US-Based Iran Analyst
In the midst of the second round of presidential elections in Iran, which saw a historic low turnout by the majority of voters, the issue of ballot boxes in Western countries sparked widespread protests among the Iranian diaspora.
These protests were particularly significant in the United States, home to the largest Iranian community outside of Iran.
The Biden administration has inexplicably allowed Tehran to establish over 30 polling stations across the United States, and it seems that the polls will continue for the second round. This decision is fundamentally flawed, as it legitimizes an undemocratic process, ignores robust opposition from Iranian democracy activists, and disregards US values and security interests.
Iranian elections are notoriously undemocratic. The US State Department has openly admitted that it does not expect the upcoming election to be "free or fair." In Iran, the electoral process is tightly controlled by the Guardian Council, which vets candidates to ensure they align with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's ideology. This leaves no real choice for the Iranian people, as only those loyal to the core of the regime are allowed to run. Even within Iran, there is significant apathy and distrust towards the electoral process.
From the outset, even government surveys revealed that over 73% of Iranians did not watch the first presidential debate, highlighting the populace's distrust and disengagement. This was later corroborated by the results of the first round, where the government announced a 39.92 percent turnout, prompting both candidates, Masoud Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili, who advanced to the second round, to admit during their first one-on-one debate.
Khamenei views high voter turnout as a source of legitimacy for his regime. He has stated that every vote "increases the credibility and immunity" of the Islamic Republic. However, this so-called legitimacy is built on a foundation of repression and violence and denying the Iranian people the right to elect their leaders freely. Over the past six years, nearly 3,000 protesters have been killed, and tens of thousands have been arrested. The regime employs brutal tactics, such as blinding protesters with shotgun birdshots and carrying out chemical attacks on girls' schools, to maintain control.
Many Iranian Americans maintain that the US should stand with the Iranian people, who have repeatedly expressed their desire for change through protests and boycotts of sham elections. Many groups in Iran, including the Mourning Mothers, political activists, student and civil society organizations, and political prisoners, have called for a boycott of these elections, risking their safety to do so. By allowing these polling stations, the U.S. is inadvertently legitimizing a fraudulent system and ignoring the struggles of the Iranian people.
The Islamic Republic uses the participation of expatriates to whitewash its crimes and justify its rule. Former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has pointed to voter turnout, including from those abroad, as evidence of the regime's legitimacy. This is deceptive, as the regime is desperate for legitimacy. According to their own statistics, the majority of Iranians abstained in the last four elections since 2020. Furthermore, the regime's international image has suffered significantly due to its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, the nuclear program crisis, and repression at home.
Canada has set a precedent by refusing to allow the Iranian government to set up polling stations on its soil for the past three elections. Despite not having formal diplomatic relations or an embassy, Canada has taken a principled stand in support of its Iranian-Canadian population and against the regime's propaganda. The US should follow Canada’s example and deny the Islamic Republic this platform.
Tehran has a history of using its embassies and consulates as bases for soft power expansion, propaganda dissemination, and monitoring of dissidents. Recently, a staff member at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, DC, threatened an Iranian dissident with death, illustrating the regime's dangerous activities on US soil. Allowing polling stations could provide cover for further such activities.
The decision to allow polling stations in the United States is misguided and dangerous. The Biden administration responded to criticism by stating that both the Trump and Biden administrations granted permissions in recent elections, implying that this is not a new practice. However, past practices do not justify continued wrongs, especially given the changing realities in Iran. The uprisings of 2017, November 2019, and the 2021 "Women, Life, Freedom" movement, where people chanted "Reformist, principlist, the game is over," calling for the regime's overthrow, illustrate a clear shift in the Iranian people's stance.
Allowing these polling stations lends undue legitimacy to a repressive regime and poses security risks. The US must reconsider this decision and take a firm stand against Tehran’s efforts to exploit American soil for its propaganda and control. By doing so, the US would not only uphold its democratic values but also support the Iranian people's quest for freedom and justice.
