"Zarif Didn't Lie. It Was a Clumsy Use of Words"

New-York based journalist Hooman Majd has known Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, ever since he served as Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations between 2002 and 2007. Majd even paid him visits in Iran. Majd is also friends with Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter who was imprisoned in Iran last July.

On April 29, US television host Charlie Rose asked Zarif about the jailing of journalists in Iran. Zarif answered, “We do not jail people for their opinions,” and added, “people who commit crimes cannot hide behind being a journalist.” The statement outraged many Iranians, who accused Zarif of lying. The foreign minister later wrote on Facebook that he was specifically referring to Rezaian.

IranWire spoke to Hooman Majd about the controversy.

When Javad Zarif told Charlie Rose that Iran doesn’t imprison people for their opinions, was he just lying?

No, I don't think he was lying. What he was trying to say was in direct response to what Charlie asked him about Jason Rezaian. Zarif has said that Jason was not arrested for the crime of journalism, because that's not a crime in Iran. I think it was a clumsy use of words. I don't think Charlie did him any favors by not challenging him. He should have challenged him and said, do you really mean that?

Knowing Zarif, I doubt very much that he believes that no one has ever been imprisoned in Iran for expressing an opinion. As he has said on other occasions, Jason's journalism was not critical of the Islamic Republic, and there are people who have written far more critical things than Jason ever wrote for the Washington Post, who have not been arrested. He doesn't believe Jason was arrested for expressing his opinion. Jason never expressed an opinion, as far as I know, that would in any way cause him to be arrested and kept in prison for nine months.

In recent weeks, there was a function where somebody said Jason was arrested for journalism. It was kind in response to that. In the interview it came out in a different way. I think Zarif, who doesn't have control over the judiciary, who doesn't have the ability to free Jason, does believe that there has been some cause for Jason to be arrested, that there are some charges that are serious. There are people in Iran for whom the “espionage” bar is set very low, and things that most people would not consider anything like spying, they would consider, at a minimum, giving comfort to the enemy. We've all seen it, and it doesn't make it right. That is a fact of Iranian politics, unfortunately.

Do Zarif’s comments indicate that he is on the same page as so-called hardliners where the case of Jason Rezaian is concerned, and perhaps the cases of other journalists too?

I think his view is different from hardliners. But we can’t forget that Zarif is a product of the system. He was a revolutionary, he believes in the system. He believes that the system needs political reform, he believes in freedom of speech as far as I know, but he still supports the system. And the system has many elements that we would consider not democratic in the West.

Zarif has many friends who are journalists, Americans as well as Iranians, many of whom have criticized the Islamic Republic. He meets with them and talks to them. I don’t think he has a strong feeling that journalists should be censored. In the case of journalists who have been arrested in the past, I think he's always probably been on their side rather than on the judiciary’s side. I don't think he believes that Jason has necessarily committed a crime. I think he believes that the judiciary thinks he has, or the intelligence division of the Revolutionary Guards thinks he has.

The truth of the matter is that when they don't like what you write, they usually tell the culture ministry to pull your press pass. That's the first thing they do. In Jason's case, his press pass was never pulled, and the culture ministry never called him in. Clearly it wasn't about journalism. But he was also being followed. Every journalist who lives in Iran, writing for the western media, is going to be monitored very closely. Those hardliners must think they've got something on him. He will go to trial, but I can't see a situation where he's not going to be released.

Zarif posted what he called a “clarification” of his comments on Facebook. How successful do you think he was in winning over his critics?

Probably, not very. The Iranians, we're an emotional people, but we also like to have heroes. Zarif, for better or worse, has become a hero for people in Iran who want change. He has come to represent that, even more so than Rouhani, because he's much more the public face of Iran. The foreign minister has become the face of reform and change particularly because of the nuclear talks, and their success so far, and the potential success that we expect in July, which will change the lives of ordinary Iranian citizens in a way that nothing has in the past decade at least.

People are disappointed. They were looking for something in Zarif that isn't there. I think he can recognize it was a blow. It's an awkward thing. What does he apologize for? Does he apologize for clumsy language? Does he apologize for the statement itself? I think most people who know him, and have followed his career, know that he probably does not believe that there are no abuses of freedom of speech in Iran. That’s basically what that statement says, if you let it stand as it is, “No one is jailed for their opinion.”

But people who live in Iran understand the difficulties he has in his job, and the way the hardliners pick on him. He's in a very precarious position, and on top of that you have to understand one other thing, which is that he has a single-minded goal, which is to clinch this nuclear deal. That is the mission he was given, and anything that could derail that mission, is something he is very cautious about. Jason's case, Saeed Abedini's case, Amir Hekmati's case, could potentially derail a nuclear deal, not because the Obama administration is making those American citizens imprisoned in Iran part of the deal, but because Congress is, and because certain people use that as an excuse.

Can you think of a better way he could have answered the question?

He could have said what he's always said in the past, which is, we do our best as the foreign ministry to make sure that someone like Jason is treated well, but the judiciary is a separate branch of power and I can't interfere, the same way John Kerry can't interfere with the Justice Department.

There's a certain frustration on his part, because every time he meets with John Kerry or an American reporter, Jason's case, and sometimes those of other American citizens in Iran, come up. In the case of the other two, Saeed Abedini and Amir Hekmati, they've both been tried and convicted. Zarif has no ability to do anything about them. But on Jason, you could argue that Zarif could pressure the judiciary, through the supreme leader’s office, perhaps, to advance the trial so it happens sooner rather than later. I assume they do want that to happen sooner rather than later, and to have Jason freed and allowed to leave the country.

What would you have asked Zarif if you were interviewing him on this topic?

I would have asked him what it is that they believe Jason has done, specifically. Zarif has hinted that he’s been told there was some issue with the CIA attempting to recruit Jason. Once he’s said that, I would press him and say, have you seen the evidence? What is the evidence? Since I know he doesn't have the ability to free Jason, I would ask what else the Rouhani administration can do to either free Jason, or get him his day in court with a lawyer of his choosing, which he hasn't been able to get, as soon as possible.