Just weeks after the last Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi died in a hillside helicopter crash, the international media’s focus is back on the Islamic Republic’s presidency and the purported contrast its new occupant, Masoud Pezeshkian, has with his predecessor. Much of the coverage has introduced Pezeshkian as a “reformist” or “moderate.”
The record shows he is nothing of the sort. Far from being a beacon of change in Iran, Pezeshkian’s career has been defined by unwavering loyalty to the supreme leader and the Islamic Republic’s hard-line policies.
Pezeshkian’s own public declarations leave little room for ambiguity. To those thinking he might set a new political direction for the country, he has said: “We are not going to introduce new policies as the Supreme Leader’s policies are clear.” His allegiance to the supreme leader and the status quo is not just political. It’s personal for Pezeshkian, who says: “I believe in the Supreme Leader. I love him.”
He’s no reforming liberal or luminary. He’s a regime loyalist and lackey.
Nonetheless, we’ve already seen a resurgence within the West’s Iran nuclear deal “echo-chamber” promoting the new president as someone who has substantive policy differences from the regime to which he cannot stop himself swearing public oaths of absolute fealty. Again, Pezeshkian himself has thrown cold water on that tired, old theory.
He proudly recounts his role in the subjugation of women at the very beginning of Iran’s Islamist revolution in 1979, saying, “At the time of the revolution, I announced a new dress code… The discussion of hijab hadn’t yet happened… I told them they have to come with a full hijab… I did it in ten days. The cultural revolution started with us!”
This isn’t the language of a reformer but of an architect of the regime’s social and political repression.
For those willing to ignore the Islamic Republic’s crimes against Iranians but at least hoping for changes in Tehran’s foreign policy, Pezeshkian once again disappoints. His praise for the late Qasem Soleimani, the former commander of the Quds Force, further cements his insider credentials. By declaring, “Commander Soleimani was the pride of Iran!” Pezeshkian aligns himself with the symbol of the regime’s murderous foreign policy.
So Pezeshkian won’t be bringing any change to Tehran. But this “election” did highlight one shift in Iranian politics and it was significant.
The real story of this “election” is not in the purported vote winner, but in those who elected not to vote at all. For the first time in its history, the Islamic Republic witnessed a massive, wide-scale boycott by Iranians. The regime’s own numbers indicate that it notched its lowest turnout on record, a sign of widespread disillusionment with not just the candidates but the regime itself.
According to sources inside the country, the turnout was far lower than reported, dipping below 20 percent. Millions of Iranians viewed it as an opportunity to show an act of public civil disobedience to the regime. They called it not an election but an “election circus” with the candidates being little more than Ali Khamenei’s clowns.
Elections have always been a source of pride for the Islamic Republic, as it has tried to portray its brutal dictatorship as a democracy. From Khamenei to the regime’s chief English propagandist, former foreign minister Javad Zarif, officials have always boasted election turnout as a sign of legitimacy for the regime. The boycott shattered that myth and dealt a profound blow to the regime’s legitimacy.
While street protests may be on temporary pause after a bloody crackdown, the boycott shows that the Iranian movement against the regime has entered a new phase. Those disillusioned with the regime have taken their street slogan of “Reformists, hardliners, the game is over!” and turned it into a mass, civil-disobedience action.
Their movement against the regime has gone from taking to the streets, to staying at home. It is this significant development, not Pezeshkian’s fake moderation, that represents a political opportunity for the West.
Rather than viewing Pezeshkian’s selection as an opportunity for rapprochement with a weakening, illegitimate regime they should recognize the obvious message from the Iranian people: Don’t engage with or appease the Islamic Republic, it doesn’t represent us. Engage with us instead.
In light of this, the international community should shift its focus from Khamenei’s pre-selected candidates to the broader movement for freedom in Iran. The unprecedented boycott is a testament to the Iranian people’s desire for genuine change. Supporting this movement means acknowledging the legitimacy of the people’s demands and standing in solidarity with their call for a truly democratic and representative political system.
Pezeshkian’s portrayal as a reformist is a lie peddled by Khamenei and his Western lobby to buoy a sinking regime. He doesn’t deserve your attention, the brave Iranian people do.
Cameron Khansarinia is vice president of the Washington-based National Union for Democracy in Iran.