We thank Elahi-Janatmakan, Maghdour-Mashhour, and Shabani (in press) for their interest in our (Azizi & Stern, 2019) reinterpretation of Jurassic igneous rocks of the central Sanandaj–Sirjan zone (SaSZ) of Iran. In a nutshell, Elahi-Janatmakan et al. (in press) embrace the orthodox interpretation that these rocks represent a continental arc and reject our new interpretation that these formed in a rift. Their criticism provides a good opportunity for us to further explain our arguments and to address the problem that lies at the root of their concern: the misinterpretation of trace element data as being reli- able indicators of the tectonic setting in which melts are generated. We completely agree with their closing comments: “This study may also be regarded as a wake-up call for our research community. We should be aware that extreme caution should be exercised in the interpretations of the geochemical diagrams for distinguishing be- tween subduction-contamination basalts and plume-derived basalts that are contaminated with continental crust or subcontinental lith- osphere.” We agree whole-heartedly that any interpretations should also be based on lines of evidence beyond plotting a few trace el- ements on diagrams. Our study is built on such a firm foundation; their criticism and embrace of the orthodox interpretation of SaSZ as a continental arc is based entirely on trace element and isotopic data. In rebuttal to the criticism of Elahi-Janatmakan et al. (in press), we make the following five points which support our model and re- fute the continental arc model.
