Iran International
During both the presidential election and the runoff, diaspora Iranians gathered outside polling stations abroad to voice their disapproval, arguing that voting would lend legitimacy to the Islamic Republic.
IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News agency reported that the 96-meter (315-foot) vessel which was being repaired at the dock, lost its balance due to water infiltration into the ballast tanks.
The warship tilted and became partially submerged, but according to state media it is now being refloated and repaired.
"As Sahand was being repaired at the wharf, it lost its balance due to water ingress. Fortunately... the vessel is being returned to balance quickly," the official news agency IRNA reported, citing a navy statement.
In an interview with Fars News Agency, Salman Zarbi, the head of Iran Shipbuilding & Offshore Industries Complex (ISOICO), said immediately after the incident that there was still a possibility of repairing and making the vessel operational.
Reports indicate that the Navy frigate Sahand was being readied for an anti-piracy patrol mission in the Indian Ocean, with parts of it now underwater.
The frigate recently led a flotilla of Iranian vessels deployed to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden amid attacks by Iran-backed Houthis on commercial ships in the region.
Sahand is a Moudge-class frigate in the Southern Fleet of the Navy, named in memory of the sunk frigate bearing the same name of the Sahand volcano. According to state media, the Sahand joined Iran’s Navy fleet in 2018 and is equipped with cruise missiles and stealth technologies designed to evade enemy radars.
Back in 2021, extensive diplomatic campaign by the US prevented the Sahand from docking in the Western Hemisphere after it was thought to be conducting a potential arms transfer and headed to Venezuela. It was headed toward Venezuela but finally changed course in June and went towards the west coast of Africa, US officials said at the time.
According to the final vote count announced by Iran's Interior Ministry, 49.8 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. Out of the 30,530,157 ballots cast on Friday, Masoud Pezeshkian secured 16,384,403 votes (53.6%), while Saeed Jalili received 13,538,179 votes (44.3%). Additionally, 607,575 votes were deemed invalid, representing 2% of the total.
However, observers have voiced their skepticism about the figures, one of the primary concerns being the significant reduction in invalid votes, despite an increase in voter turnout.
In the first round, the number of invalid votes was reported to be about 1.06 million. However, in the runoff, this figure nearly halved to approximately 607,000, a difference of around 448,000 votes.
Iran International TV Journalist and political commentator Ali Hossein Ghazizadeh highlighted on X the improbability of over 6 million votes being cast in the final four hours of voting. He noted, "This number is not only unprecedented but also practically impossible."
He explained that rural polling stations and those in small towns typically close before 10pm, and even in large cities, late-hour crowds are only seen at major polling stations. Peripheral areas experience virtually no crowds, making it practically impossible to collect such a high number of votes in the final hours.
Iran International Journalist Shahed Alavi also pointed out "strange examples" of possible electoral number manipulation, citing specific time intervals with unusually high vote counts:
"Vote statistics are released hourly, and every 15 minutes in the afternoon from the Ministry of Interior. A detailed review of the numbers, the disproportionate increases, and reports of empty polling stations suggest extensive number manipulation by the Election Headquarters to satisfy Ali Khamenei," wrote Alavi on X.
For the first time, unlike in any previous presidential elections, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remained conspicuously silent after last week's low turnout for the snap elections until Wednesday.
When he finally spoke, he did not refer to the election as "an epic," a term he typically uses. Instead, he acknowledged that the turnout was "less than expected" and expressed hope that the runoff would show better results.
Indeed, while the turnout is higher, it is not excessively so. The figures for Masoud Pezeshkian are not overly high, which could signal to the reformist faction to stay in line, as Khamenei’s hardliner insiders desire, Alavi pointed out.
They view the reformists as a faction they oppose. Additionally, the narrow margin between hardliner Jalili and reformist Pezeshkian ensures that both factions remain aware of each other's presence. In previous elections, the difference between the winner and the runner-up was typically much larger.
Iranians opposed to the Islamic Republic widely expressed skepticism on social media about the higher runoff results. Many also sent voice messages to Iran International expressing doubts that one out of two people voted on Friday. In the absence of independent courts, civic organizations and media in Iran, it is almost impossible to vouch for any government numbers, whether election results or economic data.
