Commentary: Zarif and the Extremism of Distorting Iran's Realities

Recent statements by Javad Zarif during a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States have sparked numerous reactions in the public sphere in Iran. He explicitly defended compulsory hijab as a cultural feature of Iranian society and a legal dress code, claiming that the people of Iran have the right to protest and express their dissatisfaction similarly to other countries. He stated that despite Iran's high economic growth, people have higher expectations and are unhappy with the economic situation, attributing part of the reasons for the nationwide protests in December to the U.S. government's stringent policies and the failure to implement commitments related to the JCPOA! He described the Islamic Republic as a type of democracy, only referencing ballot boxes while remaining silent on the lack of free and fair elections and the disproportionate powers of the appointed institution of the Supreme Leader compared to the responsibilities of the presidency. These remarks, which present a false framing of Iran's political issues, have ignited a discussion on how to respond to the dual approach and distorted portrayal of political constraints in Iran by someone who was once regarded by a significant portion of the Iranian public. This is not the first time Zarif has made unfounded claims; he has repeatedly denied the existence of political and ideological prisoners in international press interviews. By denying the government-nation divide, he has attributed the tactical and negative voting of a significant portion of voters to the legitimacy of the regime. Throughout his tenure as Foreign Minister, strong statements have been issued against the documented reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights violations in Iran, which have shown no significant difference from the positions taken during Ahmadinejad's administration. In fact, the alleged moderation of the tenth and eleventh governments regarding human rights issues in the Foreign Ministry has not materialized, and no capacity or flexibility for dialogue has been observed. A deep examination of Zarif's views over the past three decades clearly shows that he has been pursuing a pragmatic narrative of the Islamic Republic's confrontational foreign policy that can advance with minimal costs. He accepted the principle of confrontational policy under the title of anti-hegemony but simultaneously wanted this policy to be implemented in a way that would not disrupt the development process. However, what has made the baseless claims more pronounced this time is the changing landscape of Iran's domestic and foreign policy. Zarif's moderate image was for a time when the regime was retreating under the guise of 'heroic flexibility,' providing an opportunity for him to take on the difficult task of engaging with the then U.S. government while giving minimal concessions. The outcry of the regime's hardline faction and their efforts to manage the space to mitigate the consequences of the nuclear deal created a favorable environment for portraying Zarif as a symbol of moderation and reconciliation in foreign policy. His long-standing relationships with the circle of forces advocating for engagement with the Islamic Republic in the U.S., led by John Kerry, also helped reduce the sensitivities of the U.S. government relatively. A combination of these factors and the success in achieving a comprehensive nuclear agreement suddenly made Zarif appear as a quasi-hero. While it was clear at that time that this image-making was nothing but a bubble, especially with the Ahmadinejad administration's exaggeration and raising expectations by Zarif, the emptiness of Zarif's hands would soon become evident. This happened in less than two years as Zarif gradually lost his social popularity, similar to the special spatial and temporal conditions of the years 2013 to 2015. A deep examination of Zarif's views over the past three decades clearly shows that he has been pursuing a pragmatic narrative of the Islamic Republic's confrontational foreign policy that can advance with minimal costs. He accepted the principle of confrontational policy under the title of anti-hegemony but simultaneously wanted this policy to be implemented in a way that would not disrupt the development process. However, the existing conflict between the strategic and tactical aspects or the discursive and practical aspects of his approach rendered it imaginative and unrealistic, forming the main basis of his deadlock in moderating foreign policy and building trust in the world. In domestic politics, Zarif has always held positions similar to conservatives and those known as loyalists and has never adopted reformist or critical positions. The orientation towards the new face of Javad Zarif, especially his falsehoods, is an important test for distinguishing Iranian politicians and elites regarding the coherence of their positions and adherence to honesty and transparency as absolute values. The importance of a clear stance against his incorrect positions and speaking unjustly on behalf of the Iranian people in favor of the institution of the Supreme Leader and authoritarians lies in creating a deterrent against the deepening of lies in politics. The regime's decision to reduce the JCPOA to a case-by-case deal with the U.S. and maintain a confrontational foreign policy quickly undermined Zarif's moderate character, and he became the showcase of the regime's regional policy