The public confrontation between Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, and Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat, has reopened one of the most contentious chapters in Iran’s modern foreign policy. Their dispute over who created the “snapback” mechanism in the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) has evolved beyond a technical argument—it has become a symbolic battle over history, loyalty, and Iran’s place in a transformed world order.
On October 14, Lavrov told reporters at the Arab–Russian Cooperation Forum that the JCPOA’s snapback clause—allowing any signatory to unilaterally restore UN sanctions on Iran—was “to a large extent Zarif’s own creation.” He called it a “legal trap” embedded in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and claimed it had been agreed directly between Zarif and then–U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, while other parties, including Russia, “simply observed.” “Frankly, we were surprised,” Lavrov said. “But if our Iranian partner accepted such a legal formula, we had no reason to object.” He maintained that Russia had never abandoned its support for the JCPOA, even as Western states—Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S.—moved this year to reactivate sanctions through the same mechanism.
Zarif responded forcefully, accusing Lavrov of distorting history and evading responsibility. According to him, the snapback provision actually replaced an even worse proposal originally advanced by Russia and France, which would have suspended UN sanctions only in renewable six-month intervals—subject to reversal at any time. Zarif recalled confronting Kerry about that idea: “He said, ‘Let’s suspend the resolutions every six months.’ I told him this insults my intelligence. Kerry replied, ‘This proposal came from your friend Lavrov.’” For Zarif, the episode encapsulates Moscow’s duplicity—posing as Iran’s ally while protecting its own interests. He now argues that Russia, not Iran, engineered the most restrictive aspects of the JCPOA and is trying to rewrite the story a decade later.
Presidents Rouhani and Putin meet in 2014 with their top diplomats, Zarif and Lavrov. Photo via Kremlin / Wikimedia.
When the JCPOA was signed under U.S. President Barack Obama, the global balance of power was radically different. At that time, Russia and China maintained functional relations with Washington and shared an interest in limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Both cooperated with the U.S. and European powers, forming a unified diplomatic front that pressured Tehran into signing the 2015 accord. In practice, this alignment isolated Iran, as even non-Western powers participated in the JCPOA framework. A decade later, the stage has completely shifted. Russia is locked in war with the West over Ukraine, and China is engaged in a strategic rivalry with the United States. Sanctions on many of the major non-Western powers have increasingly driven Iran, China and Russia together, though key divides and distrust remain. Today, both Moscow and Beijing refuse to recognize the snapback sanctions, take steps to defend Iran at the UN Security Council, and have expanded military and technical cooperation. The same powers that once helped Washington contain Iran are now shielding it—a reversal that underscores the magnitude of the global shift since 2015.
Once celebrated as the architect of the JCPOA that delivered significant sanctions relief for the nation, Zarif has come under increasing attack as the fortunes of the JCPOA have declined, now underscored by the snapback of UN resolutions. While he played a critical role in the Pezeshkian campaign and early days of the current administration, his resignation leaves him without formal influence in the system. Under relentless domestic attacks, Zarif’s narrative has become one of self-defense. He insists that he acted in Iran’s best interest, facing both internal sabotage and external manipulation. His recent interviews portray a man fighting not for political return, but for his historical reputation—arguing that Iran’s current difficulties stem not from his diplomacy, but from its abandonment. “Many of the attacks against me and the JCPOA were orchestrated,” Zarif told An-Nahar. “Direct and multilateral negotiations with the U.S. are the only solution, and time is not necessarily in our favor.”
Ironically, as Zarif defends himself from Lavrov’s criticism, many Iranian hardliners echo the Russian position. They view the JCPOA as a Western trap and blame Zarif for over-trusting the United States. For them, Lavrov’s remarks validate their long-held belief that the nuclear agreement was flawed from the beginning. This convergence—between Russian diplomats and Iran’s conservative elite—highlights a new ideological realignment. Iran’s foreign policy has now moved decisively toward the Eurasian axis, prioritizing strategic alignment with Russia and China over compromise with the West. In this new paradigm, Zarif’s vision of balanced diplomacy is often treated as anachronistic, a relic of an era when engagement with the U.S. still seemed possible of delivering results.
The dispute between Zarif and Lavrov encapsulates the end of an era in Iranian diplomacy. It is not merely a personal feud—it symbolizes Iran’s transition from multilateral engagement to more limited diplomatic ambitions. Zarif represents the past: negotiation, compromise, and engagement. Lavrov represents the present: confrontation, realignment, and power politics. While Russia and China now defend Iran at the UN and supply it with some level of military equipment, Tehran’s foreign policy has become increasingly dependent on their goodwill. The man once accused of trusting the West too much now watches as his country trusts Moscow and Beijing completely.