Protests erupted in numerous global cities, including Bern, Amsterdam, Melbourne, Oslo, The Hague, Vienna, Stockholm, Manchester, Auckland, Sydney, Washington, and Hamburg, as demonstrators called to boycott the polls.
Meanwhile, clashes were reported between voters and protesters, with some arrests reported in London and at least four recorded on camera. The Metropolitan Police did not respond to Iran International’s request for comment.
The confrontations highlighted the divide even within the diaspora where voters and boycotters came face to face.
In London, outside the Iranian consulate where voting for Iran's presidential election was underway on Friday, protesters confronted voters, questioning their decision to participate after the government's bloody repression of the 2022 nationwide protests in Iran.
"How can you vote after all these people were killed? You legitimize the regime by doing so," one protester was heard shouting in a video shared on social media.
In another video, one voter is seen making a death gesture at protesters.
A notable incident, capturing even the attention of Iranian media, involved a female protester filming herself as she pulled off the hijab of one of the voters, igniting considerable controversy.
Two videos surfaced showing voters being arrested by the Metropolitan Police, along with one protester being detained for swearing as confrontations became physical.
But, this incident is not isolated. In May, during the commemoration of Ebrahim Raisi's death in a freak helicopter crash, clashes erupted between Islamic Republic loyalists and dissidents in both London and Maryland.
In the United States, a court issued a against an employee of Iran's Interests Section in Washington, DC, who was seen threatening Iranian protesters with death.
Tweet unavailable
Meanwhile, in London, images of an Iranian woman being beaten to the ground by a man seemingly loyal to the Islamic government went viral on social media. Additionally, an Iranian protester sustained injuries following an attack during the clashes.
"Any form of physical abuse or violation of someone's personal space is entirely unacceptable. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and violence in any context cannot be justified," remarked Arash Joudaki, a researcher and holder of a doctorate in Philosophy, in an interview with Iran International.
Explaining the venting of frustrations of the protesters, Joudaki said, “Swearing is a convenient outlet for expressing anger. Some argue that if certain people gain power, they will commit atrocities, equating their swearing to murderous intent. However, this comparison is flawed. Hitler did not swear; he orchestrated mass murder. Verbal abuse and killing are not directly related.
“Supporting an authoritarian regime through your vote means accepting the consequences, including receiving verbal backlash. Swearing pales in comparison to the regime's atrocities, such as the shooting of protesters during nationwide demonstrations."
Sociologist Hossein Ghazian saw the recent incident as a sign of Iranian society's anger. “Our anger manifests in two ways: Through words, which becomes ‘verbal aggression,’ meaning angry verbal behavior, and through actions, which becomes ‘violence,’ meaning angry physical behavior.”
“People swear to hurt and harm the recipient of the curse,” Ghazian said. He believes opponents of the Islamic Republic use such language against their adversaries because they have taken on its characteristics and are influenced by it during their fight, whether in mindset, language, or behavior.
Ghazian views swearing as a "political act" with both advantages and drawbacks.
“It has its benefits, for instance, when it is directed at the Supreme Leader and his inner circle” because it breaks the sacredness or untouchability of the Supreme Leader, but in contrast, if it’s aimed at security forces or the supporters of the Islamic Republic it ultimately proves counterproductive.
“Imagine a Revolutionary Guard involved in oppression all day returning home to a family upset by his actions, possibly scolding or advising him to stop. However, if the family, especially the mother, has heard the protesters' curses targeting them, she is less likely to be upset about his involvement in repressing those who insulted them. She might not encourage further repression, but she will be less upset,” Ghazian wrote.
Moral and tactical considerations
This is precisely the issue that social scientist Erfan Sabeti cautions against, arguing that swearing is both tactically and morally detrimental.
Sabeti, an editorial board member of Nashr Aasoo, told Iran International that swearing and vitriolic language, even when directed solely at the Supreme Leader, is morally problematic because it transforms us into the very thing we strive to oppose. This behavior does not merely remain an isolated act of defiance against an oppressive figure; instead, it insidiously embeds itself into our conduct and psyche. By adopting the methods and temperament of our adversaries, we risk becoming reflections of them, perpetuating a cycle of hatred and aggression.
