controversy remains the absence of formal executive communication. The presidency has not published a directive, clarification or record setting out the scope of the president’s instruction.
The defence department has likewise failed to table documentation confirming compliance. Instead, the public record has been shaped by contradictory SANDF statements, deleted official communications and retrospective explanations issued only after the exercise had concluded.
Some reports indicated that Iran had withdrawn, but the SANDF later confirmed participation. This contradiction remains unresolved.
The South African constitution says command of the defence force vests in the president.
If a presidential instruction is disputed or not implemented, parliament’s oversight role is triggered. ActionSA has argued that only parliament is empowered to determine whether civilian control of the military has been compromised.
Defence minister Angie Motshekga’s handling of the matter has intensified scrutiny of her stewardship of the portfolio.
Lawful instruction
The board of inquiry was announced only after Iranian participation had already occurred and is framed around questions of “misrepresentation or misunderstanding”, rather than the central issue of operational compliance with a lawful instruction.
No timelines, interim reporting obligations or accountability measures have been published and parliament has not been briefed on the board’s mandate or authority. To date, the minister has not tabled documentary evidence demonstrating that the president’s instruction, if issued, was transmitted to and executed by SANDF command.
The naval exercise has therefore become a test of whether ministerial authority over the SANDF is being effectively exercised.
The issue has also attracted direct international comment. In a public post on X, the US embassy in Pretoria said: “The US notes with concern and alarm reports that the minister of defence and SANDF defied a government order regarding Iran’s participation in the ongoing naval exercises.”
Non-alignment
The statement added that Iran’s inclusion “undermines maritime security and regional stability”. It said permitting Iranian military forces to operate in South African waters “isn’t non-alignment”.
Any assessment of Tehran’s engagement must be grounded in its domestic and regional position.
Iran is confronting its most severe internal crisis in decades. Protests that intensified in late 2025 in response to economic collapse and political repression have been met with sustained and lethal security crackdowns.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report at least 28 confirmed deaths between December 31 2025 and January 3 2026, alongside tens of thousands of detentions.
Sanctions have further constrained Iran’s economy, sharply reducing oil exports, accelerating inflation and deepening poverty. Regionally, Iran continues to sustain proxy networks in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon and remains engaged in direct and indirect confrontation with Israel and the US.
South Africa’s engagement with Iran therefore sits uneasily alongside its stated commitment to human rights and international law.
That tension mirrors broader contradictions in its foreign policy. While Pretoria has pursued litigation against Israel at the International Court of Justice and downgraded diplomatic representation, it has simultaneously maintained substantial trade with Israel.
Trade data show South Africa exported about $178m in goods to Israel in 2024 with coal and related energy products accounting for the largest share.
In late 2025, monthly exports exceeded R500m, more than 80% of which comprised coal and energy commodities. These trade flows continued even as South Africa positioned itself as a leading legal critic of Israel’s conduct.
Similar inconsistencies are evident elsewhere. South Africa’s repeated abstentions at the UN on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its engagement with figures implicated in severe human rights abuses in Sudan reflect an external posture shaped as much by geopolitical alignment and economic calculation as by normative consistency.
Institutional authority
What distinguishes the naval exercise controversy is that it brings these contradictions into the domestic constitutional arena.
The question before parliament is not ideological alignment but institutional authority: whether executive instructions were clearly issued and lawfully implemented and whether the minister responsible exercised effective oversight of the defence force.
Until authoritative, contemporaneous communication is produced clarifying the president’s instruction and demonstrating its execution, the episode will continue to raise serious questions about civilian control of the military and the coherence of South Africa’s defence and foreign policy contradictions.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.