A former Iranian foreign minister has introduced a “thorough reconciliation” strategy to conclude the hostilities involving the US, Israel, and Iran, under which Tehran would consent to stringent restrictions on its atomic development and restore access to the Strait of Hormuz, in exchange for the lifting of penalties and financial recompense.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, who held the position of Iran’s chief envoy from 2013 to 2021, additionally suggested that the US and Iran ought to concur on a non-hostility agreement and commence “commercial exchanges,” such as Iran extending invitations to American enterprises for involvement in its petroleum industry.
This marks the inaugural instance a notable government personality has proposed such an elaborate framework, indicating what Tehran might consent to as an element of an accord to cease hostilities and what it might be prepared to provide to the US, since the hostilities commenced five weeks prior.
This week, ex-president Hassan Rouhani implored Iran to secure a dignified conclusion to the conflict, contending that it represented “the fulfillment of Israel’s aspiration to draw the United States and Western nations into a confrontation with Iran.”
Zarif — who, alongside Rouhani, brokered the 2015 atomic agreement which Iran formalized with the Obama government and other global authorities — holds no formal position and has remained at the fringes of influence for the preceding five-year period. He belongs to the sidelined reformist faction within the governing apparatus.
Following the outbreak of hostilities, conservative elements, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have increased their grip on authority, according to observers.
An internal government source stated that Zarif was articulating his individual opinions and the military command would ultimately dictate the trajectory of the conflict. Certain staunch figures censured the erstwhile envoy for proposing a reconciliation initiative.
“Negotiating with Trump holds no value,” the source remarked. Nevertheless, he proposed that Tehran might interact with European administrations, stating, “they possess the capacity to grant the European Union authorization to confer with Iran on behalf of both European and Persian Gulf nations.”
In an article for Foreign Affairs periodical, Zarif reiterated the assertion of the Islamic government that Iran was “prevailing” in the conflict, notwithstanding the extensive shelling by the US and Israel.
He mentioned that certain Iranians desired to “persist in combat until the assailants receive sufficient retribution, instead of seeking a diplomatically resolved conclusion.”
However, he noted that although prolonging the struggle “could offer psychological gratification, it would exclusively result in additional devastation of non-military lives and basic amenities.”
Iranian officials have consistently affirmed they will not terminate the hostilities with a truce — a position reiterated by Zarif — and desire a thorough accord that concludes the conflict and guarantees Tehran that neither the United States nor Israel would recommence their aggressions.
They have furthermore stated that Tehran would seek reparations for wartime destruction.
During the preceding fortnight, President Donald Trump has declared that Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement after the US’s transmission of a 15-item proposal to Iran aimed at resolving the hostilities.
Iran countered with its distinct propositions; diplomatic sources indicated that each party put forth extreme demands.
Tehran has refuted the existence of official discussions, however, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed this week he had conferred with US delegate Steve Witkoff. Communications are additionally being transferred between Tehran and Washington via intermediaries.
Nevertheless, Trump cautioned this week that the US intended to intensify the hostilities, declaring it would strike Iran “with immense force over the subsequent two to three weeks” and “revert them to a primitive era.”
He has stated his desire to hinder Iran from ever obtaining atomic armaments and seeks for it to relinquish its capacity to refine uranium. Tehran refutes any pursuit of weaponry, yet asserts its entitlement to enrichment as a signatory of the non-proliferation accord.
Zarif conveyed that Iran could pledge to never pursue atomic weaponry and to reduce its reserve of refined uranium to below 3.67 percent purity — the concentration established in the 2015 agreement, which Trump renounced during his initial tenure.
The US would be required to concurrently remove all penalties imposed on the republic, while Iran would subject “all its atomic installations to perpetual international oversight,” he articulated.
The US and Iran were engaged in discussions concerning the atomic initiative mere days before Trump and Netanyahu initiated the conflict.
Zarif indicated that to commence the reconciliation efforts, all involved entities ought to concur on ceasing combat and implement mutual actions.
“Iran, in collaboration with Oman, would need to guarantee the secure transit of merchant ships via the Strait of Hormuz.
“However, American authorities must also allow the Strait of Hormuz to be accessible to Iran,” he stated, implying that the US should enable the republic to conduct unhindered commerce.
Iranian assaults have impeded the movement of vessels through the channel — a waterway typically traversed by approximately one-fifth of global petroleum and natural gas — to a mere drip, and targeted power installations throughout the Gulf region.
Zarif omitted any reference to Iran consenting to restrictions on its ballistic missile initiative or its backing for local insurgent groups, a matter that Gulf nations — having suffered the primary impact of the regime’s assaults — would seek to incorporate into any accord.
He observed that Iranian resistance to discussions was “comprehensible” and that any diplomatic endeavor encounters formidable obstacles. However, Zarif opined that the republic would “eventually fare better if it could conclude the conflict sooner rather than later.”
“Extended conflict will result in a more significant toll of valuable lives and indispensable assets without genuinely changing the current deadlock, especially as the United States and Israel continue to assail Iranian facilities,” he declared.
“Should the United States withdraw and depart prior to both parties securing an agreement, Iran will be unable to capitalize on all the benefits derived from its courageous opposition to Washington’s belligerence.”