The Jalili-Larijani Polarization
The Jalili-Larijani polarization: Saeed Jalili has participated in the elections of 2013 and 2021 without any issues, losing the first time and withdrawing in favor of Ebrahim Raisi in his latest appearance. The fourteenth election marks Jalili’s third participation in this race.
Ali Larijani also intends to enter the presidential race for the third time.
The first time was in 2005, where he lost, and in his second attempt three years ago, he was disqualified by the Guardian Council. We must wait and see what decision the Guardian Council makes this time regarding the participation of the three-term Parliament Speaker in the presidential race.
The First Electoral Polarization
The Larijani-Jalili polarization is significant for various reasons. They have distanced themselves from each other despite originating from the same political source, and if qualified and victorious in the election, they will implement their views in various fields within the framework of presidential powers.
In a short speech after registering, Larijani focused on livelihood, economy, and lifting sanctions. Jalili also emphasized continuing Ebrahim Raisi’s path, the necessity of having a plan from the president, justice, and leapfrogging as the core of his policies. These differing views can be seen as the beginning of the Larijani-Jalili polarization.
Representing two perspectives, regardless of their correctness, which are set to either change the country’s direction or keep it on the current path.
Attack on Larijani
Saeed Jalili and Ali Larijani both announced their entry into the elections on the X Twitter network. Jalili, along with ‘In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,’ published a photo of himself in his office standing in front of a mirror, buttoning the top button of his shirt. Larijani posted a picture of a passenger transport app map showing three points: the starting point, destination 1, and destination 2.
This image was met with various interpretations. Some interpreted the starting point as the Leader’s office, meaning Larijani’s candidacy was endorsed by Ayatollah Khamenei, while others said it referred to his office near the Leader’s complex.
The first destination was the Ministry of Interior, and the second destination was Pasteur Street and the Presidential Office. This image was accompanied by the sentence, ‘We won’t reach the destination without you.’
This post on Larijani’s account was met with humorous and serious reactions from social media users and some politicians on the X Twitter network. The reactions became more serious when he said in his speech at the Ministry of Interior that to overcome obstacles, we must rise above outdated methods, and after his registration, the same sentence was posted with the hashtag ‘Rise Up.’ Twitter users and politicians interpreted the keyword ‘Rise Up’ as an insult to Ebrahim Raisi and the victims of the helicopter crash and reacted to Larijani.
The Kayhan newspaper’s Telegram channel also reacted strongly to this issue. The page attributed to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of Parliament, wrote on the X network, ‘Indeed, Allah defends those who have faith.’ The lasting achievement of the martyr Raisi in the country’s political space is ethics and not undermining rivals.
Let’s not diminish this great achievement with sarcasm and irony.
Malek Shariati, a representative from Tehran, also wrote, ‘He used to say from above, ‘Do you hear my voice?’ Yesterday he wrote that to go up to Pasteur, he wants to ride on the people.
Today, he also said he likes to go up and wants to rise. They still haven’t understood that people want a servant of the nation, not a boss.
This member of parliament then used the hashtag ‘Rise Up,’ referring to Kayhan’s note.
Kayhan, in response to Larijani, wrote, ‘Mr. Larijani said in his speech during the presidential election registration that to overcome obstacles, we must rise above outdated methods, but falling into the trap of the JCPOA and the JCPOA-ization of America and Britain was a low rise, the lowest rise.’
Mehdi Samouei, Director General of Public Relations of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Abdul-Motahhar Mohammadi, spokesperson and head of the Communications and International Affairs Center of Tehran Municipality, and the Governor of Qazvin, the head of the provincial election headquarters, were among the government officials or well-known figures on social media who reacted to this issue.
Larijani eventually released an explanation about this keyword and probably addressed Ghalibaf, the highest-ranking official among the responders, writing, ‘Allah will raise those of you who have faith and those who have been given knowledge in ranks. Rising Up is a strategy for traversing the path.’
To grow and develop the country, we must rise above destructive and negative debates and, for once, focus the electoral space on outlining the people’s problems and providing real solutions. Martyrs of service laid down their lives for the elevation of this very strategy.
May their memory and name be honored, and may the thoughts of demons and abusers of their names be thwarted.
Saeed Jalili also wrote, ‘Saying a few nice sentences and throwing a jab at others might have some appeal in its own right, but it doesn’t work for the people.’
No one can claim to be pursuing the people’s interests if, after several years in parliament, they don’t present a record in the field of combating corruption.
Merely wanting to lift sanctions is not enough.
Nostratollah Tajik, a former diplomat and political analyst, told Ham Mihan, ‘Internally, one of our main problems is mismanagement and the incorrect structure of the country’s administrative system, but from the perspective of foreign policy, we also face problems that will affect whoever becomes president.’
