Shifting Paradigms: Reformist Dreams, Conservative Barriers

Executive Summary

August 17 2025

Key Takeaways

• Zarif's Argument: Calls for a "paradigm shift" from threat-based politics to regional and global cooperation, framed as empowering Iran's resilience and opportunities.

• Conservative Reaction: Kayhan's satirical column ridiculed Zarif's ideas as nothing more than the recycled goals of Trump and Netanyahu.

• Historic Pattern: Zarif and other "moderates" have long faced conservative accusations of undermining Iran's revolutionary identity, especially during JCPOA talks.

• Strategic Illusion: The "moderate vs. hardliner" divide is less reality than political theater—part of Iran's strategy to mislead the West and extract concessions.

 Zarif: paradigm shift

Former Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently argued in Foreign Affairs that Iran and the wider region must undergo a "paradigm shift" from a framework of threats to one of possibilities, emphasizing diplomacy, regional cooperation, and renewed dialogue with the West. His call immediately drew ridicule in Kayhan's satirical "Dialogue" column, which mocked reformists for recycling what it called the failed ambitions of Trump and Netanyahu to bring about regime change. This sharp response reflects a broader pattern: for decades, conservatives have accused Zarif and other reformist figures of undermining Iran's revolutionary identity, particularly during nuclear negotiations and efforts to expand ties with the West.

Yet the recurring clash between so-called moderates like Zarif and hardliners such as those writing in Kayhan is less a genuine division than a managed dichotomy designed to manipulate external perceptions. Since the 1990s, Iran has strategically presented a façade of moderation to extract diplomatic and economic concessions, while ensuring that ultimate control remains firmly in the hands of the Supreme Leader and the revolutionary establishment. Seen in this light, the Zarif-conservative dispute represents continuity in Iran's dual-track strategy: speaking the language of engagement abroad while maintaining ideological rigidity at home.

 ***

Paradigm Clash: Zarif vs. Kayhan's Conservatives

Mohammad Javad Zarif, long regarded in the West as a "moderate" Iranian voice, has never escaped fierce criticism at home. While celebrated abroad for his role in negotiating the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA), Zarif has consistently been portrayed by Iran's conservative camp as dangerously naïve, overly trusting of the West, and out of step with the revolutionary ethos. This long-running antagonism resurfaced sharply after his recent essay in Foreign Affairs, where he called for a "paradigm shift" in Iran's diplomacy.

Zarif's Call for a Paradigm Shift

In his August 2025 Foreign Affairs article, "The Time for a Paradigm Shift Is Now", Zarif argued that West Asia stands at a perilous inflection point. He wrote:

"For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his global enablers, the only so-called existential threat is actually peace and quiet."

Zarif urged Iran and its neighbors to replace a "deeply ingrained threat paradigm" with what he called a "possibilities paradigm." He described this as:

"an empowering possibilities paradigm, including expansion of ties with neighbors and global south countries, a new regional partnership among Muslim West Asia, and a renewed dialogue with Europe and the United States."

He outlined three pillars:

1. Empowering the Iranian people, whom he called "the nation's paramount asset to be empowered, nurtured, and allowed to flourish."

2. Regional cooperation, reviving initiatives such as the Hormuz Peace Endeavor and calling for a U.N.-backed "strategic pivot from fragmentation to synergy."

   
   

3. Global engagement, despite deep mistrust, notes Iran's contributions, such as the "Dialogue Among Civilizations" and the JCPOA.

   
   

Zarif argued that Iran has proven its strength, even "holding its own against two nuclear-armed aggressors," and now must seize opportunities to transform conflict into prosperity.

Kayhan's Mocking Rebuttal

The https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/08/15/javad-zarif-iran-diplomacy-war-united-states/?utm_source=chatgpt.com daily Kayhan, closely aligned with the Supreme Leader, ridiculed Zarif's essay in its satirical column "Why Is Your Neck Crooked?!". The piece mocked reformists for suddenly speaking of "paradigm change," asking rhetorically:

"Does this mean they want to change the very system and foundation of the Islamic Republic? Isn't that exactly the dream that Trump and Netanyahu failed to achieve during the Twelve-Day War?"

