Thread by @yarbatman

Reflecting on the #Zarif resignation reformist figure Mohsen Aminzadeh notes that tension between MFA/IRGC on foreign policy is real, but relates to regional issues. He does not discern that the IRGC is opposed to diplomacy + JCPOA as has been suggested in foreign reports.

Aminzadeh highlights that MFA's singular focus on JCPOA + related diplomacy (as well as the growing risk of regional conflict) re-opened the door for IRGC role in regional matters. When Zarif first pushed back "no one was willing to give up captured areas of foreign policy."

When asked about a rivalry between Zarif and Soleimani, Aminzadeh points to his own experience working with Soleimani back in his days as Khatami's Dep FM, and expresses confusion as to why Soleimani's "attitude to the management of diplomacy has changed so much."

To be clear, Aminzadeh is referring specifically to the unwillingness of the IRGC to cede the leadership of Syria/Iraq diplomacy back to MFA. But he expresses optimism that the aborted resignation could help "return management of regional foreign policy to the MFA."

Of course, I don't think that was the exclusive consideration for Zarif. He was clearly tired of having to repeat his full-throated defense of the administration's foreign policy while other ministers/officials remained on the sidelines to avoid the attacks from hardliners.

My tl;dr is that the disagreements that led to resignation episode are more nuanced/institutional than the "Zarif vs. Soleimani rivalry" narrative suggests. There isn't a breakdown in consensus around those elements of foreign policy that Zarif has always controlled (JCPOA etc.)

Link to the full article. If you don't speak Persian, Google Translate will actually do a good enough job here. Worth checking out.
kaleme.com/1397/12/13/klm…