On June 24, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting hosted the fourth of its five panel debates with the presidential candidates clashing on domestic and foreign policy. The only candidate to raise domestic political issues was former Chief of Foreign Intelligence Mostafa Pourmohammadi, while the other candidates, Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf, Masoud Pezeshkian, Saeed Jalili, and two candidates who dropped out June 27, Alireza Zakani and Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi, focused on foreign policy. The almost three-hour debate, however, was not about the fundamentals of Iran’s foreign policy but on how to divine the thoughts and wishes of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and how best to achieve what the candidates referred to as the “fundamental policies of the regime.” While the first round of voting has now been held, eliminating some of the candidates, the themes raised in the June 24 debate – assessing the value of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal, questioning why Iran is not able to attract more foreign investment, and observing how foreign policy is formulated in Iran and the way in which domestic issues help shape it – are likely to continue to represent themes Iranian politicians will articulate. They stir enough controversy and interest to attract attention but don’t risk the ire of the regime with direct criticism.

• Qalibaf said: “On foreign policy, there is a need for consensus among the elites, and, based on the consensus, the president can more successfully negotiate the nuclear file … However, when some candidates and their campaign members raise political issues with the voters, these issues become politicized.”
• Discussing the JCPOA, Pezeshkian said: “The JCPOA was achieved by a Cabinet, which these gentlemen say was ‘bad.’ Now, they want to finalize the JCPOA, so the JCPOA cannot have been that bad. The JCPOA was indeed advantageous to Iran … and the fight is over who takes credit for it … When the Cabinet was about to solve the JCPOA issue, conflict among us prevented it, and, now, the people are paying the price for it … Martyr Raisi,” referencing the late President Ebrahim Raisi, “tried to finalize the JCPOA, but because of internal fights, we did not allow it to happen. If we want to improve our economy, we must improve our relations with the world so our economy can flourish. We must solve the problem of unjust sanctions through different means. One day, we must pass” the Financial Action Task Force, a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog. “Look at our agreement with China. Why is China not investing in Iran? As long as we don’t solve our problems in the international field, they will not engage in business with us. This is crystal clear. Sloganeering does not solve the problems of this country. China, Iraq, Russia, and other countries … if we want them to do business with us, we must abide by international standards.” Why are China’s investments in Iran’s neighboring countries $300 billion or $1.2 trillion, “and with us, it is only $200 or $300 million? Why?”
• During the debate, Jalili said: “In foreign policy, you look at what countries have commonalities with you, and you try to take advantage of it. The problem arises when you focus on two to three countries that happen to have the greatest conflicts with you. These countries do not provide you with opportunities but threats. You must look at the world in its entirety. There are plenty of countries in the world prepared for joint projects with us, particularly in the economic field. Here, you must prioritize. You must know what your economic goals are … Sometimes you can benefit from conflicts between other countries – for example, Russia, which is entangled in a conflict with the European Union …. Now that it is no longer importing food from the EU, there is an opportunity to export $11 billion of food to Russia. This is an opportunity. Or, in your relations with your neighbors, there are circumstances that cannot be disturbed by sanctions.”
• Referencing the Strategic Initiative to Remove Sanctions and Safeguard the Interests of the Iranian Nation, which required Iran to reduce its commitments to the JCPOA if sanctions were not lifted, Qalibaf said: “How is Dr. Pezeshkian going to advance negotiations and get sanctions relief if he perceives the Strategic bill as an obstacle? When I say I believe in negotiations and will engage in negotiations, it is based on Article 6 of the bill: reciprocal and step by step … With the Strategic bill, we suspended our commitment to the JCPOA’s Additional Protocol. In return for freeing our oil from sanctions, our commitments to the Additional Protocol will be restored – meaning one action by them and one action from us. Now, we have 60% uranium enrichment based on the Strategic bill. If they remove sanctions from our port facilities, restore our access to insurance companies, and allow the central bank to do its work undisturbed, we certainly will reciprocate. At any rate, when we are facing a disingenuous enemy, as we have witnessed in Trump’s behavior, naturally, we must do the work in a most calculated manner. And I am certain that in the field of removing the sanctions, we will pursue it in the most eager manner. Now, in the field of neutralizing the sanctions, we also have great opportunities. Right now, as the dear friends pointed out, there is Eurasia, the Shanghai Pact, BRICS, and the like. At this very moment, we have $24 billion worth of agreements with new economic powers, all of which are opposed to the United States. They can work with us. Why are we not taking advantage of this? Because we lack unity among ourselves in Iran. We have conflict among the apparatuses within the country, even interagency conflict.”
