"Attending the funeral of Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran definitely cannot be considered a friendly step toward the United States, or the West in general, and I do not think it fits into the so-called 'balancing' policy. This action is a kind of political statement," said Lasha Tugushi, head of the Liberal Academy, in an interview on PalitraNews' program "Day's Newsroom."

According to Tugushi, Mikheil Kavelashvili's trip to Iran will not be just a simple expression of condolences; it will be a certain step that will be followed by corresponding perception and actions from the West.

"If the president or a high-ranking official goes to the funeral of [Ayatollah Khamenei] in Iran, it is clear that this will not be perceived merely as an expression of condolences to a neighboring country. Because condolences to a neighboring country can be expressed, for example, by the attendance of that country's ambassador, who represents the state. But when the rank changes and it becomes a political official — especially the highest political official — then geopolitics enters the picture, and a political statement is made.

It is understandable that at a time when a war between the United States and Iran has not actually ended and is ongoing, this is clearly not just condolences — it is already a certain step, which will naturally be followed by perception and, of course, adequate responses from the United States.

This definitely cannot be considered a friendly step toward the US, or the West in general, and I do not think it fits into the so-called 'balancing' policy. It is understandable that it is a neighboring country and that one can express a position, but the level at which it is expressed matters, because this also carries symbolic weight — including symbolic-political weight — when the main politician goes to the funeral of a person who was killed in the context of war.

This may be a very difficult and heavy story, but you should think about how you participate in unraveling the knot of this story, what you are saying with this action, and what interpretation will follow from it.

It is possible that politicians from other countries will also attend, but if they are Western leaders, then that means something else entirely — it would mean additional conflictual development. However, I doubt we will see presidents or prime ministers from the West there. This step has its own clear message. From my point of view, this is a political message," Tugushi stated.

In the context of foreign policy, he also spoke about the departure of Germany's ambassador to Georgia, Peter Fischer, whose term had ended, and assessed the attitude that the authorities have toward the German ambassador and Germany in general. According to Tugushi, the statements by "Georgian Dream" resembled street-level settling of scores, which damaged relations between the two countries.

"Georgian Dream has spoiled relations with our main, historic partner. Georgia has always been a positive example for Germany in terms of their cooperation and relations in the Caucasus, and it has been possible to significantly damage this bridge.

One thing we should not forget is that we cannot in any case reduce this to the issue of one person when we are talking about an ambassador. Many people may be mistaken when they hear that supposedly [Peter Fischer] is a bad ambassador and a good ambassador will replace him, or that the ambassador acts independently, and so on. It is very unserious when you fight an ambassador so intensely and try to discredit him. Behind the ambassador stands the state, and this means that you have a dispute with the state. Yes, this was a pure settling of scores; it resembled street-level settling of scores and looked very unserious — not to mention harmful.

Germany was the strongest partner, the main ally, which was wholeheartedly trying to help and support us in European integration, and they targeted the ambassador of this country — meaning they targeted this country itself," Tugushi noted.

Regarding domestic politics, Tugushi spoke about the charges of so-called "sabotage" brought against opposition leaders. He stated that on one hand, the authorities are trying to sideline their opponents with this case, and on the other hand, they plan to dissolve opposition parties through a constitutional lawsuit in order to insure themselves ahead of the 2028 elections, in which, according to the analyst, they face a high probability of defeat.

"On one hand, the main opposition leaders are threatened with imprisonment on the so-called sabotage case and will be removed; on the other hand, the parties that these leaders represent — and which enjoy popular support, i.e., the parties that have crossed the electoral threshold — will be dissolved through the Constitutional Court. Essentially, they want to uproot the vast majority of the opposition.

I have no idea how they plan to negotiate with the West with this, because it is impossible to negotiate under these conditions. These people ['Georgian Dream'] are deliberately moving toward consolidating their own power. They want to remove certain risks and eliminate threats. The threats and risks mean that someone might beat them, including in the elections, because there is a very high probability that 'Georgian Dream' will lose the next elections. Therefore, they prefer the leaders to be in prison and the parties to be dissolved," Tugushi said.

Regarding the fact that during yesterday's court proceedings related to the so-called sabotage case, the name of Giorgi Gakharia was mentioned by a witness for the prosecution, Tugushi noted that "the confrontation that took place in parliament is clear confirmation of what fate may await Giorgi Gakharia and his party, despite their decision to enter parliament."

"Most likely, they will come up with some other story to charge Gakharia with sabotage. They will have no problem with that — it is already a matter of technique, what story they invent. My question is the other way around — why shouldn't Giorgi Gakharia be added? Is he guaranteed to play someone's game or what? We saw what happened in parliament and how they dealt with his party members. That incredibly shameful beating we witnessed in parliament is clear confirmation of what fate may await even that part of the opposition that decided to enter parliament. There is the same ruthless attitude toward them. The physical manifestation we saw is their general policy toward differing views," Lasha Tugushi stated.