Mohammad Javad Zarif, a top presidential aide, has sparked a political firestorm in Tehran with remarks made at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, drawing criticism from hardliners who argue that his comments portray Iran as weak.
The appointment of Michael Dimino as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East is seen by some observers in Tehran as an indication of a possible recalibration in US policy toward Tehran.
Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s Intelligence Minister, dismissed the notion of productive negotiations with the US, citing previous instances where, according to him, Washington failed to uphold its commitments.
“The Islamic Revolution has extensive experience with these negotiations, a prominent example being the JCPOA. Negotiations held in Oman, as well as those concerning our assets in Qatar and South Korea, all reveal that the Americans have not fulfilled their promises in any of them,” Khatib told ILNA, referencing the 2015 nuclear deal.
He repeated his staunch opposition to what he called imposed negotiations, adding, “Anyone who is truthful will earn the respect of Iran, Islam, and the Revolution for their honesty, and wherever there is deceit, arrogance, hostility, and oppression, Iran will resist.”
Clerics Echo Anti-US Sentiment
Tehran’s Friday prayers featured strong rebukes of US policies. Ahmad Khatami, a senior ultra-conservative cleric, invoked Iran’s ideological opposition to Washington, saying, “The late leader Khomeini called the US the Great Satan. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reiterated this stance numerous times.”
Khatami argued that the US’s primary aim in seeking talks was to undermine the Islamic Republic, adding, “The US seeks negotiations as a means to confront the Revolution.”
Ahmad Alamolhoda, Mashhad’s hardliner Friday Prayer Leader, also criticized domestic advocates for dialogue with the West, asking, “With whom do you wish to negotiate? With defeated elements who have sunk to such humiliation?”
Dovish Dimino?
While Iranian hardliners reject overtures from Washington, moderate voices within the country have pointed to potential openings under Trump’s renewed tenure.
Fararu, a relatively moderate Iranian news outlet, highlighted comments by VP for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif, who expressed hope for a more rational approach from Trump.
The outlet noted that recent changes in Trump’s foreign policy team, including Dimino’s appointment, could signal an interest in diplomacy.
Dimino’s stance on the Middle East contrasts with more forceful policies. He has opposed preemptive military strikes on Iran, called for reducing the US military footprint in the region, and emphasized diplomacy as a solution to conflicts.
This Department of Defense official has said that the US should significantly reduce its troop presence in the region and shut down its military bases in Iraq and Syria.
Dimino had described US strikes on the Houthis as lacking deterrent value. He also called for a reassessment of the US presence in the Persian Gulf.
"Iranian power remains both exaggerated and misunderstood. Its economy continues to underperform, and its conventional military is antiquated and untested. Tehran simply doesn’t have the financial capital or hard power capabilities to dominate the Middle East or directly threaten core US interests," he wrote in a 2023 article.
He has repeatedly warned that Israeli attacks on Iran and the Islamic Republic’s proxy forces increase the risks to US forces in the region.
Critics, however, argue that his affiliation with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft —a think tank known for promoting restraint in US foreign policy—raises concerns about the administration’s commitment to Israel.
Pro-Israel figures, such as commentator Mark Levin, have criticized Dimino’s views, citing his opposition to US defensive support for Israel against Hezbollah. Others view his appointment as a potential indicator that Trump is exploring non-military options in dealing with Tehran.
US-Iran relations have been fraught since Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, a decision that intensified sanctions and strained Tehran’s economy.
Tensions peaked in January 2020, when a US drone strike killed IRGC Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, an event that both nations view as a turning point in their confrontation.
As Trump’s administration implements a renewed maximum pressure campaign, debates persist about the feasibility of US-Iran diplomacy.
After Zarif suggested the country was more open to international diplomacy under the new presidency, including with its archenemy the US, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Parliament, warned officials to tread carefully in their public statements to avoid emboldening adversaries.
Ghalibaf said that projecting a perception of weakness from Iran’s leadership could prompt “miscalculations by the incoming US administration and worsen economic pressures.”
Iran faces a serious economic crisis, expected to get worse if US President Donald Trump puts more sanctions pressure. As a result, debate is now raging in Tehran as Iran's Supreme Leader has not authorized any new negotiations.
Zarif, a former foreign minister and now Iran's Vice-President for Strategic Affairs, stirred controversy when he suggested in a Wednesday interview with CNN host Fareed Zakaria that if conservative politician Saeed Jalili had been elected president instead of Masoud Pezeshkian last July, a major war might have been underway in the region.
Zarif’s attempt to portray Iran as seeking de-escalation and potentially relaxing hijab laws backfired, drawing heavy criticism from both the Iranian public for denying pressure on women, and officials. A senior official called for his immediate arrest.
Hardliners have launched an online petition urging the IRGC Intelligence Organization to arrest Zarif immediately over his hijab remarks, which they claim amount to an effort for regime change. Nearly 55,000 people have signed the petition so far.
Ahmad Khatami, a senior Friday prayer leader, has also criticized the idea of US-Iran negotiations, describing them as “a tactic to counter the revolution.”
The conservative Kayhan newspaper and figures close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei amplified the critiques, with some calling for Zarif’s prosecution.
Conservatives Denounce Zarif’s Tone
Zarif’s acknowledgment that Iran no longer harshly enforces the hijab sparked particular outrage among hardliners. Mohammad Manan Raisi, a representative from Qom accused Zarif on Sunday of violating the country’s laws and disrespecting religious mandates.
“This individual has brazenly mocked God’s explicit command at an international forum,” Raisi said, referencing Zarif’s comment about unveiled women in Tehran and saying the government has relaxed hijab enforcement in Iran.
Raisi also criticized institutional inaction, saying that efforts to address Zarif’s remarks had stalled.
The Ham Mihan newspaper, however, defended Zarif’s remarks, saying that Fareed Zakaria's question was based on the premise that the presence or absence of moderates in the political structure of the Islamic Republic makes no difference, and Zarif sought to refute this notion.
The paper argued that Zarif’s engagement at Davos sought to portray Iran as a rational actor committed to international norms, despite significant internal and external challenges.
Domestic Debate on Negotiations
Citing European officials, Axios recently reported that Iran may be signaling openness to a new agreement distinct from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Despite this, opposition to dialogue with the US remains fierce among hardliners.
Fatemeh Mohajerani, the Government Spokeswoman speaking to ILNA, sought to assuage concerns about negotiations on Sunday, emphasizing that decisions on critical issues like the nuclear program are made within the Supreme National Security Council.
“We assure concerned individuals that decision-making in the country follows a completely rational and well-established process,” she said.
Zarif’s attempt to position Iran as a cooperative global player has drawn fire from conservatives who view his comments as signaling capitulation. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines the nation’s revolutionary ideals, while supporters see it as a pragmatic effort to mitigate international isolation.
