The rise of Masoud Pezeshkian to the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran in July 2024 was not merely an ordinary electoral event. Rather, it marked the culmination of efforts by a reformist faction led by two men who share the name “Mohammad Javad”: Mohammad Javad Zarif and Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi.

Zarif played a pivotal role in Pezeshkian’s election campaign. Thanks to his widespread popularity, he was able to shift the balance of the second round of voting in Pezeshkian’s favor.

Following his victory, Pezeshkian appointed Zarif as Vice President for Strategic Affairs, making him the mastermind behind the selection of cabinet ministers and the principal architect of government policy.

In September 2024, Zarif accompanied President Pezeshkian to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly meetings, just days before the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

During that period, following the criminal pager explosions in Lebanon, Pezeshkian held a meeting on the sidelines with executives from American media organizations, during which he stated that Iran was prepared to lay down its weapons if others did the same.

These remarks, which observers believe were formulated under Zarif’s influence, reportedly generated clear satisfaction in Israel, as they suggested that Iran’s new government would not react forcefully if the assassination were carried out. And that, according to the article, is precisely what happened just days later.

Although Zarif submitted his resignation in March 2025, the circumstances surrounding his departure require clarification.

Iranian legislation governing sensitive government positions had been clear from the outset: individuals whose children hold dual citizenship are prohibited from occupying sovereign positions.

Zarif’s appointment as vice president was therefore considered a

“clear violation of the law”

from the very beginning, because his children hold American citizenship.

After months of parliamentary pressure and legal scrutiny, Zarif was forced to resign—not as a voluntary concession, but as a result of the enforcement of a law that should have been applied from the start.

However, his formal resignation did not mean his removal from the decision-making process.

Zarif continues to exert considerable influence over Pezeshkian’s government, with his fingerprints clearly visible in the president’s speeches and critical decisions.

Zarif published an article in the American magazine Foreign Affairs proposing what he described as a “peace initiative.” Analysts, however, characterized it as “peace booby-trapped with domination,” aimed at imposing a fait accompli on neighboring countries while prioritizing appeasement of the American administration through transactional diplomacy.

Despite angry reactions within the Iranian establishment, this proposal was soon translated into practical action through the Islamabad negotiations and the memorandum of understanding electronically signed between Pezeshkian and U.S. President Donald Trump in June 2026.

The memorandum reportedly included provisions concerning the end of the war and the lifting of the naval blockade.

Zarif himself stated that Tehran had

“demonstrated its seriousness”

by sending a negotiating team to Islamabad with the authority to make decisions.

In Pezeshkian’s recent interviews at the United Nations, Zarif’s influence became even more apparent when the president spoke about handing over enriched uranium and declared that Iran had no intention of seeking revenge or retaliation against those responsible for killing the Supreme Leader.

Today, Zarif has emerged once again, baring his teeth at one of the fundamental pillars of Iranian power in the region: the Quds Force.

He is now openly attacking the Quds Force, just as he previously targeted Iran’s nuclear program, significantly undermining it through the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement.

Thus, according to the article, Zarif reveals his true agenda: the systematic dismantling of Iran’s sources of strength, one after another, under the pretext of

“shifting the perspective from threats to opportunities.”