Iran is staging the second round of its presidential election this Friday, featuring reformist and moderate Masud Pezeshkian against ultraconservative Saeed Jalili. The vote is a bid to determine who will lead the Islamic Republic after the tenure of Ebrahim Raisi. International observers in North America and around the world are watching closely as the campaign progresses.
Raisi’s death in a May helicopter crash in northern Iran has added a layer of uncertainty to the race, a tragedy that also claimed Iran’s then foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian. Yet Pezeshkian and Jalili are not alone on the stage. The upcoming ballot also tests the public’s willingness to participate, or abstain, a trend that many expect to repeat in the second round.
In the first round turnout hovered around 40 percent, a historic low for an Iranian presidential election since the Islamic Republic was founded. The drop in participation is tied to an enduring economic crisis and widespread disillusionment following years of repression, with women bearing a significant share of the impact.
Abstention as a deliberate boycott
Analysts contend that roughly six in ten eligible voters who did not cast ballots on June 28 signaled broader opposition to the entire system rather than dissatisfaction with individual candidates. Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute, frames abstention as a purposeful move. He notes that Tehran, with the supreme leader perched above all institutions, understands the political dynamics at play. The real aim, he suggests, is not simply supporting a presidential platform but shaping how power is organized in the capital.
In Iran the president can influence national and international policy tones. Pezeshkian has campaigned on easing tensions with the United States and exploring a possible revival of the nuclear agreement, yet the final direction of policy is ultimately set by the Ayatollah and the core power circles that back the regime.
The vote tally and expectations
From the first ballot Pezeshkian captured about 10.4 million votes, narrowly ahead of Jalili who drew roughly 9.4 million. A third candidate, ultraconservative Mohammad Bagher Ghalehbaf, trailed with around 3.4 million. With the second round underway, analysts expect most of Ghalehbaf’s votes to shift toward Jalili, while Pezeshkian hopes a higher turnout could tilt the result in favor of reformists who previously led under President Hassan Rouhani from 2013 to 2021.
Among the Iranian public, even a Pezeshkian victory would likely be met with cautious optimism. Skepticism remains about real change as long as the supreme leader retains control. Some observers view Jalili’s possible win as more consistent with the current power structure in Tehran, suggesting continuity rather than transformation.
Experts note that the campaign has exposed frictions between the reformist camp and hardline factions within the regime. The moderate camp worries about outcomes that could trigger broader upheaval, while hardliners fear losing grip on the country’s direction. The risk of political, social, and economic instability lingers, shaping voter psychology and the long-standing reform narrative in the republic.
Observers emphasize that the presidency’s influence is real but limited. The leadership in Tehran remains the anchor of Iranian policy, a reality that colors both voter expectations and campaign strategies. Ultimately the election is about more than personalities; it concerns the structure of power and the extent to which citizens believe meaningful openness is possible within the existing system.
Both candidates focus on unemployment, inflation, and social freedoms, yet the domestic arithmetic suggests that substantial change would require shifts at the top. Analysts indicate that if Jalili wins, the path could resemble Raisi’s approach with tight governance and a favoring of stability over rapid liberalization. If Pezeshkian takes office, the rhetoric hints at easing tensions with the West and maneuvering on the nuclear file, though the ultimate constraints will still be set by the leadership and security establishments. Middle East Institute provides expert commentary on Iran’s political dynamics in this context.
The outcome of this election will be watched closely by policymakers and observers in Canada, the United States, and beyond. It signals how Iran plans to balance domestic pressures with its international posture and how much room the leadership is willing to grant any president to shape both internal fortunes and foreign engagement. The larger takeaway is clear: regardless of the result, the regime is likely to continue operating within a framework defined by the Ayatollah and the security apparatus, a framework that limits how much change can occur at the top while preserving core power structures. Attribution: Middle East Institute.
In summary, the second round serves as more than a test of candidate popularity. It gauges public sentiment toward the system itself and acts as a bellwether for the direction of Iran’s politics in the near term. The coming days will reveal whether the country moves toward a new balance or doubles down on continuity as it navigates economic strains, social disaffection, and regional complexities.