For years, the Munich Security Conference has sought to present itself as an informal yet professional venue for difficult security dialogue—a place to hear diverse voices, even those that diverge sharply. The deliberate exclusion of Iran as a UN member state and an influential regional player marks a clear departure from this tradition and a slide into overt politicization.
This decision turns the conference from an analytical forum into a platform for political pressure, calling into question its credibility among independent actors. Security, without neutrality, becomes an instrument of power—and this is precisely the path Munich now appears to be taking.
Security Without States: A Clear Strategic Contradiction
In the international system, the concept of security is inherently state-centric. Whether or not it is favored by the West, Iran is a principal component of Middle Eastern, Persian Gulf, energy, transit, and counterterrorism security equations. Deliberately ignoring such an actor, particularly amid intensifying regional crises, neither strengthens security analysis nor helps manage tensions.
A conference that claims to address global security while avoiding dialogue with real actors effectively reduces security to an abstract and performative concept. This strategic contradiction drains Munich of its core function.
Opposition and an Anti-Security Role: From Narrative to Blood
Granting a platform to opposition groups that in recent years have not only failed to play a constructive role but have, in multiple instances, participated in destabilization efforts and hybrid warfare against Iran constitutes a serious security miscalculation. Some of these currents have openly or implicitly aligned themselves with what Iran calls the “terrorist regimes” of the United States and Israel—states that, in Tehran’s view, have a direct record in designing, supporting, and carrying out terrorist operations and killings of Iranian citizens.
Ignoring this reality while presenting these groups under the banner of “civil society” amounts, in this perspective, to sanitizing violence and disregarding the blood of terror victims in Iran. This approach sacrifices security for politics.
Reverse Consequences: Weakening Order and Dialogue
Policies of exclusion and rejection have never led to sustainable security. Leaving Iran out of such gatherings does not heal divisions; it deepens mistrust and blocks diplomatic channels. If the Munich Security Conference seeks to remain truly relevant, it will inevitably need to embrace the logic of dialogue with all actors, even those at odds with one another.
Otherwise, the event risks becoming a loud but ineffective forum, a place for reproducing clichés rather than addressing real global security crises.
NOURNEWS