• Pezeshkian added: “This country cannot be run by a single group or faction. As long as we don’t solve our domestic problems, none of the problems discussed here can be solved. Who climbed the walls of the British Embassy, leading to its closure? Was it the reformists? Who set the Embassy of Saudi Arabia ablaze, and which newspapers called it ‘a great achievement’? After this, all the Arab countries left Tehran and severed their relations with Iran. Who did this? It is clear that the same people who climbed the walls of those embassies are now in Cabinet positions. Why were they not stopped? We are fighting with each other. Let us be honest. We don’t want our rivals to be successful so we ourselves can take credit for foreign policy successes. This trend is impossible … Who is responsible for young people emigrating from Iran? We must look at the realities. From the first day that I registered as a candidate, I said I will enforce the general policies of the supreme leader. How can I say today that I don’t accept those policies? … I see the salvation of the country in the enforcement of those general policies. Did they not say that the price of meat and chicken is not related to the JCPOA? Did they not say that the price of the dollar against the rial will not increase? Why is it that the price of red meat reached 1,000,000 rials and chicken 80,0000 rials per kilo? These things were not meant to be related to the JCPOA. Why did these things happen? In theory, what we promise to do is easy, but why is it that we do not manage to do it? We said that even without the JCPOA or joining the FATF, we can solve our domestic problems. Well, why did we not solve these problems? The reality is that we must accept that, internally, we must first solve our factional conflicts. I don’t mean at open tribunes … We constantly accuse each other: ‘You failed,’ ‘No, you failed!’ … Where does it get us? Then we say, ‘We will solve it.’ In this Parliament, we were meant to improve the people’s lives and solve the inflation problem – why did we not manage to do so? Promises are cheap. We must solve our domestic problems. Even if we restore our relations with neighboring countries without solving the JCPOA and the FATF, which Martyr Raisi himself was pursuing, it is not possible. Now, we spin it: ‘We did it; you did not manage.’ We must join forces and solve our problems with the world. We must join forces to solve our internal conflicts at our internal meetings. It will be futile for me to deliver snide comments to them and vice versa. I wholeheartedly believe that if the general policies of the supreme leader, which are the general policies of the regime, had been executed – had we capably executed those policies, had we abstained from making false accusations against each other, had we not marginalized experts for no good reason, and had we not behaved improperly toward them – the elites and the people would have been capable of solving the problems of the country. We can reach the goals prescribed by the general policies of the regime. The real problem is our infighting.
• Jalili responded: “Our friends talk about the JCPOA. Well, it was achieved, no? They said, ‘We will solve the problem through an agreement. The problems will be solved. The centrifuges will spin, and so will the wheel of the economy.’ They reached an agreement, and the agency,” referencing the International Atomic Energy Agency, “itself said, ‘Iran is compliant, it is delivering, and it has even exceeded its obligations.’ What was the result? The other party left the agreement and did not live up to its obligations. Now you are making accusations against this country, which is interesting.”
• Qalibaf added: “I agree with Dr. Pezeshkian’s suggestion that we should not discuss these matters in public. We should discuss it elsewhere. The reason why I raised these subjects is because the issues are being discussed by the public … Our role model is Martyr Suleimani,” referencing the late Quds Force chief, Major General Qassim Suleimani. “He would talk with the enemy that he was fighting on the ground. In other words, diplomacy is one instrument. I sometimes say negotiation is a method of fighting, and other times fighting is a way of negotiation. This is the way of the revolution and the method of the Islamic Republic … Martyr Suleimani was capable of reaching a consensus and used considerable time and effort to reach a consensus … Take a look at the kind of debates we have nowadays: One group says, ‘Don’t write Death to Israel on your missiles because this will cause sanctions to be imposed on us.’ On the other hand, we have Operation True Promise,” Iran’s April retaliatory attack against Israel, “which is providing us with plenty of economic opportunities,” a possible reference to Iran’s military exports to Russia. “Today, in cooperation with our neighbors and Islamic countries, we have blocked the path of American intervention in the region and disturbed their global hegemony. Therefore, we must also take advantage of economic advantages that come with it.”
• Pezeshkian continued: “I was at a meeting with Dr. Jalili. I told him: ‘If we don’t accept the JCPOA, what is our alternative? What will we do if we don’t agree to the JCPOA?’ He said, ‘We don’t have a plan.’ Right now, because we delayed reviving the JCPOA, we have lost billions of dollars, simply because there is this or that detail with which we disagree. Exports of oil, natural gas, and the like are all losing money. I know that I don’t know. The problem is that there are some people who think they are know it all! … Experts know what to do, not these gentlemen … Separately, you gentlemen are saying that the JCPOA is bad. Alright. What is your alternative? Which alternative path are you suggesting? Is the JCPOA bad? Trump said he would burn it. Netanyahu said it is bad. Those countries that had enmity with us were struggling to tear apart the JCPOA, and so were our friends in our Parliament! Right now, these gentlemen say we looked into the JCPOA, and it is bad. Well, tell us that you don’t accept it, but also explain to the people what their alternative is. What do they want to do instead of the JCPOA? They should also tell us who climbed the walls of the embassies, creating problems for society and harming Iran’s international image. I’m a university professor, and I admit if there is something I don’t know about, but these people claim to know everything. Who is to blame for the calamities that have befallen our country? This is all because of decisions made by nonexperts.”
• Ghazizadeh Hashemi concluded: “Since Mr. Pezeshkian referred to the embassies so many times, our issue with the United States began with the den,” referencing the ‘U.S. Den of Espionage’ the Islamic Republic’s name for the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. “He should tell us who seized the Den. Did he play any role in it or not? During whose Cabinet were the embassies of Saudi Arabia and Britain attacked, and why did the Cabinet at the time not do anything to prevent it? Was it incapable of doing so? The president presides over the Supreme National Security Council. Could he not prevent four people from carrying out that attack?”