For obvious reasons, Masoud Pezeshkian’s win in Iran’s presidential race has sparked varied interpretations. While Ayatollah Khamenei holds ultimate control over Iran’s foreign and domestic policies, some speculate the Supreme Leader might have viewed the election of a hard-liner like Saeed Jalili as a risk that could further strain Iran’s international relations. In a climate where global tensions are high and the possibility of Donald Trump returning to the White House looms, Khamenei apparently requires a more moderate figure in Tehran at the moment. Moreover, Tehran needs time to consolidate the regional gains achieved under late Iranian military officer Qassem Soleimani’s maneuvering. Pezeshkian’s victory may thus be seen as a strategic pause to buy Iran the necessary calm and space to address both internal consolidation and external diplomacy, essential for managing the complexities of its geopolitical landscape.
In assessing Iran’s global and domestic challenges – particularly the high poverty, unemployment and stagnant development rates – it’s clear that Khamenei faces a delicate balancing act.
Iran’s active involvement in the Gaza conflict and other regional disputes compelled it to create some sort of stabilizing influence at home and abroad. This perspective suggests that Khamenei might have endorsed a president whose influence on future leadership choices, including the appointment of a new spiritual guide, is minimal, despite potential revitalization of reformist ideals. The question arises: What are the limits of Iranian ambitions? How far will Iran extend its reach in the region? Is Tehran content with its influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Palestinian territories, or does it seek further expansion? The regime’s aspirations may include halting regional conflicts and securing maritime interests while pursuing international recognition of its enhanced role. Moreover, Iran’s position within the Russian-Chinese axis could be a strategic consideration, weighing the benefits of aligning with Moscow and Beijing against the desire for an independent geopolitical stance. Khamenei’s choice in the presidential election reflects a careful consideration of both domestic and international imperatives, aiming to secure Iran’s strategic goals and its quest for a more defined role on the global stage.
Crucial dynamic
The election of Pezeshkian to the Iranian presidency highlights a crucial dynamic in Iranian politics: the limitations of the presidential office. However, Khamenei’s advanced age and deteriorating health raise concerns about potential instability in Iran’s political landscape. The Revolutionary Guards, wielding considerable influence over both foreign policy and economic interests, remain a formidable force in shaping the country’s direction – adding layers of complexity to governance. Unlike his predecessor, Ebrahim Raisi, whose untimely death triggered this election, Pezeshkian’s ascent marks a shift from political insider to a relatively low-profile figure. This transition underscores evolving dynamics within Iran’s power structure, where unforeseen events can reshape political trajectories. Iran’s future under Pezeshkian hinges on his ability to tackle these complexities while addressing domestic aspirations and international obligations. The balance of power and the effectiveness of Pezeshkian’s leadership will be closely scrutinized on both domestic and international stages.
Pezeshkian’s presidency marks a departure from his predecessors, who were deeply rooted in religious institutions, including figures like Ali Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani. Pezeshkian also lacks ties to the military or security sectors. His sole foray into military attire came as a symbolic gesture, when he and fellow MPs donned Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps uniforms in protest against the Guards’ designation as a terrorist organization. This distinct background positions Pezeshkian as a “relative outsider” to the entrenched power structures, potentially having no chance to replace Khamenei as a Supreme Spiritual Leader. Probably another key reason why he was given special permission by Khamenei to contest this presidential race. Given Pezeshkian’s anti-establishment track record, the decision by Khamenei to allow Pezeshkian to run and win the presidential election is intriguing. In 2021, the Guardian Council barred him from the presidential race, citing concerns over his commitment to revolutionary principles. Furthermore, in February, there were threats to disqualify him from parliamentary elections due to his stance on the 2022 protests, which he criticized for their impact on national stability.
Despite these challenges, Khamenei’s intervention paved the way for Pezeshkian’s candidacy. Pezeshkian’s critical stance on the regime’s harsh response to the protests, especially the tragic killing of Mahsa Amini, contrasted sharply with the official narrative. Nonetheless, he viewed the protests as detrimental to the country’s stability. This divergence underscores Khamenei’s strategic calculus in permitting a candidate with differing perspectives, potentially signaling a shift toward more accommodative governance amid internal dissent and international scrutiny. As Pezeshkian assumes office, his tenure could offer a test case for Iran’s political flexibility under Khamenei’s leadership, balancing reformist aspirations with entrenched conservative interests amid regional and global challenges.
The international community should moderate expectations about Pezeshkian’s capacity to drive any major transformative change in Iran. The country’s core policies, both domestic and foreign, remain firmly under the control of the supreme leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Historically, even reformists like Mohammad Khatami have found their influence limited by these entrenched power structures. The IRGC and the supreme leader’s decisions dominate Iranian governance, often stymying efforts for substantial reform. Despite Pezeshkian’s reformist rhetoric, the supreme leader and the IRGC’s dominance will ensure that his ability to effectuate significant policy shifts is constrained. As such, while Pezeshkian may advocate for changes, the structural realities of Iranian governance mean that substantial reform is likely to remain elusive under his leadership. The entrenched power structure will continue to shape the trajectory of Iran’s policies and strategic direction. The true levers of power in Iran lie beyond the reach of any single reformist figure, reflecting a broader trend where aspirations for reform frequently collide with the entrenched authority of the supreme leader and the IRGC.
