As crazy as it sounds, Holocaust-denying, Israel-loathing, antisemitic former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was - while in power - a gift for Israel that just kept on giving.
How so?
Simple, his outlandish and inflammatory statements about Israel, including openly calling for it to be “wiped off the map,” and his mocking of the Holocaust, including initiating a Holocaust cartoon contest, showcased to the world the radical nature of the Iranian regime.
This came at a time when Israel was busy trying to mobilize the world to isolate and impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic, and Ahmadinejad’s craziness - his provocative rhetoric and aggressive foreign policy positions - helped in this effort.
During his eight-year reign from 2005-2013, Ahmadinejad did two other things as well: he strengthened Israel’s position internationally that it needed to be prepared to confront a belligerent and possibly nuclear Iran, and he unified Israeli politicians of all ideological stripes that a strong defensive posture against Iran is both justified and necessary.
Same old regime with a brand new face
Then, in 2013, his term expired, and a “moderate” candidate—Hassan Rouhani—won the Iranian presidential elections.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this of Rouhani at the UN General Assembly shortly after the Iranian presidential elections: “Rouhani doesn’t sound like Ahmadinejad, but when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing; Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing - a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.”
Rouhani and his foreign minister, Javad Zarif, presented a much more moderate face to the world than Ahmadinejad, avoiding inflammatory statements and seeking constructive dialogue. It is not a coincidence that under their regime, the nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was concluded in 2015. Netanyahu believed that the agreement showed that Rouhani did pull the wool over the world’s eyes.
As of Friday, Israel will be facing a similar dilemma with the man elected to succeed late president Ebrahim Raisi, killed in a still mysterious helicopter crash in May: Masoud Pezeshkian.
Pezeshkian, backed tellingly by Zarif, is being characterized in much of the media as a “moderate” or even a “reformer,” terms that in the Iranian political reality do not carry the same connotation as in the West. While some who skim the headlines might think an Iranian “reformer” or “moderate” is good for Israel, that is by no means the case.
Pezeshkian said during that campaign that the opinions of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whom he made a point of always referring to as “The Exalted Supreme Leader,” are paramount, perhaps the reason why Khamenei - who vetted all candidates - allowed him to run in the first place. Furthermore, on election day, Pezeshkian told reporters, “God willing, we will try to have friendly relations with all countries except Israel.”
While the world is applying the “moderate” label to the president-elect, he is moderate, or a reformist, within the narrow confines of what Khamenei and other sources of power and authority in Iran will allow, first and foremost, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Nevertheless, his “reformist” image may—as it did when Rouhani was president—lead the international community to take a less strident position toward the regime as it did when Ahmadinejad was president.
Moreover, for those who believe that the best path toward depriving Iran of a nuclear bomb is through regime change, the election of this reformist candidate is not necessarily a positive development.
Over the last 15 years, Iran has been dogged by waves of internal dissent that left some believing it could turn into a tidal wave that would sweep the ayatollahs from power.
In 2009, following Ahmadinejad’s re-election to a second term, there were large-scale protests that shook the regime. Some argue that had then US president Barack Obama done more to encourage these protests, they could have spread and threatened the government. Obama, however, was intent on convincing Iran that he wanted to work with them and that his goal was not regime change. The reason the administration gave at the time for not backing the protests was that it did not want to provide Theran with an excuse to unleash a brutal crackdown.
Either way, in 2022 Obama admitted this policy was an error. “In retrospect, I think that was a mistake,” he said. “Every time we see a flash, a glimmer of hope, of people longing for freedom, I think we have to point it out. We have to shine a spotlight on it. We have to express some solidarity about it.”
Protests, often violent, shook the country again in 2017-2018, with severe economic hardship and corruption as the triggers. They erupted again in 2019, sparked by a hike in fuel prices.
Perhaps the most significant protests - the Women, Life, Freedom movement - broke out in 2022 when a young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, died in custody after being arrested for not wearing a hijab. These protests, brutally repressed, were the most widespread and sustained challenge to the ayatollahs since the 1979 revolution.
Pezeshkian ran on a ticket of easing restrictions under Iran’s strict morality laws and reducing repression, specifically around issues like mandatory wearing of the hijab and restricting internet access, and with a message of taking into account the rights of youth and women.
In the Iranian political system, the president has little or no sway on the nuclear issue or support of the Islamic Republic’s proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias—but he has influence in domestic matters. If Pezeshkian adopts policies that appeal to the masses, it could take momentum out of any efforts to bring down the system from within. This means that Pezeshkian’s victory makes the already long-shot possibility of a popular revolt against the regime because of domestic issues even less likely.
However, one area where Pezeshkian’s election could ultimately have a positive impact, even for Israel, is in the selection of Khamenei’s successor.
Pezeshkian is likely to be in office when Khamenei, who is 85 and reportedly unwell, dies. Although an 80-plus member “Assembly of Experts” mainly comprised of aged clerics will select the next Iranian leader, Pezeshkian - by his role as president - could influence the choice through public statements, private talk with members of the assembly, and pushing publicly for a particular candidate. While not the most influential voice, he will have some impact on the selection of Khamaeni’s successor, a critical decision considering Khamanei’s role as Israel’s most dangerous and implacable enemy.