����ֱ��

In his latest article published in Foreign Policy magazine on Aug. 15, former Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called for what he described as a “paradigm shift.” He considered that “the time has come for a critical transition from an approach centered on confronting threats to one focused on exploiting opportunities.”
This key phrase encapsulates what Zarif wants to propose: moving away from the “perpetual threat” rhetoric that has defined the post-revolutionary Iranian discourse, and opening up to new partnerships, particularly with the country’s neighbors. He emphasized the “expansion of ties with neighbors and Global South countries, and a new regional partnership among Muslim West Asia.”
Zarif proposed a conceptual shift from a “deeply ingrained threat paradigm” to an “empowering possibilities paradigm.” Such a step requires changing fundamental pillars of Iran’s political doctrine, particularly those related to “exporting the revolution” and “supporting the vulnerable,” both of which are stipulated by the Iranian constitution. Iran interfered in the internal affairs of many neighboring Gulf states, in addition to Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon, under the banner of “defending the oppressed” or “resistance.” This behavior fueled deep tensions between Tehran and its neighbors, who have consistently rejected these policies. Therefore, changing the “paradigm” will require Iran to adopt a new approach by shifting away from the revolutionary discourse and embracing diplomacy as a state that upholds the UN charter and international law.
Zarif’s article, when read from a strategic perspective and placed within the context of Iran’s and the region’s political experience, raises key questions: How can Iran move away from a discourse that has been enforced since 1979 and built on ideological and revolutionary foundations, and follow the path of genuine diplomacy? What makes this transition possible or impossible?
The former foreign minister is clearly trying to highlight the importance of opening up to neighboring countries by referring to a “new partnership in West Asia.” Realistically, this could take the form of enhanced dialogue with the Gulf Arab states, especially ����ֱ��. However, the fundamental problem lies in the lack of mutual trust.

Javad Zarif’s proposition is a call to rethink the regional trajectory.

Hassan Al-Mustafa

Gulf capitals have directly experienced the impact of negative Iranian influence in recent decades. Kuwait, Riyadh, and Manama have also suffered due to activities carried out by cells linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. These activities included recruitment operations, weapons training, and bombings targeting vital facilities. Therefore, any true “opportunities paradigm” must begin with honest trust-building measures. At the top of the list would be ending support for militias, controlling inflammatory media behaviors, and creating a transparent security mechanism for direct communication. This is even more significant considering that the Gulf Arab states, specifically ����ֱ��, unequivocally opposed Israel’s attack on Iran, condemning it strongly and publicly. This position stemmed from the Kingdom’s belief that the Middle East needs peace, not more wars and violence.
Decision-makers in the Gulf realize that the future of regional security depends on three issues that are subject to Iran’s direct influence: Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. These three countries reflect Iran’s ability to control local actors through allies directly linked to it. In Yemen, there will be no strategic shift without Tehran pushing the Houthis to reach a comprehensive agreement with the government. This would include a ceasefire and the implementation of a balanced political solution.
In Iraq, it is essential to redefine the role of the Popular Mobilization Forces and restrict the control of arms to the state to prevent them from being used as tools of cross-border influence. These are considered necessary conditions for any regional economic openness to Iraq and for the flow of investments that would develop the country and enable it to recover from years of chaos, corruption and terrorism.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah should be returned to a comprehensive Lebanese national framework, the control of arms restricted to the Lebanese Army, and the use of the militant group as a proxy against Israel ended. These are considered crucial steps that would confirm Iran’s readiness to transition from a logic of “permanent confrontation” to a “stable partnership.”
In this context, one of the most sensitive and problematic issues can be raised. In his article, Zarif resorted to a flexible diplomatic language. However, he failed to address a fundamental question: How can a “regional partnership” be established while the IRGC continues to adopt an expansionist strategy based on a revolutionary doctrine and proxy interventions?
In fact, the IRGC is the key actor when it comes to the issues of ballistic missiles, drones and regional presence. If its role is not redefined within a new equation that sets a clear limit for its influence, no one will believe that Zarif’s call represents a genuine strategic shift, and the article will continue to be viewed as an ineffective or elitist point of view.
However, a real opportunity presents itself. The 2023 Beijing-sponsored reconciliation between Riyadh and Tehran showed that channels can be established. It also proved that the countries’ interests in the energy and economic fields, as well as the religious ties between the Saudi and Iranian peoples, can form a solid foundation for any agreement. This would indeed be the case, provided the Iranians approach these matters honestly and seriously, without duplicity in decision-making or delays the implementation of necessary commitments.
Zarif considers that “there is now a crucial window of opportunity,” highlighting that “Iran, alongside Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, ����ֱ��, Syria, Turkiye, and the UAE ... must seize this moment.” He is right, but observers of Iranian policy think that the decisive factor will primarily be Iran’s behavior, without overlooking external factors such as Israel’s disruptive role.
Zarif’s proposition is not without merit. It is rather a call to rethink the regional trajectory, especially in light of the broad reformist movement in Iran and the large portion of the population that supports it and wants to improve the economic situation, freeing themselves from the burden of international sanctions, isolation, and constant worry.
However, the value of this idea is measured by the Iranian political leadership’s willingness to transform it into an actionable roadmap if it wishes to be a force that promotes stability rather than a source of threat. The rhetoric employed by Zarif will then resonate with elites in neighboring Arab countries, turning his diplomatic article into a strategic vision that promotes development, cooperation, stability, and legitimate competition, far removed from violence and chaos.

• Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran.
X: @Halmustafa