Zarif: Lavrov is lying
Zarif: Lavrov is lying
According to Iran Gate News Agency, while the official narrative of the Islamic Republic regarding strategic cooperation with Moscow presents a flawless and harmonious image of Iran-Russia relations, an unprecedented public dispute between Mohammad Javad Zarif and Sergey Lavrov has unveiled a different reality. This reality shows that the strategic friends have deep, accusatory, and revealing disagreements behind the scenes over the most critical clause of the nuclear deal, the snapback mechanism.
Zarif accuses Russia of designing a legal trap against Iran, while Lavrov blames Iran for accepting it. All of this is just part of a rift that has now surfaced in the media, but its roots go back to the text of the JCPOA and years of diplomatic secrecy.
The confrontation of diplomats: Zarif and Lavrov’s media dispute over the snapback mechanism
From the sidelines of JCPOA negotiations to the revelation of contradictory narratives: The clear rift in Tehran-Moscow relations
In a rare and controversial twist, a public and tense disagreement between Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former Iranian Foreign Minister, and Sergey Lavrov, the veteran Russian Foreign Minister, over one of the most controversial clauses of the nuclear agreement, the so-called snapback mechanism, has reached the media.
This disagreement not only reflects historical gaps in Tehran and Moscow’s approaches to the JCPOA but also presents a new image of the challenges in the strategic relations between the two countries, relations that have always been redefined behind closed doors and under the guise of alliance.
The first narrative: Lavrov and a legal trap for Iran
In the first spark of this diplomatic dispute, Sergey Lavrov, in an interview with Russian media and then in the official positions of the country’s Foreign Ministry, referred to the snapback mechanism as a legal trap designed for Iran.
He emphasized that this clause was added to the final text in the final stages of negotiations in a bilateral agreement between Iran and the United States, and Moscow was merely an observer.
We did not oppose it because this was something the Iranians accepted. This mechanism was actually included in the final talks between Zarif and John Kerry – Sergey Lavrov
Lavrov also described the activation of this mechanism by European countries and the United States as an abuse of international law but at the same time tried to downplay Russia’s role in this decision-making.
Zarif’s sharp reaction: He’s lying, the snapback proposal was theirs
Mohammad Javad Zarif’s response, the Foreign Minister of Rouhani’s administration, was sharp, direct, and unprecedented. In several public speeches and media interviews, he denied Lavrov’s narrative and even accused Russia of being the designer or proposer of the snapback mechanism.
When Lavrov says we accepted it, he’s lying. This mechanism was proposed by Russia and France, not America. Iran resisted, but we were under pressure – Mohammad Javad Zarif
Zarif even revealed that during the negotiations, he asked John Kerry about the origin of this proposal, and Kerry explicitly said that the proposal came from your Russian friends. Zarif angrily stated that Iran never wanted such a clause included in the agreement.
An old rift newly revealed
The disagreement over the snapback mechanism is not merely a legal issue but rather exposes deeper contradictions in Tehran-Moscow relations. While the two countries have repeatedly spoken of strategic relations in the media, Zarif’s remarks showed that mutual trust between the two sides has never been complete, at least at the operational and negotiation levels.
He also accused Russia of obstructing the normalization of Iran’s relations with the world and claimed that Moscow has two red lines: 1. Iran should not normalize relations with the Western world. 2. Iran should not enter into direct war because it is not in Russia’s interest.
Zarif even pointed to more sensitive topics, including the disclosure of Qasem Soleimani’s trip to Moscow and the issue of selling Iranian drones to Russia for the Ukraine war, as resulting from Moscow’s influence and specific goals.
Snapback mechanism: Trap or legitimate tool
The snapback mechanism refers to a controversial clause in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which allows a member country of the agreement to request the reinstatement of international sanctions if Iran breaches its JCPOA commitments.
However, after the US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the discussion of activating this mechanism by the United States or the European troika led to a diplomatic crisis.
Now, with Lavrov’s new positions and Zarif’s response, not only have conflicting narratives about the origin of this clause emerged, but the legitimacy of the entire process is also in question. Lavrov considers it a legal trap, Zarif presents it as an imposition by Russia and France, and both sides accuse the Europeans of abusing this tool.
Why this disagreement matters
1. The failure of complete alignment in Tehran-Moscow relations
Until recently, Iran-Russia relations were described within the framework of a strategic alliance, but this dispute showed that there have been long-standing differences in the two countries’ approaches to Iran’s nuclear dossier, which have now found the opportunity to become public.
2. Change in Iran’s diplomacy: Rethinking trust in the East
Zarif’s candid remarks, especially in a situation where the Islamic Republic is pursuing a broader rapprochement with the East, particularly Russia and China, may be seen as a sign of rethinking a level of trust in Moscow. This could impact Iran’s future foreign policy strategies.
3. Impact on the process of reviving the JCPOA or a replacement agreement
Any attempt to return to the JCPOA or draft a new agreement must now proceed with these historical disagreements among the previous agreement’s members in mind. It is unclear whether the dominant narrative of the JCPOA’s history will be Iran’s or Russia’s, but the rift in this area complicates the revival of the agreement.
The future of relations remains bright
The open and media-highlighted disagreement between Zarif and Lavrov is not merely a dispute over a clause in the nuclear agreement.
This confrontation represents deeper rifts in defining interests, historical narrative, and the view of diplomatic relations between the two countries, which had long been hidden behind the scenes. Now that this disagreement has become public, the question arises: Are Tehran and Moscow still strategic partners as they claim, or has the era of redefining relations begun?
