The first presidential debate of Iran’s six presidential contenders that went on for more than four hours and was supposedly focused on the economy proved to be a snore fest. It produced nothing worthy of commentary except for the passivity of the reformist candidate, Mas’ud Pezeshkian, and the greater energy of the non-reformist Mostafa Purmohammadi. All the other candidates appeared timid and failed to make any dent in their public perception. Amir-Hosein Qazizadeh-Hashemi and Alireza Zakani continued to be seen as non-serious, perhaps intending to reprise their role from the 2021 election as “cover” candidates for the ultimate conservative front-runner, for which they could be rewarded with positions in the 14th administration if their camp won. As for Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf and Sa’id Jalili, they continued to be the conservative say-nothing candidates seemingly interested only in power but with no agenda to promote.
The debate, which some have contemptuously referred to as an “interview,” consisted of the six candidates ignoring the pre-recorded questions from academics and former officials as well as everything they were told about staying on topic. One commentator referred to it as a “show” or “play.” The IRIB moderator acted as little more than a timekeeper, never challenging the candidates or asking tough follow-up questions. Indeed, many questioned the format, which prevented the candidates from going at each other one on one. That may have been due to the supreme leader’s instructions that candidates refrain from “mudslinging.”
The Islamic Republic is grappling with a number of difficulties, chief among which is the international sanctions that result from its nuclear program. With the exception of Purmohammadi, the conservative candidates blithely denied the centrality of sanctions to Iran’s economy and the need for foreign investment. Instead, they traced the country’s economic problems to poor domestic management, though not during the last three years of the “martyr” Ebrahim Ra’isi, whom they elevated to near sainthood despite his administration’s helplessness in the face of a failing economy. The commentator Reza Nasri had an astute question: how does one boast about the neutralization of “ineffective” sanctions and at the same time call them “unjust,” as the candidates unfailingly did? Noting Purmohammadi’s confident performance, political commentator Rahman Qahramanpur’s assessment was that he had initially made viewers sit up and take notice, but had faltered later and, therefore, could not be characterized as the phenomenon emerging from the debate. As for Pezeshkian, Qahramanpur’s assessment is that he did not satisfy the reformist base, which wants its candidate to address issues such as the demands of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and the rights of minorities. The conservative Mohammad Mohajeri made an entertaining comparison to a game of soccer in which Qalibaf was always offside, Zakani did not know his position on the field, Jalili was waiting to be subbed out, Qazizadeh-Hashemi was an unskilled defender of the Ra’isi administration, Pezeshkian was in a hurry to go on offense, and Purmohammadi was the only one who scored. Reformist father figure Gholamhosein Karbaschi considered the debate a scenario designed by hardliners, including the brother of Jalili at IRIB, to drown out Pezeshkian’s message of “honesty and honor” with the “lies and deceit” of the “cover” candidates. He then proceeded to quote Pezeshkian’s message to his followers, which instructed them to persuade friends and loved ones to turn out in large numbers for the vote. In general, the overwhelming view across the political spectrum is that the debate did not serve the voters well and the candidates did not particularly shine. Academic and writer Mohammadreza Tajik anticipates that, ultimately, the two candidates left standing will be Pezeshkian and Qalibaf because the others are a “joke.” He also believes that Qalibaf’s negatives are very high, which is not difficult to see considering all the corruption in which he has been implicated.
Amidst the attempts to whip up voter interest in the election, IRIB is also hosting a series of getting-to-know-the-candidate roundtables. The session with Pezeshkian is beginning to garner attention, at least among committed reformists, for the impassioned defense former foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif, sitting at Pezeshkian’s side, made of the candidate’s dovish approach to relations with the outside world. Zarif repeated a point he had made well before the death of Ebrahim Ra’isi: that Iran’s power and influence relied more on ideas than weaponry—incidentally, something he would have to convince Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of.
