Iran’s Elections Engineered by Covert IRGC Arm, New Report Says

Kanaani expressed his disapproval on Friday, stating, "The meddling statements from the US regarding our presidential elections are a blatant and outrageous intrusion."

US acting special envoy for Iran, Abram Paley asserted on Wednesday through his social media account that there is "no expectation of free and fair elections or fundamental change in Iran’s direction."

Kanaani went on to say, "The US authorities persist with such baseless remarks, but the Iranian people will respond vigorously with their active and enthusiastic participation at the polls, as they have done historically."

Paley highlighted that the Guardian Council hand-picks the six candidates and noted severe limitations on Iranian voters' access to "even the most basic freedoms; necessary features of any democracy."

"In the face of the authoritarian regime’s long history of harassing and intimidating journalists, suppressing election coverage, and denying freedom of peaceful of assembly, we support the Iranian people," he said.

According to the Kurdish human rights organization Kordpa, which shared images of the messages sent to prisoners, they are asked to vote on Friday. The message tells prisoners that their families should also vote.

Failure to participate in the election results in being marked absent, leading to penalties such as three to six months imprisonment or up to 74 lashes based on law governing unverified absences.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic faces the challenge of reconnecting with a deeply disillusioned electorate. Official statistics reveal a stark decline in voter participation: 40.6% in the recent parliamentary elections, with Tehran recording its lowest turnout at 24%.

The run-off elections saw even lower participation, with only 7% in Tehran.

Simultaneously, numerous student organizations, women's groups, youth associations, and political activists have called for an election boycott.

The primary argument of those determined not to vote is that participating gives credibility to an election that is neither fair nor free, and that a high turnout will be used as proof of the legitimacy of the political establishment controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

In contrast, those in favor of voting argue that a low turnout will neither hasten the downfall of the ruling establishment nor lead to its international isolation, as advocates of boycotting hope.

Many also argue that the political establishment has already engineered the outcome by restricting the competition to six hand-picked candidates. They point out that at least four hardliners were pitched against a pro-reform and a conservative candidate with little chance of winning to ensure a high turnout.

Graffiti in Ekbatan, Tehran, where ballot boxes are marked as “Deceit Box”

Turnout in similarly engineered 2021 elections which led to Ebrahim Raisi’s presidency was 41 percent, the lowest in the history of the Islamic Republic. So far the turnout on Friday is estimated to be under 50% to as high as 55 percent of nearly 61 million eligible voters.

No to voting graffiti

Most of the arguments in favor of voting pertain to pro-reform Masoud Pezeshkian who appears to have become a serious danger to hardliner hopefuls Saeed Jalili and Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf. Both have stubbornly refused to let the other carry the hardliners’ torch to prevent votes from splitting between them but withdrawal of one in the other's favor may be announced as hours before the ballots open.

Supporters of hardliners/conservatives need no encouragement to vote as they consider voting a religious duty. Many of those who advocate participation now, however, were initially against voting but have decided to vote for the pro-reform candidate Masoud Pezeshkian only to stop either Jalili or Ghalibaf from winning.

Street trash bin with “Ballot Box” graffiti

This group has a host of arguments to justify the call to support Pezeshkian. Many of them admit that the president’s powers are very limited by the Supreme Leader who has the first say in the choice of vice presidents and cabinet ministers, particularly the ministers of foreign affairs, intelligence, and interior, as well as the chief of police and many other top officials.

They also admit that the current power structure does not allow any significant structural reforms to take place but this is a chance to make a difference, however small, given the “tiny whole” that has been opened by allowing Pezeshkian stand in so “things can get a little better at least,” they say.

Women appear to be in majority among the pro-boycott as even the pro-reform candidate has failed to present an acceptable and progressive plan for addressing the varied demands and grievances of women. Accordingly, the number of women in Pezeshkian’s campaign meetings was visibly small compared to men.

Many political and civil groups have issued statements for boycotting the elections and many others are campaigning for it individually on social media.

The United Youth of Iran (UYI), an underground pro-democracy youth group that came into being during the 2020-2021Woman, Life, Freedom anti-government protests is one of the groups that has boycotted the elections. The next government will only perpetuate crimes and human rights violations like its predecessor, they argue.

“We will not vote for the murderers of the Iranian youth,” the UYI which has campaigned for boycotting the elections on social media and graffiti in urban areas says. 

The underground gnostic/alternative medicine Taheri Movement is another group that has announced that they will boycott the “show elections “because they find the system “unreformable”.

The movement that quickly spread among educated Iranians in the 2000s takes its name from its leader/guru Mohammad-Ali Taheri. It still has a big following estimated at over a million. 

Both candidates referenced Iran despite there being no questions about the country. The bulk of the 90-minute program focused on US domestic issues, particularly immigration and the economy.

When discussing foreign policy, the focus was on the war in Ukraine, followed by the crisis in Gaza and the possibility of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Iran was invoked only as an attack line by both sides, with no insight into how the next US administration may deal with the Islamic Republic and its Revolutionary Guards.

“Iran was broke. Anybody that did business with Iran, including China, they couldn’t do business with the United States. They all passed,” Trump said, claiming success in curtailing Iran’s anti-American activities in the Middle East. “Iran was broke. They had no money for Hamas, Hezbollah, for terror. No money whatsoever.”

