Diplomacy and the Taboo of Contact

The concept of "taboo" is the cornerstone of primitive human law. Among early tribes, a taboo was never merely a civic rule; it was a prohibition steeped in sacred dread. In archaic logic, whoever violated this invisible perimeter was not merely a transgressor—they became contaminated and impure. This contamination functioned like a virulent pathogen, capable of contagion, instantly transforming the violator into an ominous outcast in the eyes of the clan. For this reason, no one dared approach the taboo subject.

One might assume this ritualistic fear has long been buried in the graveyard of history. Yet observing the conduct of statesmen in certain—predominantly ideological—regimes, our own included, reveals that the spirit of that primitive ancestor still stalks the corridors of power. Here, decisions and discourse are not measured on the scales of national interest or codified law, but filtered through the unwritten "state taboo-system." And the taller a regime's ideological walls, the thicker its registry of prohibitions.

In Iran, we confront a mountain of such taboos: the taboo of naming certain countries, the taboo of speaking with dignitaries from forbidden states, the taboo of mentioning figures like Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the taboo of associating with dissidents, religious minorities, the wealthy, and sometimes the underclass, the taboo of broadcasting a woman’s singing voice, or displaying a musical instrument on television. Yet the common thread unifying all these prohibitions is a single word: "Contact."

In tribal logic, contact with a taboo entity brands an indelible mark of shame onto one's forehead. Terrified of this ideological stigma, our politicians paralyze themselves lest they risk ritual defilement. We witnessed this diplomatic paralysis in its rawest form at the United Nations General Assembly: Israel’s ambassador stood smugly with a Starlink device in hand, openly mocking the Iranian delegation.

What was our diplomat’s response? Silence, and slumping deeper into his chair. Instead of rising with sharp political wit to turn the spectacle against its architects, he shrank in fright. He could have retorted right there: "Connect to the internet with that very Starlink and search the international laws on war crimes! Read the Torah’s strict injunctions against slaying the innocent! Look at the images of dismembered children in Gaza and Lebanon, and examine the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu!"

Yet he uttered not a word. He was terrified of the "taboo of contacting an Israeli." He knew that even if he opened his mouth in defense of Iran, domestic hardliners would put him on trial for "breaking the taboo and conversing with the enemy." He preferred to stay mute rather than be cast out at home as a political leper.

Across the aisle, American and Israeli leaders understand this psychological arena masterfully, exploiting our absence and passivity to the hilt. Breaching normal diplomatic protocol, they speak directly to the Iranian populace via video messages and social platforms. Posing as benevolent saviors, they target the thoughts and emotions of Iranian society—promising everything from civil liberties and free markets to desalination technology and prosperity.

The catastrophic weakness of our establishment in public diplomacy and narrative warfare stems directly from this ideological fear of domestic extremists. Abandoning this battlefield is tantamount to leaving the castle gates wide open to predatory adversaries—simply because the garrison fears that engaging the enemy verbally will soil their ideological robes. Although the state has yet to dismantle these self-defeating taboos, safeguarding Iran requires transcending these stigmas. Statecraft demands astute acumen, wisdom, and proactive agency—not howling slogans at home while staying tongue-tied abroad!

With crucial elections approaching in the United States and Israel amid heightened regional volatility, the playbook must change. Senior figures, such as President Pezeshkian or Speaker Ghalibaf, must courageously shatter the taboo of contact and address the American and Israeli publics directly. They should look them in the eye and say: "By elevating deranged politicians, you have set the world order ablaze; the blood of tens of thousands of innocents from Lebanon to Gaza and Minab is on your hands for voting for the likes of Trump and Netanyahu." Adopting the very posture of benevolence that Trump and Netanyahu use toward the Iranian people, they should project Iran's resolve and defensive preparedness, issuing a solemn moral warning to American troops and Israeli citizens: "Save yourselves and leave this region before it is too late." Elections are merely an immediate example; proactive, sophisticated public diplomacy is a sustained imperative, not an episodic tactic.

Adherence to unwritten taboos—whose breach is met with severe domestic punishment—has inflicted irrecoverable damage on our national interests. The hour has arrived to outgrow this archaic, tribal mentality. In the ruthless arena of international politics, no one awards medals of purity to terrified diplomats.