Diplomats or Quds Force? Mohammad Javad Zarif Sparks Fierce Debate Among Iran's Elite

A growing rift over Iran's security strategy has emerged after footage showed former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif questioning Tehran's reliance on military threats and arguing that diplomacy and economic opportunity should take priority over confrontation.

The video, which appeared online on Saturday, has triggered a wave of criticism from hardline media as Iran faces mounting economic pressure from a US blockade and renewed uncertainty over the prospect of another conflict. “The balance of power has changed – nuclear weapons do not create deterrence, just as they did not protect Israel or the Soviet Union,” Mr Zarif said in remarks delivered in May last year, shortly before the 12-day war with Israel.

Mr Zarif said Iran lacked sufficient uranium to build a nuclear weapon at the time. He argued that Tehran's security-first outlook had distorted its nuclear strategy and regional diplomacy, limiting opportunities to pursue economic and diplomatic interests.

The former minister drew a direct contrast between treating neighbouring countries as threats and viewing them as potential partners. “If we see the region as a threat, our ambassadors must be representatives of the Quds Force [but] if we see it as an opportunity, our ambassadors must be businesspeople and diplomats,” he said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unit responsible for overseas operations. He also criticised the tendency to frame domestic social issues in security terms. “We even see hijab as a trench line,” Mr Zarif said, calling for a shift away from a threat-based approach.

Hardliners hit back. The remarks have drawn a sharp response from Iran’s hardline establishment. The ultraconservative Kayhan newspaper accused Mr Zarif of undermining national security and helping Washington. “Why, precisely at moments when the US finds itself deadlocked and helpless in the face of Iran’s power, do you give the enemy breathing room by launching a suicidal attack on the arms of national security?” a line read.

The hardline Tasnim news agency published an editorial attacking Mr Zarif’s comments and demanding an apology, while Raja News questioned whether the judiciary would act against him. No formal judicial action has been established.

The backlash comes as Iran’s leadership confronts difficult choices over how long the country can sustain its confrontation with Washington while absorbing the effects of economic restrictions and the US blockade on Strait of Hormuz shipping. Pressure on trade and revenue has intensified concerns about Iran’s economic resilience, adding urgency to arguments that Tehran should seek a diplomatic settlement rather than risk further damage through renewed hostilities.

Reformist politician Hossein Marashi, secretary general of the Executives of Construction Party, warned that Iran must avoid decisions that could trigger another war. “Whatever political or military measures are necessary, including any tactical retreat, must be taken to protect Iran and prevent its people from facing even greater and mounting pressure,” Mr Marashi said.

He argued that Tehran could not simultaneously preserve all its nuclear ambitions, maintain its military posture, resolve its economic crisis and force the US out of the region. Iran’s leaders, he said, must prioritise national survival and economic recovery.

Omid Memarian, senior Iran analyst at the democracy and human rights organisation Dawn, sees the debate as reflecting a broader division over whether continued resistance will strengthen Tehran’s negotiating position or leave the country increasingly vulnerable. “There is a profound and growing divide within Iran, from the highest levels of political decision-making to different segments of society, over how to prevent another war with the United States,” he told The National.

Iran’s leverage over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could become a liability if prolonged disruption prompts Washington to intensify military and economic pressure, Mr Memarian said. “A tactical advantage can become a strategic liability when leaders fail to recognise the moment to cash it in,” he said.

The economic consequences could extend beyond immediate trade disruption, with prolonged uncertainty complicating the management of food supplies, fuel reserves and recovery efforts. Foreign attacks, meanwhile, may foster national solidarity without erasing public grievances over domestic conditions.

The approaching US midterm elections on November 3 add another consideration. Some Iranian pragmatists say Tehran should make meaningful concessions and pursue a settlement before the vote, rather than assume mounting economic costs will eventually force US President Donald Trump to retreat. Mr Trump has said the US will not resume military strikes before the elections, citing productive discussions with Iran. Washington has nevertheless continued preparations for possible military operations, leaving fundamental disagreements unresolved.

Mr Zarif’s remarks have exposed the political sensitivity of questioning Iran’s deterrence strategy at a moment when its leadership faces pressure on several fronts. The central dispute is whether Tehran should use its remaining leverage to negotiate a sustainable settlement or continue a confrontational approach that could deepen economic hardship and increase the risk of another war.