Zarif in conversation with Amir Dabiri Mehr in Lebanon's "Al-Nahar": The solution is direct negotiation on differences with the US

Real Negotiation Means Freedom from the Prison of the Past and Utilizing All of the Country's National CapacitiesZarif explained: The meaning of real negotiation is freedom from the prison of the past and utilizing all national capacities and possibilities. In the twelve-day war, Iran showed that it is the only country that has both the courage and the capability to strike Israel. The evacuation of American bases before Iran's response, and Trump's message accepting the response, meant his acknowledgment of Iran's will and capability—even against America.

Al-Nahar wrote: Over the past approximately 150 years, since the Qajar era, 67 individuals have held the position of Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, only a few of them, with their knowledge and impactful performance, have been able to leave a lasting footprint on Iran's political history; names such as Mushir al-Dawla Pirnia, Mirza Hassan Mostowfi ol-Mamalek, Mohammad Mossadegh, Ahmad Ghavam os-Saltaneh, Mohammad Ali Foroughi, Ali-Asghar Hekmat, Ali-Akbar Siasi, and Hossein Fatemi.The former Iranian Foreign Minister said: Today, Arabs are not necessarily seeking to weaken Iran, because in their view, Iran can establish balance in the region against an unbridled Israel.

According to Entekhab, however, among the post-Revolution Foreign Ministers, there is almost a consensus that Mohammad Javad Zarif was the most famous, active, and influential figure during his tenure as Foreign Minister (2013 to 2021).

What distinguishes Zarif from other Iranian diplomats are two characteristics: First, he is a scholar and theoretician of International Relations, and his academic activity in this field has never ceased; second, he was a pioneering, creative, and innovative Foreign Minister, not merely the administrative manager of a diplomatic apparatus.The clear symbol of these characteristics was the nuclear agreement of July 2015 (Tirmah 1394), which he still defends, despite the end of his term and organized attacks from opponents.

From Dismissal to a Detailed Dialogue

I was coordinating an interview with him for "Al-Nahar" when he was dismissed from the position of Vice President for Strategic Affairs. It seemed that some members of Parliament were seeking to remove him. In this interview, it became clear that the backdrop of this dismissal had broader dimensions. But ultimately, the result of this action led to a decrease in the popularity of Masoud Pezeshkian's government; because many believed that Zarif's support for Pezeshkian was one of the main reasons for the new government's acceptability, and with his departure, the perception that the new government was what was expected collapsed.

With the start of the Iran-Israel war, the conversation was postponed again. A few months later, Europe activated the "trigger mechanism," and the nuclear agreement officially ended. These developments made the interview later, but more compelling.

Finally, the dialogue took place in two long sessions at the "Andisheh va Qalam" Institute and the newly established "Payab" Group; a group whose name is taken from Zarif's recently published memoirs in Arabic titled "Sumud al-Diblumasia fi Beirut" (The Steadfastness of Diplomacy in Beirut). Its goal, according to Zarif, is to break the mental prison of past failures and victories to build an inspiring future.

In this dialogue, he spoke more frankly than ever and, contrary to the claims of his critics, showed that he is a revolutionary diplomat, not a technocrat, and is not afraid to express his views.

"Real Negotiation": The Key to Facing Challenges

I began by asking him: "Many critics of negotiating with the West and America say that Israel's attack on Iran during the negotiations proved the futility of dialogue."

Zarif replied: "We must remember that these very negotiations—despite the criticisms I have about their process and method—caused the people to unite against the Zionist enemy and domestic cohesion to be maintained. The enemy's plan to dismantle the system failed. Had we abandoned negotiations, people would have thought the government had opened the way for the enemy's attack by stepping aside."

Preparedness for All Scenarios: Strengthening Defense and National Unity

In response to the question of whether a new Israeli attack on Iran is possible and that some say we are at least six months away from it, Zarif said: "These are all speculations, and no one can predict future developments with certainty. The important point is that the country must face challenges from a position of strength; by strengthening its defensive foundations, maintaining internal cohesion, beginning serious negotiations, and being prepared for any situation."

He emphasized that in the current circumstances, Iran should adopt a strategy of real, direct, multi-faceted, and result-oriented negotiation.

Zarif explained: "The meaning of real negotiation is freedom from the prison of the past and utilizing all national capacities and possibilities. In the twelve-day war, Iran showed that it is the only country that has both the courage and the capability to strike Israel. The evacuation of American bases before Iran's response and Trump's message accepting the response meant his acknowledgment of Iran's will and capability—even against America. This reality has provided a limited but important opportunity for Iran to enter serious negotiations with the West and America from a position of strength. Based on four decades of diplomatic experience, I say that the only solution is direct and multilateral dialogue about the differences between Iran and America."