to justify the Islamic Republic's aggressive regional policies both domestically and abroad using the reputation he gained during the nuclear negotiations. This dual approach of Zarif, especially in Syria and in defense of the ruthless dictator of that country, showed that he, in performing the bureaucratic role, pays no attention to idealistic and ethical issues. After the Trump administration began and pressures on the Islamic Republic increased, and the perspective that valued the risk of testing a cooperative policy with Tehran's officials was removed from the U.S. government, the environment became harder for Zarif. The expansion of despair regarding the moderate government during Rouhani's second presidency, especially with the outbreak of street protests, has led to the end of Zarif's temporary softness. In the past year, he has been the least active minister of Rouhani's government in terms of attention to electoral promises, and his positions have been limited to adopting harsh stances in response to Trump, the Saudi ruling elite, and the Israeli government. Therefore, the intensification of his dual approach in this framework is understandable. Of course, given the aggressive approach of the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia, it is natural for the Iranian foreign minister's tone to change and lean towards reaction; however, the discourse Zarif has chosen in the past year, contrary to his previous identity, belongs to hardline conservatives and is outside diplomatic norms. Zarif's responses regarding the poor conditions of women and religious minorities in Iran, in addition to being incorrect, reflect a clumsy attempt to conceal the truths. It is evident that the mere belief in a dissenting religion does not lead to confrontation, and the prisons of the Islamic Republic do not have the capacity for security and judicial confrontations for millions of non-Shia believers in the Imam's line and the rule of the jurist. The discussion is about systematic rights violations and the existence of religious and ideological discrimination. Baha'i citizens in Iran struggle with significant inequalities in education and employment, and along with other religious minorities such as Sunnis, Jews, Assyrians, Armenians, Zoroastrians, etc., suffer from a lack of religious freedom and various restrictions. His claim justifying compulsory hijab as a cultural and formal dress code, while even within the regime, dissenting voices are heard, reflects an uncalculated and weakly founded approach. Dress customs in free societies are based on social norms and agreements. In Iran, such conditions do not exist regarding compulsory hijab. He states that no one is reprimanded for their style of dress inside their homes and implicitly considers this a privilege! The comparison of being unveiled with nudity was also a ridiculous analogy that is of the same nature as the rhetoric of pressure groups and Basijis. However, the peak of Zarif's fallacy was in comparing protests in Iran with those in the U.S. and France. The U.S. and France are democratic countries where protests are recognized, and the existence of shortcomings there is vastly different from the Islamic Republic, which is an authoritarian regime that responds to peaceful protests with batons, beatings, bullets, and imprisonment. Contrary to his claims, the political system in Iran does not pay attention to protest demands. However, Zarif's falsehood is not the main issue; although some in society become disillusioned and distrustful of politicians, ultimately, he himself suffers. The path he is currently on has a worse outcome than that of Saeed Jalili for him, and due to his dual behavior, he will be rejected by both poles of society. The major problem is the type of response from some political and civil elites who have remained silent in the face of the recent Zarif. The consequences of this double standard, which stirs up the lies of Ahmadinejad's government, but remains silent or justifies similar behavior from Rouhani's government and its foreign minister, are problematic. Zarif's current identity, unlike his previous image, poses significantly more harm to Iran's national interests than the presence of a conservative figure in the Foreign Ministry. As a minister of a government relying on a 24 million vote and higher diplomatic capabilities, he could better respond to the legitimacy crisis of the government in the global community. In 2013, his activities aligned with the interests of the country and the wishes of the people, but now he has taken a contradictory direction. Knowledge and skills of technocracy are not inherently valuable; it depends on where these capabilities are applied. It now seems that Zarif's abilities are serving the delineated lines of the institution of the Supreme Leader in another confrontation with the West and the survival of an enemy-centered foreign policy, which is in clear conflict with national interests and the demands of the Iranian people. Therefore, the orientation towards the new face of Javad Zarif, especially his falsehoods, is an important test for distinguishing Iranian politicians and elites regarding the coherence of their positions and adherence to honesty and transparency as absolute values. The importance of a clear stance against his incorrect positions and speaking unjustly on behalf of the Iranian people in favor of the institution of the Supreme Leader and authoritarians lies in creating a deterrent against the deepening of lies in politics.