Zarif Changes the Subject and Makes a Preemptive Move

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister, participated in a meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States on Tuesday, April 23. In addition to giving a speech, he answered questions about various political and social issues in Iran. In response to a question about the status of religious minorities, especially the Baha'is, which referenced their repression and persecution, he stated that the Iranian Constitution recognizes three religious minorities: Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, and claimed that these religious minorities have privileges that, according to Zarif, cannot be granted to any other religious minority. Among these privileges, he mentioned that there are about twenty thousand Jews in Iran, and they have one representative in the parliament. Zarif continued by saying that followers of these religions live according to their religious laws and that Islamic laws are not imposed on them. These statements from the Iranian Foreign Minister come at a time when reports indicate that at least five church leaders have been killed in Iran since the 1979 revolution, and hundreds of Christians have faced persecution and interrogation, with many imprisoned. The publication of their holy books in Persian has been banned, and some churches have been closed, with restrictions on church ceremonies. Mehdi Mahdavi Azad, a journalist and political analyst in Germany, says that Zarif has ignored illegal actions in Iran: 'Mr. Zarif cleverly changes the subject and makes a preemptive move. He emphasizes that, for example, the Baha'i faith is not recognized in the Iranian Constitution. However, the main issue is not this, but rather that even the rights recognized in the Constitution are not enforced. In fact, Zarif ignores illegal actions and the continuous violation of the government's own citizen rights charter. Furthermore, Zarif's positions differ from those of the President's advisor on ethnic and minority affairs, Mr. Ali Yunusi, while Mr. Zarif himself spoke about human rights issues in Iran during a meeting with European Parliament representatives in February 2016. In that same meeting, European Parliament representatives raised criticisms regarding the repression of religious minorities, especially the Baha'is, and ethnic and sexual minorities. Zarif cleverly changes the subject and makes a preemptive move. He emphasizes that, for example, the Baha'i faith is not recognized in the Iranian Constitution. However, the main issue is not this, but rather that even the rights recognized in the Constitution are not enforced. In fact, Zarif ignores illegal actions and the continuous violation of the government's own citizen rights charter. At that time, because Iran was preparing for comprehensive negotiations with Europe, including human rights discussions, Zarif somewhat accepted criticisms and acknowledged that the human rights situation needed improvement. But now, apparently because these discussions have been taken off the agenda, Zarif has decided to essentially deny the core issue.' In another part of his speech, the Iranian Foreign Minister also stated that there is no gender or religious discrimination in Iran. Mehrdad Darvishpour, a sociologist and university professor in Stockholm, Sweden, says: 'The statements made by Mr. Zarif, unfortunately, remind me in some ways of Goebbels, the German Minister of Propaganda, who said that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe. When he emphasized that Iranian laws are not discriminatory, he was telling the first big lie. Iranian laws, whether in the area of gender and women or in the area of religious minorities, have institutionalized discrimination in the most blatant form possible. The second point is that Mr. Zarif specifically mentioned that if some religious minorities or groups under pressure have representatives in parliament, it is because we cannot exactly ask them what beliefs they hold or do not hold. This is also a big lie. Not only do we not have proportional representation in parliament, for example, regarding women, but the mere fact that someone is a woman or belongs to an ethnic or religious minority is not determinative in itself. What matters is what demands they raise. Therefore, if women in parliament defend the most anti-women laws or bring their bills, their presence does not mean that we are free from gender discrimination or gender oppression; rather, sometimes these women play a much worse role than many other men in interpreting mandatory hijab and anti-women laws.' In response to another question about prison sentences for women who do not observe Islamic hijab, an occurrence witnessed in recent months in Iran, the Iranian Foreign Minister stated that people in Iran have specific cultural and traditional values, and that there are different norms regarding sexual priorities in Iranian society compared to Western society. Mehrdad Darvishpour says: 'Mr. Zarif knows very well that the Islamic Republic of Iran has misogyny as one of its ideological foundations, which is essentially based on four pillars: the imposition of mandatory hijab and gender segregation, the enactment of discriminatory laws in the family and society for women and men, and the control of women's sexuality. The issues of segregation, discrimination, mandatory hijab, and control of sexuality are the main pillars of women's oppression in Iran. In all four areas, women are severely discriminated against and oppressed in Iranian society, and denying this issue by him is, in my opinion, one of the biggest lies being fed to the audience.' In another part of his speech, regarding the hijab issue, Zarif mentioned the distinction between public and private spaces, stating that no one should be punished or considered a criminal for actions they perform at home, and emphasized that what is important is the actions they take in the street. Mehrdad Darvishpour says: 'Regarding hijab, which he mentioned, there are laws in society that allow individuals to behave freely in their homes. First of all, the entire Iranian society has tasted the bitter experience of how the regime's police control has even intervened in family matters and, so to speak, has intruded into people's bedrooms. There have been the most severe interventions regarding people's clothing, makeup, and private matters, and this is one of the things you see when two people are sitting next to each other in a car; law enforcement can intervene and question what relationship you have, whether you are husband and wife or strangers. Therefore, apartheid sexual laws, mandatory hijab laws, and misogynistic laws have gripped people both in the private family sphere and in the social sphere. When a man can marry a child or beat his wife without worrying about legal consequences, or the dozens of difficulties women face, the idea that people are very free in their private sphere, whether regarding clothing or matters that allow women to feel comfortable, is a big lie. Mandatory hijab in Iranian society is part of the Islamic regime's display of power. Therefore, even with girls who have dared to remove this hijab in public, if they are arrested for having this repressive stance, even though there were only a few, it is because they are first worried that it could quickly spread to everyone and threaten one of the ideological foundations of the regime, and for the government, there is no difference between the public and private spheres.' Mehrdad Darvishpour emphasizes that mandatory hijab in Iranian society is part of the Islamic regime's display of power. Therefore, even with girls who have dared to remove this hijab in public, if they are arrested for having this repressive stance, even though there were only a few, it is because they are first worried that it could quickly spread to everyone and threaten one of the ideological foundations of the regime, and for the government, there is no difference between the public and private spheres. What Mohammad Javad Zarif presented at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, especially in response to questions regarding human rights and citizenship rights in Iran, according to Mehdi Mahdavi Azad, a political analyst, indicates serious changes in his views in recent months: 'Mr. Zarif has always been the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic. He did not claim to be in opposition or a human rights activist. He has always defended the actions of the government in some way or at least justified them or did not criticize them. However, in recent months, Zarif's positions have surprisingly changed and have moved closer to the hardline faction. In the same cases where Zarif previously remained silent or diplomatically stated that the judiciary is independent or that we have plans for improvement, he now surprisingly and unexpectedly defends the government's policies, such as this issue of minority rights, which I remember in 2013 Zarif emphasized in New York that the government had plans to improve the human rights and citizenship rights situation, but this year at this conference he is practically defending government policies. The reason for Zarif's change in positions is actually internal political changes or international developments. The reality is that Mr. Rouhani's government has clearly shifted to the right in its second term and has distanced itself from its slogans. At the same time, the unprecedented alliance of Washington-Tel Aviv-Riyadh has caused technocrat government officials to feel threatened and try to improve their differences with power centers like the IRGC, leadership, and judiciary. Therefore, we clearly see that some of Zarif's new positions are explicitly stated with the aim of gaining the approval of the hardline clergy or internal hardline centers in Iran, and no longer pay attention to what the international image of the government will be or what the supporters of the government expect.