Iran's 'meek' reformists are getting bolder, but drawing fire from all sides in the process

The reformist faction in Iran’s official politics is often accused of acting meekly, but a statement it published on Sunday shows just how emboldened it feels. The missive from the Iranian Reformist Front calls for thorough changes in Iran’s domestic and foreign policies.

Seeing the current moment as “a golden opportunity for change and return to the people”, its long list of demands includes release of political prisoners, pushing militias out of politics and economy, improvement in women’s rights and changing the state broadcaster’s approach.

Most controversially, it calls for Iran voluntarily suspending nuclear enrichment in return for the lifting of US-imposed sanctions. Iran must comply with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, it says. It wants Iran to go further and establish full diplomatic relations with the US. It calls for better ties with Saudi Arabia and helping to bring about the formation of a Palestinian state (the latter an implicit recognition of the two-state solution, which the IRF has called for before).

The IRF is an important part of the Iranian political establishment. It brings together a wide array of reformist parties and it is seen as the party of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who relied on its endorsement for his victory last year.

As such, the statement has shocked many in the establishment. Mr Pezeshkian himself is usually quick to declare his loyalty to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian government as a whole. Having recently met the IRF and its prominent leader, Azar Mansouri, Mr Pezeshkian might be forced to take a position on the statement.

Leading the attacks is the hardliner daily Kayhan, which accuses the IRF of heading “a slow coup” against the Islamic Republic, in line with the “hopes of the Americans and Zionists”. It goes on to say that if the IRF’s demands are implemented, Iran could no longer be called an Islamic Republic.

Sadegh Mahsuli, head of the hardline Paydari Front, has chimed in, accusing the reformists of “a new sedition to break Iran from within”. From Mashhad in north-eastern Iran, the daily Khorasan claimed the IRF’s call for “regional co-operation for a durable peace” was secretly aimed at Iran joining the Abraham Accords.

Even some reformists are opposed. Sayid Noormohammadi, spokesperson for Nedaye Iranian Party, which is part of the IRF, said the party does not like broad statements like this and did not vote for it in the front’s leadership meetings.

Mohammadreza Jalaeipour, a well-known reformist sociologist, led the strongest attack on the statement from this camp. He called it “a major mistake” and “a gift to purist hardliners and Israeli anti-regime elements”. Javad Azari Jahromi, communications minister under Hassan Rouhani, the centrist former president, said the statement amounted to Iran’s “submission to the United States”.

But the statement has also gathered countless defenders. Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a former MP and leading reformist figure, attacked Mr Jalaeipour for effectively greenlighting a crackdown on the reformists. Instead, Iran needed frank political debate, he said. It was not the IRF statement but “justifying the status quo and denying people’s demands” that helped “domestic and foreign extremists”, Mr Asgharzadeh said.

Defenders of the statement point out that American attacks on Iran have effectively led to most nuclear enrichment being stopped. If the IRF gets its way, Iran would receive massive economic concessions in return for giving up what it barely has at the moment. The alternative could be a resumption of war.

The IRF is far from alone in recognising the need for fundamental changes in Iran. Abbas Karimi, a member of Mr Pezeshkian’s constitutional task force, recently called for “a fundamental review” of the Iranian constitution, asserting that it must change.

Javad Zarif, foreign minister under Mr Rouhani, penned an op-ed in the magazine Foreign Policy last week calling for a “paradigm shift”. He said Iran must expand its ties with its neighbours and seek “renewed dialogue” with Europe and the US and “a possible US-Iran non-aggression pact”.

Mr Rouhani himself published a long speech on August 13 that recalls the 12-day war between Iran and Israel and the US. Americans and Israelis failed in their dual goals of bringing down the Islamic Republic and disrupting the regional order, Mr Rouhani said, but he also called for fundamental changes in Iran, such as reducing tensions with the US, allowing the opening of private TV channels, an independent judiciary and a “new national strategy”.

Some top former reformists have already gone way beyond. Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former Iranian prime minister, called for a referendum and a change of the constitution last month. His call has been supported by hundreds of well-known figures such as Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former acting interior minister, and Parvaneh Salahshoori, a former MP.

In his latest statement from Evin prison, Mr Tajzadeh warned that outrageous inflation, unemployment and recurrent cuts to water and electricity threaten Iran with state failure. He repeated his call for “fundamental changes”.

What Mr Rouhani, the IRF and even some more radical critics such as Mr Tajzadeh have in common is pointing out that the Iranian government needs to expand its social base if it wants to survive. Iran must “fill the gap between the regime and the nation”, Mr Tajzadeh said.

There is a spectrum in calls for change. Mr Jalaeipour, for instance, has approved of Mr Rouhani’s speech despite his attacks on the IRF. But the hardliners remain opposed to any and all change.

Kayhan and Mr Mahsuli have attacked Mr Zarif and Mr Rouhani alongside the IRF, accusing them all of trying to restructure the regime. Meanwhile, Tasnim, a mouthpiece for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, has put Mr Rouhani and reformists in the same basket, accusing them of wishing for a “Gorbachev moment”, a reference to the last leader of the Soviet Union whose attempts at change led to the downfall of communism.

By countering the government's hardcore establishment, reformists have shown incredible boldness. But caught between opponents of the leadership, who denounce reformists as a useless loyal opposition, and the domestic conservatives, who denounce them for their radical demands, they remain hard-pressed in finding a path forward. Realisation of their far-reaching demands requires degrees of political mobilisation they have not staged for years.