After a few weeks of seesaw exchanges between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his hardline opponents, their focus has now shifted to Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister. These moves, seeking to paralyse Rouhani’s diplomacy apparatus, must be read in the context of a battle over Iran’s nuclear dispute as the March deadline for a political framework on a comprehensive nuclear accord nears.
The attacks revolve around Zarif’s 15-minute stroll in Geneva with US Secretary of State John Kerry and his meeting with French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius in Paris despite and after the publication of another Charlie Hebdo edition with a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) on its cover.
Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor-in-chief of the hardline Daily Kayhan, wrote in an article titled “Beyond Inappropriate” that, “Contrary to Iran’s official and rational view which sees the US as a blood-spilling enemy and a looter, Zarif has a different view. … By walking alongside John Kerry, and outside the site of negotiations, he wants to express the difference between his view and the Islamic Republic of Iran’s official view.”
Hardliners assert that success requires sheer resistance until America recognises Iran’s identity and respects it as it is.
Shariatmadari once remarked, “Iran’s resistance to the US has made it the role model for all freedom fighters in the Islamic world. America’s intention is to break this model apart by talking to Iran. …They want to give this impression to the movements of the Islamic world that the Islamic Republic of Iran, your strategic and ideological ally, has after long years of resistance, finally no choice other than to sit beside America and talk to America.”
Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the head of Iran’s paramilitary Basij force, said that Zarif, by walking with an “enemy of humanity … [is] trampling the blood of the martyrs.” He added, “No justification or excuse is accepted in this matter.”
Hardline lawmakers went beyond criticism. They, according to conservative member of the parliament, Javad Karimi Ghodousi, “are preparing a motion for intensive questioning of the foreign minister over his walk with the US secretary of state, and his visit to France given the insult to the Prophet.” Ghodousi said that the motion has already been signed by “a large number of signatories.”
On January 19, a demonstration was also organised in Tehran by the conservatives. In their final statement, the organisers asked Zarif to apologise for making the trip to France “just two days after [the] disgraceful cartoon [of Prophet Mohammad] was published” on the cover of Charlie Hebdo’s first edition after the Paris incidents. They also demanded the French ambassador’s expulsion.
Rouhani administration reacted. Mohammad Baqer Nobakht, the administration’s spokesman, dismissed the criticisms and highlighted the real intention behind the attacks on Zarif as an effort to scuttle a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1.
“Some cannot tolerate sound progress of nuclear talks,” Nobakht said, adding that such individuals “try to mislead others through allegations which will be regarded as futile.”
Zarif also viewed the waves created by his critics as a way for them to sabotage a nuclear deal. “I’ve said many times that the negotiations are a national movement, not a partisan movement. … I expect that our friends” – referring to his opponents – “not to sacrifice national interests for partisan considerations.”
Rouhani’s challengers are calculating that a failure of nuclear talks will destabilise the current administration. A breakdown of a nuclear deal would usher in the return of tit-for-tat radical politics between Tehran and Washington. According to the hardliners’ strategy, the combination of increased pressure from Washington, via new round of sanctions, and the significant drop of oil prices, would most likely end with Rouhani failing in his self-proclaimed mission of saving Iran’s economy. In such an environment, the moderate administration would lose its relevance and be sidelined. The fatalistic scenario sees as a consequence the downfall of the moderate administration.
Ironically, help may have come for Rouhani and his team from thousands of miles away: the US. President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, publicly and clearly disclosed the large political battle he faces over striking a nuclear deal with Iran.
“… New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails … That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.”
A few days before Obama’s annual speech, Israel was discussed in this context when he implicitly, but clearly enough, pointed to the Israel lobby as the force behind the hawks vehemently trying to torpedo a nuclear deal with Iran. According to The New York Times, on January 14, in a meeting with Democratic senators, “The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain.”
Congress responded. In a rare move aimed at decrying Obama’s foreign policy, the Republican-dominated Congress invited the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress on March 3.
US House Speaker John Boehner aggressively confronted Obama. “He expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran. Two words: Hell no! … We’re going to do no such thing.”
Netanyahu’s invitation caught the White House off-guard, since the Israeli prime minister had apparently not informed the administration of its acceptance. Critics argue that Congress’ action may violate presidential foreign policy authority as stipulated in the US Constitution.
The White House response was coarse yet meaningful. “The President will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the US Congress.”
As one might imagine, this drama gives Rouhani a golden opportunity to bring a strong case before Iran’s Supreme Leader. Supported by these developments in Washington, he could argue the following: “If Israel and its supporters are vehemently trying to quash a nuclear deal with the US and the P5+1, it clearly means that we are on the right track: A zero-sum game between us and Israel dictates that our gain is Israel’s loss and vice versa.”
The more standing ovations Netanyahu receives while opposing a nuclear deal with Iran in his scheduled February 11 speech, the more chances will be presented to Rouhani to convince Iran’s supreme leader that a deal is in line with Iran’s national interests.
The US-Iran rapprochement that a nuclear deal could provide, would shift the balance of power in favour of Iran. The removal of sanctions and, ultimately, the end of Iran’s isolation, would undoubtedly strengthen Iran’s geopolitical position at Israel’s expense.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s coalition government was shaped by a confrontational anti-Iran rhetoric. A thaw between Iran and the US, and by extension Europe, would make it politically difficult for Netanyahu to maintain his anti-Iran coalition thus, his position during Israel’s upcoming elections.
Shahir ShahidSaless is a political analyst specialising in Iranian domestic and foreign affairs. He is also the co-author of Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace.
Shahir ShahidSaless is a political analyst writing primarily about Iranian domestic and foreign affairs. He is also the co-author of Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, published in May 2014.
