Iran has once again shown its true self to the world, as seen in plot to kill former President Donald Trump, who so recently survived an unrelated assassin’s bullet.
There has been a tremendous amount of media enthusiasm about the election of the “moderate” and “reformist” Masoud Pezeshkian as president of Iran. Pezeshkian, a 69-year-old former cardiologist, won with 53.6 percent of the vote, edging out his ultraconservative opponent, Saeed Jalili, the favorite of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Typical among the enthusiasts was The New York Times, stating that with his election, “Iran may see a softening of its absolutist foreign policy and even an opportunity for a new diplomatic opening.” Not to be outdone, The Washington Post declared, “Iranian reformist wins presidency, seeks engagement with the West.” Reuters led with the headline, “Iranian voters pick moderate as president to replace hardline Raisi.”
However, before we announce a thawing between Iran and the West, or the eradication of Iran’s draconian hijab laws, we must acknowledge that before any candidate is approved to run, he must first gain approval through the Iranian Guardian Council, a non-elected body of 12. Ayatollah Khamenei chooses six of its members.
We also must acknowledge that the supreme leader rules with an iron staff, and that since 1989, when Khamenei became supreme leader, all of the presidents have been hand-picked by him and the Guardian Council, many of whom were also hailed as “moderates ” and “reformers,” but who had no real power to make meaningful change. These words are devoid of meaning when up against the brutal hierarchy of the mullahs. They certainly do not carry with them the significance and connotations that we, in the West, project onto them. Because of this nearly half of all Iranians boycotted the elections.
If Pezeshkian were such an enemy of the conservative theocracy, why did Khamenei call to congratulate him and “call on everyone to work together?”
Is Pezeshkian actually a reformer? During the campaign, Pezeshkian, like Jalili, stated that “he has melted into Khamenei’s leadership.”
Three days after the election, Pezeshkian tweeted, “We are not supposed to introduce new policies, as the Supreme Leader’s general policies are clear. Our first step is to continue the (Raisi) administration’s path.”
Qasem Soleimani was the architect of the Islamic Republic’s terrorist-proxy strategy, that is working to destabilize the Middle East. On July 2, Pezeshkian tweeted, “Soleimani is the pride of Iran. His honor is our honor … He gave his life for Iran. I have come to give my honor to Iran.”
And what about women’s rights in Iran? Says Majid Mohammadi of Iran International, “He has been a strong advocate of compulsory hijab and cancel culture, even stating that he enforced these policies in a hospital and university under his management right after the 1979 Islamic takeover, before they were mandated. His complaints about officials being harsh on women are inconsistent with his voting record for laws restricting women’s rights during his tenure in the parliament (Majles).
In fact, Pezeshkian has taken credit for the restrictive hijab laws, stating, “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 10 days. The cultural revolution started with us!”
The presidency of Iran has no real power to deal with issues relating to Iranian nuclear bomb development or to Iran’s many terror proxies, and when it comes to domestic issues, it is obvious that Khamenei is looking for individuals that he can manipulate and control.
Tehran is only interested in recreating a false dichotomy in hopes that they might be able to manipulate the international community into lifting any trade sanctions. Pezeshkian’s record proves he has always been a regime loyalist whose election is a charade for the West to eagerly buy into, as we have done far-too-often in the past. Iran and its allies in the West have once again created an “echo chamber” to whitewash the regime.
What makes the West so eager to believe the propaganda of a regime that has committed the most heinous crimes against humanity? What makes the West so eager to believe in a regime that has the highest number of executions in the world, (853 for 2023)? What makes the West so eager to believe a regime that has enough highly enriched uranium for at least four nuclear bombs, that turns away inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Administration, and switches off the cameras at their nuclear sites? What makes the West believe a regime that is working to destabilize the Middle East, and one that has strong ties to China, Russia, and North Korea? One that is trying to suffocate Israel through its terrorist proxies.
We have made similar mistakes with Iranian presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani. We know the West does not want to confront a regime that might well have passed the nuclear threshold. We also know that we, in the United States, are weary of wars, especially in the Middle East, and especially in an election year.
But let’s be careful not to fall for the false dichotomies that autocracies peddle to unsophisticated journalists and foreign policy analysts. With thousands of women arrested, tortured raped or killed under the hijab laws, with Iranian proxies on the march throughout the Middle East, and with the Islamic Republic just days away from assembling a nuclear bomb, there is simply too much at stake.
Sarah N. Stern is Founder and President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, EMET, a think tank and policy institute specializing in the Middle East, in Washington, DC.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
Sometimes You Have to Downsize Your Dreams to Find Peace
We need a renewal of American purpose
Help us work to ensure that our policymakers and the public receive the EMET- the Truth.
Take Action