The first part of our foreign policy problems stems from conceptual and theoretical issues, meaning issues we face have not been worked on theoretically in universities, nor have they been scientifically discussed and researched so that the results of these investigations are made available to the executive bodies to determine what the proposed solution in foreign policy, researched at the university, will yield.
So, there is a disconnect between the university and the executive bodies in this area. This issue also prevents the formation of a dominant discourse that everyone can align with and understand their stance on foreign policy issues.
He explained this with the example of the Palestine issue: ‘We have made significant material and spiritual investments regarding Palestine, but today we see a situation where there is some indifference in society towards this issue. In such circumstances, most of our investments are wasted and will not be profitable.’
Therefore, with the university and executive bodies being disconnected, each operating in its own world and busy with its own tasks, we have a problem in theorizing and explaining it to the people.
This former diplomat emphasized, ‘On the other hand, in execution, we face an excessive number of organizations beyond the norm.’
Meanwhile, the organization responsible for foreign policy does not have the necessary power, authority, and influence in decision-making, decision-taking, and execution.
Many of the problems in this area are not at the government level, where the president can play a role. Foreign policy is a sovereign matter.
For instance, Mr. Larijani talks about lifting sanctions today. All previous presidents, even the late Raisi, pursued lifting sanctions and negotiations, and given the position of foreign policy, we must examine what the issues were that presidents could not resolve them.
What reason is there that merely with Larijani’s speech at the Ministry of Interior, we should be convinced that he can lift the sanctions?
Tajik continued, ‘Mr. Larijani, during the time he was a nuclear negotiator, had better and easier communications with the European Union representative, Mr. Solana, but during the same period, we received three resolutions plus fifty sanctions. Therefore, if we merely want to say my government will be the one to lift the sanctions, it won’t work. These sanctions are the result of our foreign policy.’
Part of it comes back to us and issues we have with international and regional norms. Our relative advantage is in the Middle East. Our main problem with the United States is in the Middle East. The sanctions stem from our issues in the Middle East.
However, Iran cannot abandon its investments in the Middle East, or we must accept to abandon this investment, or we must pursue our interests in ways that are also compatible with international norms and not perceived as a threat by other countries. Some of this policy might be in the hands of the government.
I do not deny the role of the individual, but just as the president has a role, other officials also have a role. Just wanting to take steps towards lifting the sanctions is not enough. Suppose Mr. Larijani becomes president; there still won’t be a significant change in our foreign policy.
One of our dilemmas is that we do not have a correct perception of the level and extent of the problem. We do not know how much of our country’s issues and problems stem from foreign policy, which part relates to us, and how much relates to the other side. That’s why we just want to reduce the sanctions.
The other part is the other side. We must be realistic. People are disillusioned with the government and the political structure because they have heard these ideas so much but have not seen positive results in practice. This is not a good issue for sovereignty.
The former Iranian ambassador to Jordan stated, ‘Mr. Jalili, on the other hand, has a general and conceptual framework that has not been hammered out in the university as a scientific environment with the presence of supporters and opponents. He may have an idea, and some of his friends may like it.’
But an idea can succeed if it is reviewed and studied by supporters and opponents and examined from an executive perspective.
For example, Mr. Jalili proposed the issue of barter in 2021. We have 15 neighboring countries, which is our relative advantage, but if we want to work with them while under sanctions, we cannot trade properly. We cannot exchange goat hair for tea. He negotiated with Mr. Solana and Ms. Ashton from 2007 to 2013.
The result of these negotiations was 3 resolutions and placing Iran under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the chapter related to dealing with global threats, establishing peace, and adding 450 more sanctions. What foreign policy slogan does he want to give?
If you sit down with Mr. Ali Akbar Salehi, he has stated that the leadership accepted that Iran and the United States have indirect negotiations in Oman. Salehi, as the Foreign Minister, was confused for 2 or 3 months, and Jalili, as the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, objected to this, and holding two negotiations took a year.
This process is very slow, and we cannot secure our interests. The speed of developments is high, and we move like ants, while we saw that ultimately they negotiated in Oman, which became the basis for subsequent negotiations with the P5+1 and the JCPOA.
This former diplomat emphasized, ‘What does Mr. Jalili want to do in foreign policy? Mr. Jalili is pursuing global management. His talks and speeches in various forums are available, general discussions that are only good for wasting time.’
I hope in the coming days, stronger forces who are proficient in foreign policy issues will register for the elections, who are capable. We are not in a good situation internally and externally and need structural reforms, and hopefully, with the presence of a few strong forces from various aspects, the country will witness a return of the people to the ballot box and maximum participation, so that alongside increased national cohesion, a strong and effective government is formed to solve the people’s problems and advance the country.
The Middle East is on the verge of fundamental changes. Global polarization is changing. If Trump comes to power in America, we will have more problems, and a strong government and maximum national cohesion can be effective, God willing.
