Fight Over Iran’s Future: Zarif’s Diplomacy vs Hardline Resistance

by Ata Mohamed Tabriz

The recent article by Mohammad Javad Zarif has reignited the discursive battle between warmongers and proponents of diplomacy in Iran. In particular, his sentence "A prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz will build a global consensus against Iran, accompanied by China" has become a central point of contention between the two factions.

Zarif’s critics argue that by recommending the reopening of the Strait, he is paving the way for "Iran's surrender." Conversely, his supporters contend that the former Iranian Foreign Minister is attempting to prevent war and secure an honorable exit strategy.

Zarif, who seeks the survival of the Islamic Republic, sees the potential destruction of the regime in a military conflict. However, opponents view his writings as a signal to the United States and Israel. Hamid Rasaei, a hardline member of parliament, stated: "After Trump tore up the JCPOA, Rouhani and Zarif suffered from heartbreak and depression... Now Pezeshkian and occasionally Qalibaf are suffering from heartbreak too. If Rouhani's JCPOA saved you, this memorandum of understanding will save you as well. Wake up." Some Telegram channels affiliated with the IRGC went even further, criticizing the freedom of Rouhani and Zarif. Previously, on the streets of Tehran, opponents of an agreement burned images of former President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif, calling them "dishonorable" and chanting "Death to the American Zarif."

The Window of Opportunity Is Limited!

In his recent article, Zarif describes the signed memorandum between Tehran and Washington as "honorable." He emphasizes that this agreement opened "an exceptional window for diplomacy" between Iran and the U.S. for a brief period.

In the essay published in the inaugural issue of Payab journal under the title "The Flight of the Iranian Simorgh," Zarif argues that this memorandum must be used to "prevent the resumption of conflict," warning that the opportunity for agreement is time-sensitive. He explains: "Without reaching a final agreement within the anticipated timeframes, significant economic recovery will not be easy, and the possibility of internal unrest and/or renewed aggression, especially following the conclusion of the U.S. elections, cannot be ruled out." He views the core danger as the possibility that the Islamic Republic may not secure such a position again.

"America is in decline" serves as one of Zarif’s underlying premises in the piece. At the same time, however, he notes that "the behavior of nations, particularly Russia and China, during the two recent wars demonstrated that America's global rivals will not align themselves with Iran against the U.S. or the Zionist regime." Emphasizing realism, he adds that even "Iran's friends and like-minded partners in the Global South" did not stand alongside Iran against U.S. attacks.

According to Zarif, the memorandum opens three strategic windows "for effective and path-clearing diplomacy for the Islamic Republic," which must be leveraged before these tools wear out:

Deterrence Power: The primary opportunity stems from public participation and the Islamic Republic's resolve to resist and inflict serious costs on adversaries, which disproved narratives of Iran's collapse.

Exploiting Divergences: Utilizing the gap between the "alignment" and "identity" of objectives among the U.S., Israel, and regional states; because these actors' strategic goals are not identical, Iran can leverage conflicting interests to improve its position.

The Strait of Hormuz Leverage: Demonstrating the global economic significance of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's operational capacity to deal reciprocal damage to the global economy if threats persist, serving as the strongest guarantee for any sustainable future deal.

The former Foreign Minister highlights the necessity of creating a national narrative of achievements to strengthen cohesion, asserting that this path represents not a retreat, but a "leap forward from a position of self-confidence, rather than a turn to the past, a reversal of policies, or drinking the poisoned chalice." He points to the need for a fundamental shift in the country's strategic mindset, proposing that the historical "threat-oriented" outlook clouding individual and social psychology in Iran be replaced with an "opportunity-oriented" perspective to enable progress.

Zarif's core proposal in the article is a transition to a strategy of "comprehensive balance" and the execution of "opportunity-oriented, multi-faceted diplomacy."

This approach involves smart tension management with the U.S. as a prerequisite for balanced relations with other global powers, aiming to convert high-tension crises (such as the nuclear and missile files) into manageable disputes, particularly to achieve sanctions relief. He maintains that Iran must rely on its people as the primary pillar of deterrence and intelligently leverage strategic tools like the Strait of Hormuz to build genuine ties with neighbors, China, and Russia. This would neutralize international consensus, restore Iran's historic role as a "global crossroads," and prevent the imposition of unilateral agreements.