Sabeti thinks that when we resort to swearing, we engage in a form of verbal violence that mirrors the moral degradation we condemn in our opponents. Though this kind of rhetoric may seem like a harmless venting of frustration, it fundamentally undermines the ethical high ground we seek to maintain.
“The Islamic Revolution was founded on violence, and its results reflect that foundation. Violence is destructive, not constructive. While one might overcome an opponent through violence, it leaves behind ruin. If we aim to eliminate oppression and repression, we must not let hatred accumulate within us, despite the government's extensive violence making it very difficult,” Sabeti told Iran International.
Striving for ethical integrity
According to Sabeti, actual change, both political and social, requires that we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and ethical integrity, resisting the temptation to mirror the malice of our adversaries. Only by doing so can we hope to create a future that transcends the cycles of violence and retribution that have marred our past.
Another danger of this behavior is that the Islamic Republic propaganda machine exploits this by suggesting that if these people come to power, they will destroy everything and be even worse than us.
This assertion has been substantiated as Iran’s Interior Minister last week denounced the Iranian diaspora protesting outside consulate buildings and polling stations on presidential election day, branding them as "terrorists" residing in the West.
Also, another is that it is not just to curse Khamenei; we become accustomed to it, it normalizes, and its disgrace fades, according to Sabeti.
Internal opposition disputes mirror this behavior, spreading rudeness within. This can be seen on social media, as opposition supporters sometimes engage in that behavior.
The complex dynamics of the diaspora
Ghazian posits that the dynamics between the diaspora and the people inside Iran are complex, with the actions of dissidents abroad having both positive and negative effects. He believes that the sizable Iranian diaspora now holds significant electoral weight, which can influence local politicians. However, their actions are heavily scrutinized and depicted in the media.
This scrutiny can reinforce the belief among Iranians within the country that the diaspora wields more power than it actually does. While this perception might provide some comfort to dissidents inside Iran, it also poses a danger. Ghazian argues that many Iranians hold the belief that Western powers, being responsible for the Islamic Revolution, can remove it. This can lead to an overestimation of the diaspora's power. Consequently, when it becomes apparent that the diaspora alone cannot bring about change, people may become disillusioned and lose hope.
There have been two significant occasions when the diaspora engaged in substantial protests in recent years. On October 22, 2022, over 80,000 people gathered in Berlin, according to German police reports. Protesters demanded the closure of Iranian embassies worldwide. Despite the Berlin demonstration revealing an intellectual imbalance within the Iranian diaspora, as evidenced by the disproportionate nature and diversity of the participants compared to the organizing group and the speeches delivered, it garnered significant international attention.
On January 16, 2023, a gathering of 12,000 people took place in Strasbourg, France, in front of the European Parliament. Iranian protesters aimed to have the European Union declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization.
Sabeti contends that the Iranian diaspora wields considerable influence. However, there has been a historically strained relationship between dissidents inside and outside the country, which is not solely an issue confined to Iranians.
Those within Iran often argue that, having escaped the "cage," the diaspora is not in a position to dictate their methods of resistance. Conversely, those abroad frequently believe they possess a superior understanding of the situation from their vantage point. Sabeti believes that, in reality, each group perceives only a portion of the broader picture, and effective collaboration between them is essential.
Two misguided reactions to the Islamic Republic
Sabeti believes there are two misguided reactions to the Islamic Republic. “One approach is to resort to dissimulation, a practice that has persisted among us for centuries. This involves playing a role and becoming two-faced, thinking one can deceive the ruling regime.”
“However, the regime is aware of this pretense and is content with it, as the entire totalitarian system is based on appearances and lies. This is also true for participating in elections, which are merely for show and not genuine,” Sabeti added.
The other path is violence—harboring thoughts of revenge and adopting the rulers' behaviors. “Following their actions means believing that the ends justify the means, but this changes one's very nature.”
Strategies for effective support
Sabeti believes that these strategies could enable the diaspora to support the people within the country from abroad effectively:
