Zarif and Khamenei Called to Account; A Case of Contradiction

A single short phrase among thousands of Zarif's statements during his tenure was enough for a request for his impeachment to be sent to the parliamentary board, and he was summoned to the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Parliament to answer for his remarks. If Zarif's response in the commission is not convincing, representatives can refer the impeachment issue to the open session of the Parliament. Then, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be obliged to defend his words in the open session of the Parliament; defending a very short statement. In an interview, he stated: "Money laundering is a reality in our country, and many benefit from money laundering. I do not want to attribute this money laundering to any specific place; however, there are places that launder thousands of billions." This short phrase was enough to provoke some. Ahmad Alamolhoda, the Friday prayer leader of Mashhad, considered Zarif's statement as "evidence for the enemy." Sadeq Larijani, the head of the judiciary, likened Zarif's remarks to a "dagger in the heart of the system." Several members of Parliament described Zarif's statement as "malicious" and "unsubstantiated," and eventually submitted the impeachment proposal to the parliamentary board. There is no doubt that such conflicts have always existed in the disputes between the two sides of the government, and this harsh reaction to Zarif is not a new issue. What is new is that this statement by Zarif, compared to, for example, two and a half years of nuclear negotiations that gradually involved the Parliament in sensitive nuclear negotiations, was a very "short phrase" that seemingly unveiled a "hidden secret" and a significant secret that should not be revealed. This hidden secret can be traced elsewhere. In the human rights dossier, the Islamic Republic has not allowed any of the human rights reporters appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to visit Iran. Meanwhile, Iran claims that if it had a program to hide, it would not allow thousands of hours of inspections of sensitive nuclear sites. The fact that the Islamic Republic is willing to accept inspectors on the nuclear issue but not on human rights is itself evidence that the human rights dossier of the Islamic Republic, like the issue of money laundering, has a hidden secret that must remain "sealed" even if it requires silencing Zarif with threats of impeachment. The claim is not that the Parliament does not have the right to impeach. The claim is why this harsh reaction to this short phrase? The answer to this question must be sought in the concerns of the "worried ones" about the consequences of Zarif's statements. This time, the worried ones are concerned that following this remark by a high-ranking official of the system, "evidence" will fall into the hands of the "enemy," and inevitably the system will have to submit to a commitment to clear itself of accusations that it submitted to under nuclear pressures, but this time in the form of the "bill to amend the anti-money laundering law," which has sparked a significant uproar within the system. This bill was presented to the Parliament by the government in line with Iran's commitments to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to remove Iran from the organization's blacklist, but after being approved by the Parliament, it faced opposition from the Guardian Council and was also rejected by the Expediency Discernment Council. The worried ones are well aware that the approval of this bill would shed light on the corridors of money laundering that, according to Zarif, "launder thousands of billions" in Iran. Coincidentally, those involved in money laundering should be considered the same ones who are worried about the approval of this bill; worried about a small statement that reveals a significant secret. This is exactly like Zarif saying one day, "Human rights violations are a reality in our country." Do you think Alamolhoda's reaction would be anything but considering this as evidence for the enemy? Would Sadeq Larijani not say that this is a dagger in the heart of the system? Would some representatives not proceed with Zarif's impeachment? I saw that now Zarif is on the verge of impeachment for a short statement. Certainly, the sensitivity of governmental institutions - for whatever motivation - towards the slightest word or action of a government official is commendable, but on the condition that this sensitivity applies to the entire body of the government. But is this the case? For example, Ayatollah Khamenei has now held the leadership of the country for over three decades. His powers are not limited to a ministry like a minister. His powers exceed even that of a president who has received millions of votes. He is the absolute leader. His powers - according to some interpretations - exceed the powers outlined in the constitution for the leader. Given this description, how has his accountability been for his actions and words? Has he ever been accountable for even three minutes in front of a media outlet - even domestic media - in over three decades? For example, has the leader's office ever provided a report on its income and expenditures? How is it conceivable that Zarif must be accountable for his short statement while the leader has not been accountable for his three decades of leadership? Furthermore, has the Assembly of Experts, as the supervisory body over the leader, ever provided a report on its evaluations of the leader's performance? The answers to these questions are clear to all. However, what clarifies the system's contradiction is the suppression of the slightest requests, which has recently been made by the "Justice-Seeking Student Assembly of Tehran University," sending a letter to the leader of the Islamic Republic requesting him to "explain" the "40-year performance" of the Islamic Republic and the institutions under his supervision. These students emphasized that they want to create an "opportunity" for Ayatollah Khamenei to respond regarding "the institutions under the leadership's management such as the General Staff of the Armed Forces from the Revolutionary Guards to the Army and law enforcement forces, and appointed institutions including the judiciary, state media, the Foundation of the Oppressed, the Executive Headquarters of Imam's Command, etc.," as well as "guiding and resolving unusual conflicts and regulating the relationships of elected institutions including the government and the Parliament." Holding the leader accountable in a system of absolute clerical rule is a perplexing issue when we recall that the leader has even abandoned the kind-hearted advice of religious authorities, let alone being accountable to students regarding several decades of absolute leadership. It is no coincidence that Abdollah Ganji, the editor-in-chief of the Young Newspaper affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, considered this demand as "attacking the last bastion" of the system, namely the leader of the Islamic Republic. In short, in the Islamic Republic system, Zarif's demand for clarification about money laundering is a "dagger in the heart of the system," while the students' demand for the leader's accountability is "attacking the last bastion of the system." With this description, find the relationship between "money laundering" and the "system."