NCRI

Fourth Televised Debate Highlights Deepening Divisions in Iran’s Sham Presidential Elections

Mahmoud Hakamian

Four-minute read

The fourth televised debate ahead of the clerical regime’s primitive sham presidential elections showcased the sharp divisions and intense rhetoric among the six Guardian Council-approved candidates vying to replace Ebrahim Raisi. The debate, titled “Iran in Today’s World,” lasted three hours and focused on international relations, revealing stark contrasts in the candidates’ views. This comes despite Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei urging candidates to refrain from “enemy-pleasing” commentary and exposing each other.

Candidates clash

Masoud Pezeshkian, introduced by the regime and its mouthpieces in the West as a reformist candidate, emphasized the importance of military strength, stating, “Our defensive power is a source of pride. The deterrent capabilities of our country and the efforts of the Revolutionary Guard and the army are commendable.” Pezeshkian also admitted to systemic mismanagement and Iran’s economic struggles, stating, “In winter, we cut gas, and in summer, we cut electricity. We lose in joint [oil and gas] fields, and neighboring countries exploit them. We have lost investments and markets.” He challenged Saeed Jalili and other rival candidates to present alternative solutions if they opposed reviving the JCPOA.

Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi repeatedly praised Ebrahim Raisi’s administration as the solution to the country’s problems. He claimed, “The previous president increased daily oil sales to two million barrels without sanction profiteering and false slogans. Those who want to gather votes by promising to lift sanctions will fail. Sanctions are part of the US security strategy and weren’t resolved even with the complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program.” He argued that “the threat posed by the US, whether under Biden or Trump, is undeniable but pales in comparison to those who blocked the country’s oil revenue internally.”

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf frequently mentioned Qassem Soleimani, the slain commander of the Quds Force, asserting, “Martyr Soleimani believed that our opportunities lie within threats. My priority in foreign policy will be diplomacy. We have numerous open and ongoing cases that need resolution.” Ghalibaf claimed that Pezeshkian’s potential administration would be a continuation of Hassan Rouhani’s, suggesting, “The team that Pezeshkian is working with is the same as Rouhani’s. This would take us back a decade, reviving conflicts and disruptions in governance.”

Mostafa Pourmohammadi, known for his role in the 1988 mass executions, linked the disqualification of key political figures like Ali Larijani and Eshaq Jahangiri to the lackluster election atmosphere. “There is no new enthusiasm in society,” he remarked, reflecting broader public disillusionment with the electoral process. Pourmohammadi criticized Saeed Jalili for opposing organized political activities and NGOs, arguing that such views could lead to “color revolutions.”

He further attacked Jalili on the Crescent Petroleum scandal, questioning, “Why did you block the resolution of corruption cases? Shouting solves nothing.” Pourmohammadi accused some candidates of viewing sanctions as an “opportunity,” inadvertently aiding the enemy. He concluded by urging voters to support him if they believe in his message.

Saeed Jalili responded to Pourmohammadi’s accusations, arguing that the president should not make decisions based on “hallway gossip.” He accused Pourmohammadi of lacking detailed knowledge of the FATF and claimed that focusing solely on negotiations would not deter adversaries from imposing sanctions. Jalili argued that Iran should take actions that make “the enemy regret imposing sanctions” rather than relying solely on negotiations. He criticized the Rouhani administration for missing commercial opportunities in the region and beyond due to its focus on negotiations with Western powers.

Alireza Zakani focused his attacks on Hassan Rouhani’s administration, criticizing its foreign policy failures and handling of the JCPOA. He claimed that contrary to Rouhani’s promise to restore dignity to the Iranian passport, Iranians faced humiliation abroad, including students being expelled from Norway and Iranian officials being mistreated. Zakani reiterated his readiness to debate Khatami, Rouhani, or Zanganeh on corruption issues, particularly the Crescent Petroleum case. Zanganeh, in a video released after the debate, called Zakani a “protégé” of Jalili and accused Jalili of avoiding a debate on Crescent.

Consequences and reflections

Amidst the heated exchanges, Abdolreza Davari, former advisor to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tweeted, “In last night’s debate, Saeed Jalili not only lost the argument but also his ethics and manners, showing how power-hungry he is and willing to lie to reach the presidency. Kudos to Mostafa Pourmohammadi for unmasking Jalili.”

The debate highlighted the pervasive sense of disillusionment among voters. A state-affiliated journalist noted, “Since the non-competitive 2021 elections, the social atmosphere leading up to the elections has never been so lackluster.” The state-run newspaper Etemad criticized the debates for failing to generate excitement, stating, “Rather than energizing the elections, the debates have killed the excitement. Many voters have become disillusioned with the low level of knowledge and capability of the candidates.”

Former regime president Hassan Rouhani also weighed in, criticizing a law passed by the current parliament as the worst in the history of the Islamic Republic. He accused the architects of the law of betrayal against the public and conspiring to ensure his administration’s failure, causing significant economic harm.

Every day as the clerical regime inches closer to the sham election day, its presidential candidates and their allied factions grow further apart. While Ali Khamenei has made every effort to keep his regime intact and prevent further exposure of its crimes and plundering—issues that only escalate social outrage and fuel the flames of the Iranian people’s desire for regime change—his tightly vetted candidates reveal that mimicking Raisi’s total obedience is merely a verbal tactic to secure more power and higher positions. In doing so, they unintentionally expose the regime’s internal fractures and its profound vulnerabilities.

Exit mobile version