The column accused Zarif and his camp of repeating "the failed wishes of the enemy," and recalled their alleged involvement in unrest in 2009, 2019, and 2022. It closed with the Persian proverb: "When the camel was asked why its neck was crooked, it replied, 'What part of me is straight that my neck should be?'" به شتر گفتند چرا گردنت کجه؟ گفت کجام راسته که گردنم باشه؟» a metaphor implying reformists are inherently bent and unreliable.

Why Is Your Neck Crooked? (Dialogue)

He said: What kind of logic is this—that after the 12-Day War, the chain newspapers under the management of the so-called reformists, Zarif, and others among the 'reformist crowd,' have raised the issue of a 'paradigm' and insist that Iran's paradigm must change! Now what is this paradigm anyway?!

I said: Paradigm means the "governing intellectual framework of the country" and the foundation of its system.

He said: So they are telling the framework and foundation of the Islamic Republic must be changed? That is exactly the same lost dream of Trump and Netanyahu in the 12-Day War. They also said their main goal in attacking Iran was to change the governing system, or in their words, "regime change."

I said: That is nothing more than chasing after the lost dreams of the enemy!

He said: Does it have any other meaning?!

I said: Did you forget that this same group played a role in the American-Israeli sedition of 2009, in the unrest of 2019, and the unrest of 2022, all of which were organized by Iran's enemies to overthrow the system?!

He said: Which part of their record shows even a trace of patriotism or of being truly Iranian?!

I said: What can I say? They asked the camel, "Why is your neck crooked?" It replied: "Which part of me is straight that my neck should be?"

"Goft-o-Shenud" (Dialogue), a long-running satirical column in Kayhan. Uses a conversational style, typically between two unnamed voices ("he said / I said"), to ridicule reformist politicians, intellectuals, and policies

Just one day after publishing its satirical "Why Is Your Neck Crooked?!" Kayhan escalated its critique with a sweeping condemnation of the entire reformist movement. The paper explicitly named figures such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, Mostafa Tajzadeh, and others, accusing them of echoing Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recent appeal to the Iranian public. In Netanyahu's address, he urged Iranians to be "bold and brave," to "dare to dream," and to take to the streets for their freedom and future — words that Kayhan equated with the reformists' messaging, framing them not merely as naïve, but as strikingly aligned with a foreign adversary's strategy. This narrative, the paper argued, confirmed that the reformist camp is acting as unwitting allies in a campaign aimed at undermining the Islamic Republic.

A History of Conservative Attacks on Zarif

This harsh tone is consistent with years of conservative attacks on Zarif. During the JCPOA negotiations, Kayhan and other outlets accused him of selling out Iran's nuclear rights and naively trusting the United States. They seized on the U.S. withdrawal from the deal under President Trump as proof of their warnings, declaring Zarif's diplomacy a "disaster."

When Zarif promoted initiatives such as the Hormuz Peace Endeavor, conservatives dismissed them as naïve and strategically dangerous, claiming they would embolden Iran's enemies. His broader push for rapprochement with Europe and dialogue with Washington was denounced as undermining Iran's revolutionary independence. Reformists saw him as pragmatic; conservatives painted him as weak and out of touch.

Zarif's new essay highlights the enduring divide in Iranian politics: whether to seek engagement and opportunity or to maintain a posture of resistance. His vision of a "possibilities paradigm" has been met with sharp derision by Kayhan, which frames it as thinly veiled regime change. The clash is not merely about Zarif himself. It reflects the deeper struggle over Iran's strategic identity - whether to remain locked in perpetual confrontation or to pursue the opportunities Zarif insists are now within reach.

Iran's Moderation Illusion

The apparent dispute between Mohammad Javad Zarif and Iran’s conservative establishment should be understood less as a genuine ideological confrontation and more as part of a carefully staged performance. For decades, the Islamic Republic has deliberately projected an image of political pluralism-pitting so-called “moderates” against “hardliners”-to sustain the illusion that meaningful debate exists within the system. In reality, this “good cop, bad cop” dynamic has served as a strategic tool to mislead Western policymakers, convincing them that engagement with figures branded as “moderates” could yield compromise. From the presidencies of Rafsanjani and Rouhani onward, Tehran has consistently used this façade of moderation to extract concessions while never abandoning its revolutionary principles or long-term objectives. Within this context, Zarif’s recent calls for a “paradigm shift” and the conservatives’ derision of them should be seen not as substantive disagreement but as another act in Iran’s long-standing political theater.