Days after his resignation, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif remains in office, and signed two deals to expand cooperation with nearby Armenia. His resignation was rejected by President Hassan Rouhani.
The resignation effectively never happened, but it is still surrounded
in speculation, as many analysts believe it reflects the ongoing
internal dispute within Iran between the Reformists, which include Zarif and Rouhani, and more hardline factions.
This dispute is broad and touches on a lot of issues, but the biggest
split is through Zarif’s office. Rouhani is a supporter of rapprochement
with the West, and Zarif was a big part of making the P5+1 nuclear
deal. The hardliners opposed the deal, saying the US could not be
trusted.
With Zarif struggling to save the deal after the US dishonored it, he
and Rouhani are under growing pressure from the hardliners, and Zarif
may have thought he was protecting him by shouldering the blame.
Rouhani, however, says losing Zarif would be “against national
interests,” and rejected the resignation. Considerable domestic support
for Zarif during the controversy suggests that he and Rouhani may have
come out ahead on the matter, at least in the court of public opinion.
… Its not clear that Iran needs much court of public opinion, but OK.
I disagree. Even totalitarian societies do need the support or at least acceptance of a large portion of society (though that acceptance may be derived in large part through a heavy dose of propaganda).
Iran is a weird one … Lots of dissatisfaction on the one hand by major sectors of society. On the other hand, there’s a great deal of pride in its independence. If only the US empire did not need a local enemy … Peace and free trade would bring the Iranian people out of their shell.
The hardliners revel in discord with the U.S. and controlled trade. The Mullahs were not in charge at first; Kohmeini used the U.S. embassy siege to drive out all his moderate allies.
Since then, the real threat to the Iranian government has been a rising middle class; in other words, success. The ongoing sanctions do nothing to the poor, they don’t buy stuff in U.S. dollars and eke out a simple existence in rials and barter. Sanctions hit the middle class, which can’t translate their labour into U.S. dollars because their legal tender is worthless.
As a result, state-favoured/sponsored groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guards can monopolize foreign trade. Iran’s overall weakness also benefits regional rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The court of public opinion is kind of bypassed. Few people inside or outside the country understand the mechanics of Iranian oppression.
The “hardliners” are right. Iran should not have entered into the know. Zarif was naive in thinking the US could be trusted. It cannot–ask the Native Americans.
Iran needs to put a fat secular dictator in charge, shoot some ballistic missiles over other country’s airspace and start testing some nukes. That’ll get them a summit.
This makes a lots of sense. It appears staged. In the aftermath of US abandonment of treaty, the architects of the treaty were under pressure domestically. Trusting America — the proof was in, if one was ever needed, that to be a losing proposition. But Iran leadership knows that for as long as the world is supporting the agreement, and the European payment mechanism — as nearly worthless as it is — is a good political tool to isolate US internationally. As much as many in Iran would like to show their defiance, leadership knows that would be a wrong move. Provoking Iran into reacting is exactly what neocons want, looking for a glimmer of an exuse to pull all stops and urge attack in Iran. Foreign minister is popular, always has been. They do not wish to return to Ahmedinejad era of senseles confrontation, just giving ammunition to Western media machine.
So, as expected, public supported him, there was an early hint that President would not accept it — giving essentially the needed support for the non-confrontational policy and shutting up critics. Quite predictably and stereotyoicaly our media spouts the idea that the conservatives have lost. Wrong. Prople who most loudly criticized Rouhani and hus foreign minister are PRO-WESTERN liberals, the old Rafsanjani crowd. They have been loud blaming “naive” foreign minister — hoping to provoke discord in society, protests to capitalize on. They lost, not Revolutionary Guard or Councils. It was a good move. Eliminating triuble mongers tooks for mass disatisfaction.
This wasn’t staged. Zarif’s departure would’ve been end to both Zarif and Rouhani careers if not more. The hardliners are looking for blood for entrusting these two with the 2015 UN deal that flopped.
More dangerous to them is the challenge from the “progressives”, who are now criticizing the “failure” of Zarif-Rouhani government to normalize relationships with US. The conservatives will split into warring factions and progressives hope to salvage what they can politically in next parliamentary elections.
We shall see and I’m glad you fixed your translator. 😉
Ja imam.skepticnu narav. I kada sam primmetila da ona ista proZapadna elita grlato i ogorceno se zali na “neuspeh”’ i “ nekompetentnost” Rubanija i Zarifa u fijasku od ugovora i nesposobnosti da se odrzi normalizacija odnosa sa US, zanimale su me njihove motivacije.
.Sto ne znaci da konzervativci nisu likovali — uvek su bili sigurni da potpis US ne vredi papira. Ali — konzervativci kao i Armija su lojalni Khamenei vodstvu. I zato bez obzira na zivahno politicko prepucavanje u Iranu, konzervativci nece imati problema da ojacaju svoje snage u Parlamentu Tko ce izgubiti su raznnorazni pro-zapadni “reformsti” — vrlo lose im se pise na sljedecim parlamentarnim izborima. Poverenje u Zapad uopce je na najnizem nivou od revolucije. Zato su brze bolje plasirali naratjv da su Ruhani i Zarif krivci. Iako ne kazu ZA STO SU KRIVI. Vazno je za njih da se drustvo podeli, da se svi na konzervativnom krilu posvadjali — zaostriti jezik prema US, odbiti EU sistem placanja koji je ponizavajuci, itd. Pa da onda ne nastradaju na izborima dok se na konzervativnoj strani svadjaju i cepaju na fakcije. Zarif rezignacija je oduzela paznju sa posjete Asada Khameniju. Sada nakon svih mogucih hvalospeva sa Zapada, i pobede nad “reformatorima” — Zarif i Rouhani ce moci da se postave po potrebi i ne provocjraju nepotrebno US. Ali nece imati ni popustanja. Pokusati ce da odrze Evropu u svom uglu. Vidim vec kako ce Khamenei preuzeti odbranu cvrstih konzervativaca dok ce Rouhani i Zarif — biti vise “razumni”. Iran ima zanimljiv sistem. Politicki je otvoren. Izbori su uvek burni. Ali Khamenei i Vrhovno Vece su kombinacija Americkig Senata i Vrhovnog suda. Tu se odlucuje o svim vaznim zakonidavnim i politickim pitanjima, ako se vece ne slaze. Sto stabilizuje drustvo i odrzava kontinuitet.
Kad bi svi lyudi tsiyelog sviyeta
Znali da dyetsi treba mir,
Dusha u igri, puna snage, u slobodi
Nada u budutyi miran san.
“As much as many in Iran would like to show their defiance, leadership knows that would be a wrong move. Provoking Iran into reacting is exactly what neocons want..”
Damn smart comment, Bianca. Spell-check issues notwithstanding, glad you’re here.
The Iranians, like the Russians, understand that time is on their side, and that wisdom is to be found in staying cool and not allowing the bully to provoke them to emotionally satisfying, but self-defeating vengefulness.
President Rouhani pointed to the expressions of happiness from Netanyahu and other adversaries of Iran upon the resignation announcement as the best evidence that Dr. Zarif is doing a great job. I would agree with that assessment. The Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollah reiterated that they fully support Dr Zarif. Strategic patience and the rule of law are quite effective when your enemies are fighting the clock.