Iranian MP Amirhossein Sabeti announced on Monday that a request to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had been referred to the parliament’s presiding board. He called on the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee to hold a session as soon as possible with the minister and the request’s sponsors, opening a parliamentary process to question him over the management of negotiations and the results of Iran’s foreign policy.
Procedures for referring the impeachment request to the relevant committee
Sabeti called on the parliament’s presiding board to apply the internal regulations and allow the prescribed procedures to continue. No date has been set for the committee session, which is the next stage before the impeachment could move to a plenary session that may end with a vote of no confidence in the minister.
The objections filed against Araghchi combine doubts over the legitimacy of some of his diplomatic moves with criticism of the political and economic results of foreign policy. The minister, meanwhile, maintains that he acted in accordance with instructions from the relevant authorities, while MPs opposed to the impeachment say the request holds the policy implementer responsible for decisions shaped by other bodies as well.
MP Mahmoud Nabavian also published a list naming 35 MPs supporting the impeachment, including nine of Tehran’s 30 MPs. Prominent names on the list include Amirhossein Sabeti, Ali Khazarian and Nabavian himself. The list reflects the signatures announced when it was published and is not the result of a parliamentary vote on Araghchi remaining in office.
Impeachment grounds include negotiations and regional relations
The impeachment grounds include accusations that the minister exceeded his mandate in contacts held in New York, negotiations concerning the Strait of Hormuz, and the Cairo agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The request also addresses the performance of economic diplomacy, the process for appointing ambassadors and the level of relations with neighbouring countries.
The broader request adds criticism of the results of negotiations involving the Foreign Ministry and the way demands for war reparations were pursued. Its sponsors also object to an Iranian diplomat remaining in the chamber during US President Donald Trump’s speech, considering it one of the issues warranting the minister’s questioning.
Foreign Ministry explains New York contacts and its position on the plenary session
Iran’s Foreign Ministry presented a different account of the contacts held in New York. Its spokesman, Esmaeil Baghaei, said in remarks published on 23 September that communication with the US side took place through the Qatari intermediary and aimed to convey Tehran’s conditions, including ending the war, lifting the naval blockade and economic war, and releasing Iranian assets.
Baghaei also responded to criticism concerning Trump’s speech, explaining that the Iranian delegation left the session while one mission diplomat remained to follow the discussions, in what he described as routine practice. He defended the need for Iran to maintain representation in the General Assembly and monitor the positions announced by countries during its meetings.
At a meeting with several MPs on the evening of 6 October, Araghchi said the Iranian delegation had conveyed Tehran’s conditions to mediators under a seven-day plan concerning the security of the Strait of Hormuz. He stressed that the move was based on instructions issued by the relevant authorities, in response to accusations that he had exceeded the scope of his mandate.
During the meeting, Araghchi also addressed other issues, including economic diplomacy, relations with neighbouring countries, documenting war crimes and pursuing demands for justice. These explanations put the minister’s account against the accusations of the impeachment request’s sponsors, who believe his actions exceeded his mandate and failed to produce the expected results.
Araghchi’s impeachment request also faces opposition within parliament itself. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on 8 October that impeaching the minister was illogical under the current circumstances, which he described as wartime conditions.
Boroujerdi defended Araghchi as an implementer of major decisions taken by the Supreme National Security Council, urging that the dispute over foreign policy not be brought into the domestic sphere. His position is based on the view of his supporters that the minister does not independently determine the course of negotiations or the conditions presented to mediators and other parties.
Abbas Goudarzi, spokesman for the parliament’s presiding board, said in an interview published on Sunday that handling requests to impeach ministers must balance applying the internal regulations, safeguarding MPs’ rights and taking the country’s circumstances into account. He called for dialogue and understanding within the council, without announcing a date to discuss Araghchi’s impeachment request or a specific decision on it.
The announced signatures do not mean that a parliamentary majority supports removing the minister, as their current effect is limited to opening the procedural path for impeachment. Araghchi’s fate will be decided by a vote of MPs if the request completes its stages and reaches a plenary session. Under parliament’s internal regulations, the presiding board must refer the request to the relevant committee, which examines its grounds within a week, invites the minister and notifies the MPs who submitted the request.
If at least 10 signatories remain committed to the impeachment after the discussion, the request is placed on the agenda of the council’s first plenary session. Once the impeachment is brought before parliament, the minister is required to attend within 10 days to respond to the grounds and accusations, and the process may end with a vote of no confidence.
The 10-day period does not begin with the electronic registration of the request, and its referral to the presiding board does not mean that a confidence vote has been scheduled. If held, the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee session will provide an opportunity to test how firmly the signatory MPs maintain their request after hearing Araghchi’s defence.
The date of the committee meeting and the outcome of its discussions therefore constitute the two main steps in assessing the chances of the case reaching a plenary session. If the process is completed, its immediate possible outcome is a decision on whether Araghchi remains in office or loses the parliament’s confidence.
A change in negotiating policy as a result of his dismissal would not be automatic, given the minister and his supporters’ insistence that other bodies help determine the mandate. This extends the dispute to the limits of his responsibility for implementing policy, in addition to the debate over its results.
