A Different President
What is the secret behind Masoud Pezeshkian’s dominance and victory in the electoral marathon, elevating him from a parliamentary seat to the pinnacle of the country’s executive hierarchy? Beyond any statement or choice, which approach, attitude, method, and strategy is this success and achievement owed to? You might say, what is the point of such a question now? He is currently the head of the government, and answering this question doesn’t reveal anything new or make much difference. Whether we like it or not, he will be the President of Iran for the next four years. However, the point is that to have a correct and logical understanding of the President’s actions and approaches in various fields and, as a result, to adopt and focus on necessary and essential reactions to understand his performance and promote public cooperation in advancing government affairs in line with managing the nation’s affairs, answering the aforementioned question provides us with a well-considered roadmap.
From the very days of the election campaign, I emphasized one point repeatedly, which was that beyond any issue, the companions and like-minded people of the electoral campaign must initially and primarily recognize and acknowledge the personality, speech, and behavioral differences of Masoud Pezeshkian and view him in the context of his individuality and selfhood, and based on that, organize the framework of electoral and promotional actions.
In the usual political atmosphere of Iran, which has suffered from personality cults and endured many hardships, such statements were accompanied by negative interpretations and non-positive preconceptions, as if nothing had happened yet.
Let’s not idolize Pezeshkian or speak in a way that suggests he is a unique exception and everything depends solely on him, as if others had no role or place in elevating him. The intention was to acknowledge his personality and behavioral differences and his unique speech pattern, regardless of positive or negative judgments compared to his predecessors, so that on one hand, we could achieve maximum attraction with his different personal backing and potential, and on the other hand, understand and realize that he is as he appears. Based on that, we should pursue expectations and demands from Pezeshkian logically and systematically, neither falling into the illusion of expecting grand and strange changes from him nor assuming that solving long-standing problems and challenges by him is a mere fantasy.
The first press conference of the fourteenth government with the media and the subsequent reactions precisely stem from not considering that difference, which has turned into a tangled skein. Actors from various spectrums have joined it from their own perspectives, considering part of it as a lack of alignment with their ingrained preconceptions and desires, leading to criticism and objections. However, in terms of hardware, the first press conference of Masoud Pezeshkian as President was of acceptable and distinct standards. The dignity of the media was preserved, its inclusiveness was desirable and comprehensive from different tastes and interests, and the session was organized and its appearance was respectable.
In terms of software, aside from the usual humor and familiar speeches of the President, which, with understanding and considering that difference, had no peculiar and asymmetrical points, it was actually filled with diplomatic intelligence and insight, especially in questions related to foreign policy and in interactions with international media. Pezeshkian, with special subtlety but in plain language, gave diplomatic answers to challenging questions where the slightest slip could have had serious consequences.
Regarding the use of the term ‘brother’ for Americans, which was criticized by the opposition, they ignore the President’s preamble and overlook his obvious and comprehensive condition. Friends who have made this term a basis for harsh criticism do not consider that what matters is the President’s actions, efforts, and achievements, not the use of a term that he has repeatedly used for both domestic and foreign officials and friends, which is part of his inherent and personal action, free from any verbal discount or reduction.
In any case, if we accept the differences in Pezeshkian and the ingrained behavioral and speech manner in him, aside from these immediate and incidental criticisms, our expectations and demands become logical, and we can achieve a logical and facilitating synergy for advancing the affairs of the state and nation, based on objective reality and unity amidst diversity.