As the runoff race of the presidential election in Iran approaches, the government and its media are trying to create the illusion of a contested political atmosphere, to attract disillusioned voters.
With over 60% of the electorate abstaining in the first round on June 28th, the Islamic Republic faces a crisis of legitimacy. The boycott and abstention by a sizeable majority has highlighted public disillusionment with both 'revolutionary' and 'reformist' factions, which many Iranians view as two sides of the same coin. The two handpicked candidates have engaged in a series of provocative statements and what many observers call "theatrical infighting" to reignite public interest.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in his speech on Wednesday, tried to downplay the significance of the low turnout. He suggested that the lack of participation was not an indication of opposition to the Islamic Republic, but rather a sign that people were preoccupied with their personal lives. Yet, this attempt to save face seems to have done little to mask the regime's growing insecurity. Khamenei's directives to both political factions—who, as critics point out, cannot make a move without his approval—are clear: they must rally the disillusioned masses back to the ballot box to restore the government's “dignity."
Adding to the electoral maneuvering, Ali Akbar Salehi, former Foreign Minister and ex-head of the Atomic Energy Organization, entered the fray with comments about Saeed Jalili, the hardline presidential candidate. Responding to allegations that Jalili obstructed the revival of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) during President Ebrahim Raisi's administration, Salehi revealed that “the agreement was nearly finalized and that former Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian was poised to sign it.”
The revelation was an implicit nudge to the electorate: a vote for Masoud Pezeshkian might revive the nuclear deal, although the real obstacle, as everyone knows, is Khamenei himself.
Salehi didn't stop there. He disclosed that the Supreme National Security Council had proposed an additional demand in the last moment that derailed the agreement. Jalili, as leader’s man in the council, he claimed, misrepresented Khamenei’s stance on secret negotiations with the United States. The narrative paints Jalili not just as an obstructionist but as someone who viewed possible diplomatic successes by others as personal competition rather than national imperatives.
The tensions within the government's ranks were further highlighted by Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister who has been campaigning for Pezeshkian.
In an Instagram live session, Zarif criticized Jalili, questioning the origins of his "falsehoods" and suggesting they might “come from Israel.” Zarif, who was once criticized for glossing over government policies during Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, is now trying to get more people to vote, accusing Jalili of dishonesty and being responsible for brining on sanctions.
Zarif's plea to the public to reject Jalili on Friday might seem like a genuine call to action. However, many remain skeptical, seeing Zarif's efforts as yet another maneuver orchestrated to lure voters back to the polls. The fear voiced on social media is that, regardless of the election's outcome, the cycle of betrayal will continue—citizens' demands and freedoms will be forgotten, much like during the terms of presidents Rouhani and Mohammad Khatami.
As the second round of voting looms, the government's attempts to stage-manage the election underscore its vulnerability. The Iranian public, increasingly aware of the manipulations, faces a stark choice: participate in what many see as a sham process or continue to express their discontent through abstention. One thing is clear—the facade of electoral democracy in Iran is wearing thin, exposing the government's struggle to maintain its grip on power.