Negotiation Does Not Mean Surrender

Zarif added: "Contrary to the perception of some in Iran and America, negotiation does not mean surrender. In the nuclear negotiations, Iran did not surrender to the demands of the other side, but was able to impose many of its own demands. The same logic must prevail in future negotiations: Give-and-take is the natural rule of negotiation. Those who want to gain concessions without giving anything—whether in Iran or America—do not understand the principles of negotiation. Overemphasizing one's own positions is also a big mistake that will lead the country into the abyss of concession-giving."

He added: "Contrary to those who say that the current establishment is inevitably forced to drink the cup of poison (like 1989), I believe there is no such necessity, nor any need, nor any benefit. We can, by relying on the nation, national power, and collective will, enter a negotiation from a position of confidence and defend our rights."

"Time is Not Necessarily on Our Side"

Zarif warned: "Time is not necessarily on our side; the coming months might not be more suitable for negotiation than today."

He accused the previous government of failing to revive the JCPOA during the Biden era: and "At the beginning of Mr. Raisi's government, everything was ready for America's return to the agreement. Even before the Parliament's strategic law was ratified, America's return was supposed to be announced simultaneously with Biden's inauguration. And even after the law was ratified, the agreement was ready at the end of Rouhani's government. But the wrong perception that existed in Tehran—that protracted negotiations are in our favor—plus the excessive demands of Europe and America, caused Iran's golden opportunity to be lost."

Respect for the Leader's View and Experts

In response to the question of why he still advocates for negotiation when the Iranian Leader says negotiating with America is useless, Zarif said: "Agha (the Leader) has repeatedly emphasized to me that experts can and must express their views without reservation. Therefore, I believe that those who care about the country should not deprive the establishment and the leadership of their rational views merely because that view might differ from the Leader's view. Of course, the country has a legal mechanism for decision-making, and all views are taken into account in it."

Iran and the Axis of Resistance

In response to the question of whether Iran's influence has decreased with the weakening of Iran's proxy forces in the region, Zarif said: "All evidence over the past 40 years shows that Iran has never had proxy forces. No group has advanced its goals instead of Iran. On the contrary, it has been Iran that has supported the Resistance to achieve its goals. The Resistance has fought not for Iran but for its own ideals. Therefore, even if the Resistance weakens—which is debatable—Iran's power will not weaken."

He added: "In the current situation, there are serious differences between the policies of America, Israel, and the Arab neighbors that should be exploited in favor of Iran. Israel is seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic and even dismantle Iran; since before the Revolution until today, it sees Iran's power as an obstacle to its regional dominance.

But the United States does not have such a goal, because Iran's collapse would drown it in the Middle East quagmire and impede its competition with China. Washington's goal is to weaken Iran through political and economic pressure.

In contrast, Arab countries—especially after the experience of Israeli aggression—have concluded that without a powerful Iran, they themselves will become prey. Therefore, they are inclined to improve their strategic relations with Iran. We must take this opportunity seriously and pursue active diplomacy."

Regarding Gaza, he said: "Recent developments are very important, because Israel was forced to agree to a ceasefire without achieving its goals in the genocide. This must be turned into an opportunity with the vigilance and solidarity of Islamic countries."

End of the JCPOA and the Trigger Mechanism

Regarding the end of the JCPOA and the return of sanctions, Zarif said with a bitter smile: "Many of the attacks and destructive actions against me and the JCPOA are organized and baseless. But much can be said about the real cause of the JCPOA's death and the return of the trigger mechanism, but the time for it has not yet arrived. For example, let me just ask: If you review the chain of events from July 2015 to January 2025, many truths will become apparent."

He explained: "America, by accepting the JCPOA, was seeking to facilitate its 'pivot to Asia' strategy and focus on China. By reducing tension with Iran, it no longer needed involvement in the Middle East. But Israel and the foreign opponents of the JCPOA, along with incorrect internal analyses, diverted this path. The result was the assassination of Iranian scientists and commanders and the change in Washington's strategy: from reducing its presence in the region to entrusting its security to Israel.

Consequently, between the years 2021 and 2025, the number of countries that supported Iran in the Security Council decreased from 13 countries to only 4 countries."

Europe and the Security Council: Hypocrisy and Misuse

Zarif said sharply: "The three European countries violated all of their commitments after America withdrew from the JCPOA. During the twelve-day war, they also supported the military solution against Iran to help Israel. When they failed, they resorted to political tools and hypocrisy. This arrogant behavior caused a severe decline in Europe's role in the world; even in files related to Europe itself, such as the Ukrainian crisis.

In the near future, with the competition between America and China in technology—especially Artificial Intelligence—Europe will lose its place in the world order."

Iran's Options Against Sanctions: Priority with Internal Cohesion

Zarif listed Iran's solutions as follows:

1. Strengthening social and national cohesion as the most important source of power.

2. Rebuilding defensive capability and expanding regional relations.

3. Beginning multilateral negotiations with America to resolve differences, because in his belief, "a completely friendly relationship is unrealistic."