Iranian Ambassador's Attempts to Reinterpret Georgia's History Draw Backlash

By Malkhaz Matsaberidze

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Iran's ambassador to Georgia has faced growing backlash over a series of statements concerning Shah Abbas I's actions against Georgia in the early 17th century. He first described the forced deportation of Georgians to Iran as the "arrival of Georgians in Iran" and marked the occasion. More recently, on the day commemorating Queen Ketevan, he appeared to question the established historical narrative surrounding her martyrdom. The controversy prompted the Foreign Ministry to summon him and tell him to refrain from interpreting Georgia's history and domestic affairs.

Iranian Ambassador Seyed Ali Mojani, who holds a master's degree in history, wrote on social media that he was preparing to publish his own research and "findings" on the life and history of Queen Ketevan. The facade of the Iranian Embassy in Tbilisi was also symbolically illuminated with a projection of Queen Ketevan's image.

Ketevan is a canonized Georgian monarch who was tortured and executed by the Persians in the 17th century after refusing to convert to Islam. The ambassador's remarks about the need for "reinterpretation" and "different histories" were widely understood as questioning the established account of Ketevan's martyrdom and provoked an extremely negative reaction.

The reaction was further intensified by the fact that this was not the first controversial reference to Georgia's history by the Iranian Embassy. On February 11 this year, the embassy held a reception marking the 47th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The invitation described the occasion as the "410th anniversary of the arrival of Georgians in Iran." Four hundred and ten years ago was 1616 - part of the period of Shah Abbas I's campaigns (1614-1617), when Georgians were forcibly deported en masse from the Kingdom of Kakheti to Iran.

The bloody campaigns carried out by Shah Abbas I against Georgia, the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of Georgians, particularly to Fereydan, and the devastation of the country remain one of the greatest tragedies in Georgian history.

The embassy's presentation of the deportations as the "arrival" of Georgians in Iran, followed by the ambassador's comments about Queen Ketevan, was perceived by critics as an attempt to recast a history of violence as a story of cultural exchange.

Individual members of the clergy and representatives of civil society strongly condemned the ambassador's initiative. They described it as an attempt to distort an episode that is sacred to the Georgian Church and nation. Opposition politicians likewise criticized the ambassador's statements and his plans to publish research on Ketevan.

Leaders and politicians from opposition parties described the planned research as "absolute nonsense," a "strange text," and an attempt to rewrite or falsify history. Some called the ambassador's statements an insult to Georgia's national sentiments and historical memory and said his actions went beyond the bounds of his diplomatic mandate.

Members of the parliamentary majority, including Irakli Kadagishvili, also criticized the ambassador's conduct, saying that diplomats must observe diplomatic ethics and the limits of their mandate. They called on him to respect diplomatic norms and said that such interpretations of Georgia's history were unacceptable.

The unusual point is that the government itself responded. The Foreign Ministry summoned the ambassador and told him that diplomatic representatives accredited in Georgia must strictly observe the limits of their mandate and refrain from statements that are sensitive and unacceptable with regard to the country's historical memory and national sentiments.

The summons is noteworthy given the relatively warm relations the government has maintained with Iran in recent months. The decision to respond publicly and formally suggests that the issue of Queen Ketevan was considered a particularly sensitive one-and potentially one whose disregard would have carried a domestic political cost.

The ambassador has publicly said that he wants to introduce modern Iran directly to Georgian society and often emphasizes their shared cultural heritage. This may explain his focus on historical and cultural ties, although that remains speculation. Whatever his intention, the response in Georgia has been the opposite of what such cultural diplomacy would normally seek to achieve.

The situation is not over yet. The ambassador has announced that he will publish the preliminary results of his research, which he says will draw on documents and historical sources preserved in Iran and Georgia. He has stressed that the material will represent his personal assessment rather than an official or definitive account. How he frames those findings, and whether Tehran takes any official position, could determine whether the controversy escalates further.