Mohammad Javad Zarif, pictured here at a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry last week, has served as the Iranian Foreign Minister under President Hassan Rouhani since 2013. Photograph by Brendan McDermid / Reuters

Three months after Iran dismantled large parts of its nuclear program, in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the international nuclear deal—the country’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, declared last week in New York that the United States is falling seriously short of its commitments. Iran’s Central Bank chief, Valiollah Seif, delivered a similar message during his first meeting with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, on April 14th, and he told the Council on Foreign Relations, “Nothing has happened.”

Secretary of State John Kerry addressed some of these concerns on Friday. Standing next to Zarif, during their second meeting in four days, Kerry said that the nuclear deal opened “opportunities for foreign banks to do business with Iran,” and that Washington would not stand in their way. The Obama Administration also announced that it was buying thirty-two metric tons of heavy water from Iran, for almost nine million dollars. Iran had already exported the matériel as part of the nuclear agreement, but it had been stuck on ships off Oman. It will be stored at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and later resold for industrial and research use, the State Department said.

In an interview last week, Zarif discussed various sticking points in relations between Washington and Tehran. The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

President Obama just finished meetings in the Gulf with the King of Saudi Arabia and the five other sheikhdoms. He talked about opening space for peaceful coexistence between Iran and the Gulf states, but he also talked about a strong defense against Iran.

Well, I guess old habits die hard.

He spoke of reaching out to “the more reasonable forces in Iran, so we don’t see an escalation in proxy fights across the region.”

That’s what I do not believe—that dividing Iran into “reasonable” and “unreasonable” forces is either correct, conducive, or anybody’s business. When the United States exercised that practice in the past, it didn’t produce results.

You told me right after you took office, in 2013, that after the nuclear deal your top priority was better relations with the Gulf states. What is it going to take to end those proxy fights?

The region is our No. 1 priority. We wanted to take every opportunity to work with our Persian Gulf neighbors. We have presented, both publicly and privately, proposals for engagement and dialogue. Unfortunately, they have fallen on deaf ears. Primarily by Saudi Arabia.

It’s not that there needs to be tension. We started exercising restraint a long time ago, when they supported Saddam Hussein for eight years, and then he turned and attacked them. Over the past two and a half years, when we were engaged in the nuclear negotiations, the Saudis did everything to undermine those negotiations, glutting the oil markets, and we exercised restraint. There’s a limit.

The Troubled Nuclear Deal

The nuclear deal seems to be in some trouble. Can you explain the problems?

The most important problem is that the United States is taking a back seat after eight years of scaring everybody off, imposing heavy penalties on people who wanted to do business with Iran. Billions of dollars of penalties were imposed on various European financial institutions. The United States was supposed to go to various banks and tell them bygones are bygones.

What do you expect to come out of your meetings with Secretary Kerry?

I want to see European banks doing business with Iran without fear of U.S. retaliation. A lot depends on it. As we implemented our obligations fully, we are entitled to benefit fully. The United States needs to do way more. They have to send a message that doing business with Iran will not cost them. Period. No ifs and buts.

International regimes, international treaties, international norms are observed not because of the goodness of anybody but because they bring benefits. If they don’t, then the longevity of those agreements come into jeopardy.

Is the deal in danger of collapsing?

** **No, the deal is in place. But if one side does not comply with the agreement then the agreement will start to falter.

U.S.–Iran Relations

This is the final year for President Obama and Secretary Kerry. What do you think a new President, whether a Democrat or a Republican, is likely to mean for the future of a process that was started during the Obama Administration?

I’m more interested in seeing this process come to fruition during the Obama Administration. I believe that, once it does, the future Presidents of both Iran and the United States will see it is in their interest to safeguard it and to make sure that it continues, because we believe it’s a good deal. We believe it’s a deal that is in the interest of both sides and in the interest of the international community. We believe that, once it is fully implemented, everybody will see the beneficial side effects or spillovers in other areas. So my focus—and we have quite a bit of time—is to entrench this agreement during the months that are left of Secretary Kerry’s tenure, and of my own, and make sure that everybody recognizes the benefit of being compliant with the deal.

Do you think that the next President, whichever party wins, is likely to be as friendly or as interested in dialogue as the current President is?

Many people in Iran won’t consider this government to be that friendly anyway.

How often do you communicate with Secretary Kerry on average?

Quite often.

Two or three times a week?

Depending on the circumstances, but it may be two or three times a day. We’re dealing with a complicated agreement, and we both want to see it implemented.

Will you miss Secretary Kerry?

The jury’s still out. I’m still trying to work with him, in order to make sure that the very serious achievement that he and I and the other participants in the negotiations were able to achieve is preserved, strengthened, and guaranteed a long life.

I attended a breakfast with the governor of Iran’s Central Bank last Friday, in Washington, the day after he saw Secretary Lew. How has the discussion between Tehran and Washington changed in the last two and a half years during the negotiations?

We had hoped that greater interaction on this issue would dent the mistrust. And I don’t think it’s too late. As the Leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] said last year, if the experience of the nuclear negotiations proves that the United States is changing its approach toward Iran—is basing its approach to Iran on mutual respect and interests—then there is a chance of change. But if the United States wants to continue with its hostile policies, then we will have to stick with the nuclear deal and try to basically keep it alive and functioning. The nuclear deal could still be the base and not the ceiling. But it requires positive political will on the side of the United States to stop this whole practice of simply repeating the old, outdated lines when it comes to Iran.

**A senior U.S. official said that the Administration had hoped that the nuclear deal would open the way to settle other past problems, to clear the decks, in a way—particularly before President Obama leaves office. There is concern that Iran has been unwilling or unable to solve some of those other issues. **