Presidential Election in Iran: Former Foreign Minister Zarif Back in the Limelight

As part of the careful engineering of the presidential election in Iran, the Islamic Republic has allowed for five televised debates, three of which will be dedicated to the economy, one to culture, and one to foreign policy. Separately, each candidate, in the company of two advisors, will be grilled by three critical academics in three debates on those subjects. In his first interrogation on foreign policy, reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian was supported by former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, whose performance was even more passionate than Pezeshkian’s and has been dubbed “Zarif’s storm” by some. While likely to give momentum to Pezeshkian’s campaign, it is impossible to know if the “storm” can mobilize enough voters to secure victory.

• June 19: Reformist Entekhab News reported on the June 18 televised expert panel debate, in which Pezeshkian was seconded by Zarif and Mehdi Sanaei, Iran’s former ambassador to Russia:
  • In the face of critical questions from the opposing team, in particular hard-liner Fouad Izadi’s criticism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal, Zarif said, concerning the number of sanctions on Iran: “Sanctions are not countable by numbers” but ought to be measured by their efficacy. “Yes, there were 800 sanctions prior to the JCPOA, which rose to 1,500 after the JCPOA, including two sanctions against me.” But when the JCPOA was signed, the United States “did not sanction our banking system, oil, petrochemicals, insurance, and shipping.” Commenting on the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which the U.S. Senate passed in 2017, Zarif said: “Since the JCPOA did not allow the United States to impose new sanctions, this law merely coordinated existing sanctions.”
  • Turning to the economic effects of the JCPOA, Zarif said: “During the years 2016 and 2017, we experienced double-digit economic growth and single-digit inflation.”
  • Discussing the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA under President Donald J. Trump, Zarif said: “There were some friends who wrote in their newspapers: ‘Trump’s threat of leaving the JCPOA is just empty words – he will not do so.’ Well, he withdrew from the JCPOA. What Trump used to say was that the Iranians hoodwinked us through the JCPOA. But of course, here in Iran, there were those who claimed the United States hoodwinked Iran through the JCPOA!”
  • Answering Izadi’s criticism that the United States under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is not interested in reviving the JCPOA, Zarif said: “Biden was meant to revive the JCPOA but did not do so because of two reasons. The first was Israel, which prevented it by martyring martyr Fakhrizadeh,” referencing an Iranian nuclear scientist allegedly killed by Israel, “and another reason was the ‘Strategic Law,'” referencing the Strategic Initiative to Remove Sanctions and Safeguard the Interests of the Iranian Nation, a bill passed by the Iranian Parliament in December 2020 that required Iran to reduce its commitments to the JCPOA if sanctions were not lifted.
  • In a direct challenge to the policies of the regime in its entirety, Zarif said: “Don’t make me reveal what transpired during those bitter six months. On many an occasion, we could have revived the JCPOA so that the people would not suffer in misery. During the three years of the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, the number of sanctions imposed on Iran reached 1,500, and during the three years of the presidency of Mr. Ebrahim Raisi, the number reached 2,570 … People, look: This is how they caused inflation. This is what happened to our oil exports.”
  • Discussing increased oil exports, Zarif said: “Oil exports have increased, but this is not the work of these friends,” referencing the Raisi Cabinet. “When Biden came to power, his policy was to loosen the screws on the sanctions. Now, wait until Trump returns. What will these friends do?”
  • In a final defense of the JCPOA, Zarif concluded: “His Excellency Hojjat al-Eslam Mohammad Khatami was a source of honor to Iran, under the guidance of the leader. The miracle of the third millennium,” a sarcastic reference to former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “was under the illusion that he was doing the work of the leader, but he and his Supreme National Security Council secretary, who is currently a presidential candidate,” referencing Saeed Jalili, “achieved nothing but more sanctions. The Rouhani Cabinet brought glory for the country. If the JCPOA was bad” for Iran, “how come the United States withdrew from it?”
• June 19: Presidential candidate and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf, who sponsored the Strategic Initiative to Remove Sanctions and Safeguard the Interests of the Iranian Nation, responding to Zarif’s criticism that the bill made it impossible for the Rouhani Cabinet to revive the JCPOA, said, as quoted by Entekhab:
  • “It is claimed that the Strategic Initiative prevented this work,” referencing reviving the JCPOA during the early days of the Biden administration. “A year ago, the leader of the revolution said the Strategic Initiative ‘saved the country’ … Now, why do you say the Strategic Initiative prevented an agreement? Whose orders are you following? Are you not subject to the policies” of the regime in its entirety? “I was a member of the Supreme National Security Council. This council tasked the Parliament to pass a law on leaving the JCPOA. The law passed the Parliament and was declared. Did this create an obstacle” to negotiations? “As His Holiness has said,” referencing Khamenei, “this law empowered the negotiators … After Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, it was discussed whether we too should withdraw from it. At any rate, the Cabinet decided to wait for a week so they could return to the JCPOA. If they didn’t return to the JCPOA, we would make another decision. A week became two weeks, and months passed without the United States returning to the JCPOA … Whenever we want something from the U.S. government, they say, ‘This is outside our sphere of competence, and Congress is in charge of it.’ Well, by passing the Strategic Initiative, we empowered the negotiators. In the bill, we wrote that we would no longer abide by the JCPOA’s Additional Protocol, which at the time we were subjected to voluntarily. After all, they had withdrawn from the JCPOA, and they reimposed the sanctions. Back then, our friends,” referencing Zarif, “would say there will be war or that if nuclear enrichment exceeds a certain level, there will be war. Well, we removed the Additional Protocol. Was there war? What we did was leave the state of passivity behind. We strengthened the negotiators.”
• June 19: Addressing an assembly of supporters in Shahriar, Jalili responded to Zarif’s criticism, as quoted by centrist Khabar Online:
  • “Fundamentally, there are two views. One view says, ‘I can and I will defeat him,” referencing abstract enemies. “This view not only prevailed during the Sacred Defense,” the Iran-Iraq War, “but also during the defense of the shrines,” referencing Iran’s intervention in the Syrian civil war, “and in the field of the economy … Today, I heard that someone has said we were not successful. Even the United States is admitting their strategy failed, but today, someone says it is Biden himself who did not want to prevent Iran from selling oil. You see, these two differing views will decide the future of the country … It was Biden who did not want to prevent us? Well, if Biden did not want to, why did you not sell oil” during the nine months after Biden took office that you were in government? “Answer us. Additionally, Biden himself has admitted that he not only abstained from removing a single sanction imposed under Trump but has added dozens of more sanctions during his presidency.”

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.