Trump’s 'maximum pressure' campaign sharply reduced Iran’s oil revenues. The trend did change, however, during the last months of his tenure –and was cemented once Biden took office and set in motion his plan to revive the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump had unilaterally voided in 2018.

Surprisingly, Iran’s nuclear program got no mention, even though both candidates have many times vowed to do ‘everything’ possible to stop the Islamic Republic being armed by a nuclear bomb, calling it “the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror”.

Biden did not offer any direct defense of his Iran policy. Instead, he attacked Trump for not doing much outside tough speech. “Iran attacked our troops, but [Trump] did nothing,” Biden said, apparently referring to the retaliatory targeting of US base Ayn al-Asad following the killing of Iran’s top military man, Qasem Soleimani. “He called our troops’ brain injuries minor headaches.”

In spite of clear differences in outlook and style, the two candidates seemed to share the desire to appear tough on Iran, especially following the October 7 attack on Israel, which many believe would not have happened without Tehran’s support for Hamas.

Trump claimed once more that the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel would never have happened under his watch. He accused Biden of destroying the United States and losing the respect of the rest of the world. Biden pointed out that he had mobilized “50 countries” to defend Israel when Iran launched dozens of drones and missiles towards Israel in April.

The talking points will likely continue beyond Thursday’s televised debate, and Iran will likely feature again in both candidates’ election campaign –perhaps not as heavily as many expected, however, if the first debate is anything to go by.

To understand why, we must look back to the fall of 2022, when widespread protests shook the Islamic Republic like never before. No one expected teenagers, some as young as 15, to become the heart and soul of that uprising. Generation Z was thought to be apolitical—and perhaps they were. But their rebellious spirit and desire to live freely proved far more powerful and inspiring than any ideology or political inclination.

The Zs took to the streets across Iran and became the change they wanted to see –as Gandhi would say –unlike their previous generation who asked for change from those in power. They had little time for their parents’ good old haggling with the regime. They were ready to fight for the ‘basics’ they believed were their right. And fight they did –leading chants, removing and burning headscarves, tearing down state banners and symbols, and of course, popping turbans off the mullahs’ head. They crushed political taboos and paid dearly for it. Young souls like Nika Shakarami and Sarina Esmailzadeh were killed protesting before their 17th birthday. The idea that they would have voted for this or that ‘approved’ candidate tomorrow is laughable.

“I don't even know the names of the candidates,” says Hasti, an 18-year-old preparing for Iran’s centralized university entrance exam. “Why would I follow them when I’m not voting? I don't vote because I have learned that to achieve my rights, I have to fight, not wait for change to come from the ballot box.”

Hasti believes there’s a generational gap –and the little data that exists publicly seems to confirm this: middle-aged Iranians are more likely to vote in this election. “My parents grew up during the [Iran-Iraq] war,” she says. “They were taught to want less, be content, and feel guilty for their desires. They had minimal contact with the world, and their parents were often supportive of the government. It’s different now. I know more than a bit about what's happening in the world. I set my own values, and my parents no longer support the government."

The advocates of voting tell young people like Hasti that the president matters, even though much is decided and implemented by non-elected officials. But it’s not easy convincing someone who sees the severe repression at school or faces suspension or expulsion from university with the slightest sign of dissent.

"Any protest or political activity that’s not in line with the state’s desires is suppressed, whoever the president,” Amin, a first-year university student, says sneering. “Everybody knows that the president and his education minister have no authority. It’s the security agencies who decide how to deal with students. So why are we told that the ‘president matters’ when students are handed harsh sentences during both reformist and hardliner administrations. This powerlessness can be seen in other areas too."

The only candidate who attempted to connect with the Zs early in the campaign was Masoud Pezeshkian, the “moderate” (or reform) candidate who claims to have entered the race to “save” Iran. He’s a surgeon who has previously served as health minister, and member of Iran’s parliament, Majles.

In a half-hour campaign ad titled “Z: A Look at the Demands of the New Generation," young people asked Pezeshkian about entrepreneurship, employment opportunities, and time spent online. The ad included some criticism of Iran's current situation and the widespread desire among the youth to leave the country. However, it left out many critical issues: mandatory hijab, suppressed sexual orientations, compulsory military service—all aspects of a lifestyle that many in Generation Z desire but which are criminalized by their fanatical rulers.

“There is no longer a common language,” one young man said in the campaign ad. And the candidate agreed. I put this to Parsa, an 18-year-old who has decided to train for a trade instead of going to university, and who, unlike many of his peers, has followed the campaign closely.

“The lack of a common language is even more evident in the candidates’ debates,” Parsa said. “In one debate, Pezeshkian said the clashes over hijab in Iran shows parents are not doing a proper job. What he truly demonstrated was his belief that people desiring different lifestyles stem from improper upbringing. He doesn't acknowledge that diversity and differences need to be recognized. While he opposes the methods of the so-called morality police, he supports their intention to impose a singular view over others. And yet, they expect us to vote for this man as the 'progressive' candidate.

The Zs’ parents used to see the ballot box as the only way to reform Iran’s authoritarian system. Elections did matter to them, and it showed in the high turnouts before 2020. For the Zs, however, elections are yet another ‘state-sponsored event’. It has nothing to do with them, as far as they’re concerned. It seems the candidates are aware of this too and have directed all their effort to engage the over-25s. They know full well that the Zs are not coming back.