A Different President
What is the secret of Masoud Pezeshkian’s dominance and victory in the electoral marathon, and his rise from the seat of a representative to the top of the country’s executive pyramid? And more importantly, which approach, manner, method, and strategy is this success and achievement indebted to above all other propositions and choices? You might say to yourself that now is not the time for such a question, as he is currently the president, and answering this question does not unveil a new topic 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 to consequently adopt and commit to the necessary and essential reactions for recognizing his performance and fostering universal facilitation and consensus around advancing the government’s affairs in the direction of managing the nation’s affairs, answering the aforementioned question provides us with a considered roadmap.
From the very days of the election campaign, I had a strong emphasis on one point, which was that beyond any topic, the companions and like-minded individuals of the election campaign must initially and primarily recognize Masoud Pezeshkian’s personality, speech, and behavioral differences 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 atmosphere of Iran’s political environment, which has suffered from personality cults and endured many hardships, such statements were accompanied by negative interpretations and non-positive assumptions, even though nothing significant had happened yet.
We should not idolize Pezeshkian or speak as if he is a unique entity, and everything depends on him alone, as if others had no role or place in elevating him and will not have any. The point was to accept his personality and behavioral differences and his specific speech pattern, regardless of positive or negative evaluations compared to his predecessors. This way, on one hand, we can maximize attraction with his different personal backing and potential, and on the other hand, we can understand and realize that he is what he appears to be, and based on that, pursue expectations and demands from Pezeshkian logically and systematically, without falling into the illusion of expecting extraordinary changes from him or thinking that solving long-standing problems and challenges by him is nothing but a false hope and a mirage.
The first press conference of the fourteenth government with the media and the ensuing reactions happened exactly because that difference was not considered, turning it into a tangled skein where activists from various spectrums joined in from their own perspectives, criticizing it for not aligning with their ingrained assumptions and desires. However, hardware-wise, Masoud Pezeshkian’s first press conference as president had acceptable and distinct standards. The dignity of the media was preserved, its inclusivity was desirable and encompassing of various tastes and interests, and the session was organized and respectable in its form.
Software-wise, aside from the usual jokes and speeches of the president, which, with the understanding of that difference, did not have any peculiar or asymmetrical points, it was actually full of diplomatic intelligence, especially in questions related to foreign policy and in dealing with international media. Pezeshkian, with particular subtlety but using colloquial language, gave diplomatic answers to challenging questions where the slightest slip could have had significant consequences.
Regarding the use of the term ‘brother’ for Americans, which was criticized by the opposition, they ignore the president’s introductory remarks and overlook his obvious and comprehensive condition. Friends who have sharply criticized the use of that term do not realize that what matters is the actions, efforts, and achievements of the president, not the use of a term that he has repeatedly used for domestic and foreign officials and friends, which is part of his inherent and personal behavior, free from any verbal reduction.
In any case, if we accept Pezeshkian’s differences and the ingrained behavioral and speech patterns in him, aside from these immediate and reactive criticisms, our expectations and demands become logical, and we can achieve a logical and constructive synergy for advancing the affairs of the state and nation based on objective reality and unity in diversity.
