Pezeshkian Also Withdrew Support from Zarif

The slightly better participation of people in this year’s presidential election compared to the previous one was partly due to Mohammad Javad Zarif’s entry and presence in the election. Zarif’s presence played a significant role in attracting voters for Pezeshkian and increasing participation in the election.

Pezeshkian, who did not have a special characteristic to attract the votes of the middle class, tried to attract this group by using Zarif and his performance in foreign policy. As a result, Zarif’s separation from the government and his absence from the decision-making arena sends a message to the global community that a gap has emerged between people’s participation and this government.

This can be considered a very negative message about the legitimacy and capability of this government. However, the presence of Mohammad Javad Zarif alongside Pezeshkian had also created a gap between the people and Mr. Zarif.

The reason was that people looked at the promises made by Pezeshkian and Zarif during the electoral campaign and the expectations that were created, and the performance that had a significant gap from those promises and expectations.

Promises were made that the country’s management would be directed towards meritocracy, the fight against corruption and nepotism would begin, the country’s problems would be resolved with the global system, and regional cooperation would increase. None of these promises have been fulfilled, and there is no prospect for their fulfillment with the current methods and performance.

In such conditions, Zarif’s presence in this government had caused people to distance themselves from him. In other words, as much as people distanced themselves from Zarif with his approach to the government, his distancing from the government will cause people to get closer to Zarif once again.

Israeli media, in reaction to Zarif’s separation from the government, have written that this resignation is to Israel’s advantage. Apart from being the voice of the people against foreigners, Zarif was also a skilled expert who knew how to secure Iran’s interests against foreigners.

There are two reasons why some of Iran’s enemies have expressed satisfaction with Zarif’s resignation. First, Zarif was the voice of the Iranian people, which helped increase Iran’s power in the international system. Second, he was a professional expert who could optimally secure Iran’s interests in negotiations with foreigners.

Zarif’s resignation and his removal from the country’s decision-making system is to the benefit of all those who solely pursue their own interests in international negotiations. Naturally, a party like Israel will also be very pleased with this matter. The pretext raised by Zarif’s opponents in pushing for his removal was the claim of enforcing a pre-existing law. It is correct and proper that we all seek the rule of law, and Zarif himself always insisted on the rule of law and adherence to it.

However, what is evident and was clear to all the people was that in the specific case of employing Zarif in the government, the law was viewed entirely selectively. In fact, it was not hidden from anyone that the essence of this law was merely drafted to target Mohammad Javad Zarif personally.

What Zarif’s removal supporters pursued was motivated by the fact that some political and economic interests of these individuals and groups were in danger. If Zarif’s presence and his assistance to the government and the nation led to the end of sanctions and Iran’s dignity, naturally, those who benefited from the sanctions and whose interests lay in their continuation would be deprived of such benefits.

Additionally, there were those who saw the failure of a government as a benefit and victory for themselves in the country’s political conditions, meaning they did not look at issues from a national interest perspective and only cared about group and factional interests.

As a result, what happened was under the guise of law enforcement. If the law was truly to be enforced, many other individuals in other sensitive positions would not have the ability to continue in their roles.

In fact, legal experts and political analysts should speak about the usefulness of this law. But now that this law exists, why is its sole target Mohammad Javad Zarif, and no one else is concerned about it, and it is not applied to anyone else?

This indicates the insincerity of Zarif’s removal supporters. If they were sincere, there are other managers from various political factions in this government, the previous government, and even among the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly who are subject to the same law, and no one takes the slightest action against them.

It is clear to everyone that there are many individuals and officials subject to this law who have permanent residency or dual citizenship for themselves and their families, yet they are never harmed and hold very sensitive positions.

Therefore, the approach towards Mr. Zarif is ostensibly under the guise of law but, in reality, for achieving factional and personal interests, and of course, one should not forget the economic interests that benefit from sanctions and rents.

The evaluation of Zarif’s performance should be based on whether his actions have strengthened the country and unified the people or caused inconvenience, harm, and increased sanctions and pressure on the country. During the time when the country’s foreign policy was under Mohammad Javad Zarif’s responsibility, despite comprehensive sanctions and pressures from the United States, Donald Trump was left alone in the international community during his first term as president. It reached a point where all twelve conditions announced by Mike Pompeo, the then U.S. Secretary of State, were withdrawn, and the United States found itself in global isolation, to the extent that all countries sided with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iran was in a better position in international forums. This was attributed to the foreign policy and performance that Mohammad Javad Zarif was responsible for.

In recent days, we see that some of the pressure elements for Zarif’s removal mock his performance during his tenure as Foreign Minister. However, it should not be forgotten that the same tools of public diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy that Zarif used were among the levers that caused Trump to be questioned in the global community.

Today, if we look at the new Trump administration, the U.S. president acts unilaterally, and how should the response to this unilateralism and the control of this rampage be carried out?

Iran is currently the target of U.S. attacks, and recently we have seen that Donald Trump has written a letter to the leader of Iran to pretend that he is not a unilateralist and anti-peace and to accuse Iranians of avoiding negotiation.

Donald Trump is undertaking these actions with a specific intention, and it is necessary to raise awareness about this both domestically and on the international stage. Today, instead of uniting in the country for a decision that benefits the Iranian people, we are pursuing actions that dismantle unity, and the result is that the living and economic conditions of the people deteriorate, and the country’s international standing is damaged, which is certainly to no one’s advantage.