The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International
The ultraconservative Jalili and the relatively moderate Pezeshkian frequently accused each other of lacking expertise, basic knowledge, and plans, and of making false promises.
At the start of the debate, Pezeshkian said, "Last night it seemed as though I disrespected the national hero Haj Qasem Soleimani. I consider him a symbol of national pride and a thorn in the side of our enemies, and if our youth follow his path, many of the country's problems can be solved."
During the debate on Monday night, Pezeshkian used a Persian expression to highlight Soleimani’s role in creating trouble for the United States in the region. However, this expression could easily be interpreted as belittling the IRGC operative.
Although the debate was supposed to focus on the economy, much of the discussion revolved around nuclear negotiations, the failure of the JCPOA, the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic, and negotiations with the West, with both candidates reiterating their previous positions.
In response to a question about why he opposed the Strategic Action Plan passed by the parliament in December 2020 to authorize more uranium enrichment, Pezeshkian said, "It's not true to say we don't accept the law. We said from the beginning we would follow the framework of the law and the policies of the Supreme Leader. So, there's no way we wouldn't implement the law."
Previously, key figures in Pezeshkian's campaign, including Mohammad Javad Zarif, had criticized the Strategic Action Plan and called Jalili "a source of sanctions." The law, enacted as President Joe Biden won the White House, was meant to harden Iran’s negotiating position before expected talks to revive the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, which was abandoned by the Trump administration.
Pezeshkian added, "One of the issues with this law is that the US must fulfill all its commitments before we return to the JCPOA. We need to discuss with the parliament, the Supreme National Security Council, and other relevant bodies to find a common language to address this challenge."
Jalili responded, "The parliament passed a law, and it must be followed."
Ali Khamenei praised the law and warned that no one should deviate from it.
Jalili continued, "We fulfilled our obligations under the JCPOA. You should be demanding compliance from the other side, not pressuring the nation to make concessions. When the other side hasn't fulfilled their commitments, what concessions are you going to make? Tell the people."
Without mentioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government or his own role, Jalili said, "You talk about honesty. The governments of Hashemi, Khatami, and Rouhani, which included your friends, have been in power, and you're still demanding more. You've been in power for 40 years."
The fundamentalist Jalili is the main figure in an ultraconservative political faction that believes most other politicians loyal to the Islamic Republic and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei are weak in their religious zeal and commitment to a more extremist version of the Islamist vision. Jalili and his allies were staunch supporters of former President Ebrahim Raisi and his “revolutionary” administration.
Pezeshkian replied, "You claim to have achieved results, so where are they? Didn't you promise to double employment and build a million homes a year? In these three years, you've only issued permits for 900,000 homes."
He added, "You say you have plans; why didn't you give them to Mr. Raisi to implement? Weren't you part of his team?"
Pezeshkian pointed to Jalili and said, "This person's entire experience is being the head of the National Security Council and reviewing some papers. Someone who hasn't managed anything now claims to have a plan for the country."
Referring to the significant boycott of the first round of elections, Pezeshkian said, "Despite all our campaigning, only 40% of the people participated. 60% did not, rejecting all of us. If this mindset prevails, turnout will drop to 20%. Can you govern the majority with just 20%?"
He concluded, "The 60% boycott in the first round sends a message to the government. I've heard and continue to hear this voice of doubt, dissatisfaction, and disillusionment."
During the debate, Saeed Jalili accused Pezeshkian of lacking basic knowledge, even in healthcare, despite being a physician. "It's good that Mr. Pezeshkian recites Quranic verses and hadiths, blessing our session. But these hadiths should be put into practice."
He added, "Mr. Pezeshkian, you lack knowledge on many topics and even basic information on some. Yet you want to become president."
Jalili concluded, "Already, they're shouting against me because they know I'll address their corruption in state-owned companies. I need the people's support to tackle these issues. Those who belittle Iran's capabilities continue to undermine our potential."