How to Build a Sustainable Agreement? Mohammad Javad Zarif’s Vision and His Critics

This comprehensive analytical piece details former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s recent series of four articles proposing a diplomatic exit strategy from military conflict, along with the fierce backlash he has faced from conservative and hardline factions inside Iran.

How to Build a Sustainable Agreement?

Prior to his latest article, Zarif had attempted in three separate texts to pave a way out of the war. In his first article, written after the outbreak of conflict, he proposed a plan that, in his words, should be "beyond a temporary ceasefire." In that piece, Zarif emphasized that to reach a "comprehensive peace agreement" and end 47 years of hostility, core fundamental disputes must be resolved; otherwise, the war is merely postponed. He proposed that within the framework of a multilateral agreement, Iran should "continue uranium enrichment at a limited level under full international supervision," "refrain from any movement toward nuclear weapons production," and "reduce its stockpiles of enriched uranium." He also listed the "reopening of the Strait of Hormuz" and "guaranteeing international shipping security" as part of the Islamic Republic's commitments under this plan.

He described this proposal as a "win-win" deal in which Iran, in exchange for these commitments, would demand the complete lifting of all sanctions, exit from UN Security Council resolutions, and compensation for war damages. Following the publication of this article, state-backed eulogists and speakers threatened him during street rallies. As a result of these threats, Zarif wrote on April 6: "Iran will defend itself," stepping back from his previous assertions.

His sensational second article, like the first, was published in Foreign Affairs. In this piece, Zarif argued that despite the collapse of the recent memorandum of understanding and the resumption of U.S. strikes, military pressure and the "maximum pressure" strategy had failed to bring about Iran's collapse or surrender, leading instead to a "strategic stalemate." Explaining the Islamic Republic's perspective on the Strait of Hormuz, he emphasized that Tehran now views the waterway as an "existential issue" for its security, as it has been used to facilitate economic pressure and arms transfers used against its citizens. His central message was that the U.S. must move past policies influenced by Israel acting as a "spoiler" and recognize that only diplomacy and a new regional security framework will allow Washington to shift its focus to East Asia.

Zarif's primary demand in this essay was a transition toward a "mutual non-aggression framework" wherein Washington, while recognizing Iran's territorial integrity, would lift all sanctions and contribute to Iran's reconstruction through a $300 billion investment fund. In return, Iran would offer permanent non-proliferation guarantees, including the ratification of the Additional Protocol. Beyond relations with the U.S., he called for the creation of a "regional security network" and an end to outsourcing security to foreign powers by Gulf states in particular. He suggested that regional countries establish joint institutions, such as a "regional enrichment consortium" and a West Asia Development Fund, to lay the groundwork for stability built by regional nations rather than imported from abroad.

In his third article, published on Al Jazeera under the title "Five Decades of Israel's Hidden Strategy to Push the U.S. and Iran Toward Confrontation," Zarif argued that successive governments in Tel Aviv have consistently sought to maintain a state of permanent confrontation between Washington and Tehran to retain their leverage over U.S. Middle East policy. Reviewing historical events, he asserted that Tel Aviv, using intelligence operations and political pressure, "has repeatedly attempted to obstruct efforts to end regional conflicts or manage tensions between the U.S. and Iran." Zarif emphasized that even during the JCPOA negotiations, Israel sought to prevent a resolution by providing intelligence through opposition groups to forestall a "prelude to the U.S. pivot to Asia."

Zarif identified the recent Iran-U.S. understanding as the new target of Israel's systematic obstruction. Citing statements by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, he noted that Israel-affiliated networks, by funding political actors and launching online "information operations," are attempting to poison the atmosphere of negotiations and "alter American public opinion to sustain the war indefinitely" by framing the deal as a form of "surrender." Warning international actors, Zarif stressed that for future diplomacy to succeed, "identifying and countering this systematic manipulation of information, media, and domestic politics" by both sides is essential to prevent new agreements from meeting the same fate as past failed efforts.

