With a reputation for making dramatic pronouncements, Mohammad Javad Zarif’s resignation as Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs earlier this month – his second in seven months – didn’t raise many eyebrows. One expert even joked about it, saying: “Life is what happens between two Zarif resignations.”
Many expected the veteran career diplomat to make a quick comeback, but three weeks have since passed. It seems this time, he is gone for real.
When an official resigns in Iran, it is customary for his or her superior to accept the resignation before it is considered a done deal. President Masoud Pezeshkian hasn’t confirmed whether or not he has accepted Mr Zarif’s resignation yet. But last week, Mohammad Jafar Qaempanah, the Vice-President for Executive Affairs, said Mr Zarif has left “regardless of whether his resignation is accepted [or not]”. He added that the Cabinet hasn’t discussed the issue since it is “considered final”.
Mr Zarif’s departure wasn’t voluntary. As he said in his announcement, he had been asked to resign by Gholamreza Mohseni Ezhei, the head of Iran’s judiciary. Mr Ezhei’s request came on the same day that the hardliner-dominated Parliament impeached finance minister Abdolnaser Hemmati. In other words, two branches of government drove out two of the most notable figures serving the third branch.
There was another high-profile resignation this week, with Ali Tayebnia leaving his position as Dr Pezeshkian’s senior adviser. There is speculation that he might replace Mr Hemmati as finance minister, but it’s not clear whether Parliament will vote to confirm him.
As Iran’s best-known western-facing diplomat, and the architect of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal, Mr Zarif has long been a bete noire for many hardliners who oppose any engagement with the US. Seeking his ouster, these hardliners invoked a law passed in 2022 that bars those whose relatives hold dual citizenship from assuming government positions. The former foreign minister’s two children were born in the US, and thus hold American citizenship, which provided the basis for them to demand his resignation.
Dr Pezeshkian’s government tried to get the law amended to exempt those whose relatives get automatic birthright citizenship – and, therefore, theoretically have no choice in the matter – but Parliament refused to play ball. It took the judiciary’s intervention to eventually drive Mr Zarif out.
The recent ousters have further complicated matters for Dr Pezeshkian, whose sole focus has been on addressing Iran’s myriad domestic and foreign policy challenges.
Although from the reformist camp, the President has been running what he calls a “government of reconciliation” – one that is essentially a broad tent with enough room for reformists and conservatives to collaborate with one another. He has managed to avoid crossing any of the obvious red lines; has maintained positive relations with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; and has sought to avoid political strife. But the departure of three influential reformist figures from his administration has shown the limits of this approach.
All of this is happening at a time when Iran is experiencing turbulence within its borders. Much of the country has been reeling from power cuts for months. The constant threat of American and Israeli attacks has put the country on high alert and further destabilised the economy. At the time of writing, one US dollar was trading for 977,000 Iranian rials. It was almost half of this when Dr Pezeshkian took office last July.
Worse, there is little that Dr Pezeshkian can do about any of this. The country’s most critical decisions are made by Mr Khamenei and institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the National Security Council.
The big question in Iranian politics right now is whether, and how, the government will respond to the letter US President Donald Trump wrote to Mr Khamenei in an attempt to start talks over Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme. It is notable that Dr Pezeshkian has little say over such an important matter, leaving many of his most ardent supporters despondent.
In an apparent dig at the President’s futile efforts to bring moderates and conservatives together, former Tehran mayor Gholamhossein Karbaschi said: “Hemmati and Zarif have left. If [Ahmad] Meydari and [Mohammad-Reza] Zafarqandi [two major reformist ministers] also leave, the reconciliation will be complete.”
The journalist and activist Abbas Abadi lamented that Dr Pezeshkian has made “no reconciliation with people”, and his initial base has been “almost halved”. In an editorial, the reformist daily Shargh warned that if the President continues in this vein, his government would lose all support. Ahmad Zeidabadi, another well-known journalist, said the only way forward for the country is for Parliament to be dissolved and fresh elections to be called, but no such provision exists in Iran’s Constitution.
It’s been noted that Mr Zarif resigned a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Iran, with some reformists suggesting that his exit has to do with his well-known scepticism towards Moscow. The Trump administration has been engaging with Russia and, in particular, seeking its help to mediate with Iran. Perhaps, these reformists point out, a figure like Mr Zarif was seen as a possible obstacle to the process.
But Iran is likely to miss the former diplomat’s expertise and experience at a crucial time.
Mr Zarif has spent much of his adult life in the US, where he received a PhD from the University of Denver and worked for several years in Iran’s permanent representation office at the UN in New York. His public relations skills are unique among his peers. Few officials can hold one-on-one conversations with major western journalists at Davos, as Mr Zarif did in January, or publish video messages to the global Jewish community, as he did last November.
This is why some of his supporters claim that his departure only helps those who wish to isolate Iran internationally. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, can now point to Tehran’s hardliners in an attempt to show the rest of the world that it cannot be engaged with.
However, ever the political animal, Mr Zarif doesn’t appear to have any intention of leaving the limelight. A petition asking for Dr Pezeshkian to reinstate him has gathered more than 13,000 signatures. In the weeks since his resignation, he has appeared on popular podcasts and given long interviews. As I’ve previously written in these pages, he has a gift for making headlines.
Perhaps his resignation is an act of ambition. As Dr Pezeshkian’s government runs out of steam, he might benefit politically from not being associated with it. It is of course hard to say what he will do next, but one thing is clear: the world hasn’t heard the last of Mr Zarif.