The core premise connecting these four articles is the necessity of transitioning from a "threat-oriented" mindset to an "opportunity-oriented" approach in order to convert military stalemates into a "comprehensive and sustainable peace" from a position of strength and national self-confidence. He argues that Iran, relying on its "people" as the primary pillar of deterrence and intelligently using strategic levers like the Strait of Hormuz, must break free from the cycle of permanent confrontation fueled for decades by Israeli sabotage. His proposed solution is executing a strategy of "comprehensive balance," managing tension with the U.S. and establishing a "regional security network" free from foreign reliance to restore Iran's historic standing as a "global crossroads" and institutionalize battlefield victories into honorable diplomatic agreements.

Zarif and His Critics

Every article published by Zarif has drawn heavy criticism. Some argue that he and his ideas are aimed at constructing a "JCPOA 2." Especially after his second article, published during the ceasefire, many critics labeled him a theorist of surrender. For instance, the newspaper Charsouq criticized the idea of Arab state participation in managing the Strait of Hormuz, describing the strategy as a formula for surrender and retreat under international pressure. The outlet claimed Zarif was downplaying the strait's strategic importance to advance a dangerous idea for national security.

"Whenever the enemy imposes a war on us, a signal is sent from within through articles that create a paradigm and cast a shadow in times of silence, steering the country's trajectory." Expressing this view, Ali Abdi, a political analyst close to the Iranian government, emphasized that writing articles for outlets like Foreign Affairsamounts to providing targets to the U.S. government and engaging in "political begging." He argued that this political begging forfeits battlefield victories, forcing the Islamic Republic to yield to the IAEA and accept permanent nuclear restrictions. He stressed that Zarif's articles strip away Iran's final deterrent hope and prevent it from going nuclear.

Another faction of critics, such as the Student News Agency (SNA), argued that Zarif's Foreign Affairs article merely recycled his previous rhetoric under the guise of "peace" and "restraint," containing nothing short of capitulation to U.S. demands. The agency viewed his approach as trading away Iran's strategic levers, such as the Strait of Hormuz, for unfulfilled promises of sanctions relief and a continuation of JCPOA-era illusions.

Others accuse Zarif of being overly optimistic about the United States. Ruhollah Saeedi, a university faculty member, noted: "For over a decade, we negotiated with the U.S. using Javad Zarif's logic and rules; that logic neither provided us with security nor solved the country's problems; our issues only compounded under Zarif's approach." He added: "Prominent political science professors in the U.S., such as Mearsheimer, are not as optimistic about the U.S. and international law today as Javad Zarif is."

Criticism extended beyond his written text to the photograph chosen by the editor of Foreign Affairs for his second article. Critics argued that Zarif should have protested the photo and demanded its replacement, claiming the image suggested the Islamic Republic's primary concern was bread while its missiles were ineffective.

Abolfazl Bazargan, a prominent figure advocating for an Iranian nuclear bomb, adopted a threatening tone regarding Zarif's recent article, stating: "If we had an independent judiciary that held Zarif accountable when the snapback mechanism was triggered for the damage done to Iran's national security and interests over 10 years, he would today be correcting his mistakes rather than selling a failed, recycled formula about global consensus!"

Bazargan had previously criticized a tweet by Zarif discussing endless wars, writing: "For years, you sold the public the narrative that Israel's goal was to securitize Iran rather than pose an actual threat to its security. Now you claim Israel's goal is to impose endless wars on Iran." Others labeled Zarif's statements as "giving signals to the enemy," asserting that "the signal to attack nuclear facilities in the mountains of Isfahan was effectively issued by Zarif."

Criticism of Zarif goes beyond these articles to his tenure as Foreign Minister. Critics of his diplomacy argue that his management style relied on decision-making within closed circles, creating a monolithic environment. In their view, the Foreign Ministry under Zarif preferred secrecy over transparency and elite consensus when handling key files, including the JCPOA and the Caspian Sea Legal Regime Convention, sidelining technical and legal challenges raised by experts. From the perspective of his critics, this behavioral model denied scholarly critique and imposed heavy strategic costs on national interests—costs they argue he is trying to impose once again.