Iran’s reform moment lost between sanctions and power politics

In Iran’s 2016 general elections, voters simultaneously chose 290 members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, who serve four-year terms, and 88 members of the Assembly of Experts, whose terms last eight years. During the campaign, young Iranians held signs reading “30+16.” The slogan urged voters in Tehran, the country’s political center, to elect every reformist candidate on the ballot. It referred to the 30 candidates for the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which functions much like South Korea’s National Assembly, and the 16 candidates for the Assembly of Experts, the body empowered to appoint or impeach the supreme leader. Watching this bold campaign calling for the election of every reformist candidate, I initially thought the idea was unrealistic.

The reason was clear. Unlike in South Korea, Iran’s Guardian Council, which performs a role similar to that of an election commission, screens all candidates before they can run. Anyone seen as having made remarks or taken actions even slightly critical of the Islamic system is effectively barred from running. For reform-minded figures, securing a place on the ballot is extremely difficult.

The Guardian Council consists of 12 members. Six are Islamic jurists appointed directly by the supreme leader. The remaining six are legal experts knowledgeable in Islamic law. They are nominated by the head of the judiciary, who is also appointed by the supreme leader, and approved by parliament. The council oversees every election in Iran, and for reform-leaning candidates, passing its vetting process is exceedingly difficult.

Even Hassan Khomeini, a grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and recently mentioned as a potential future supreme leader, failed to pass the council’s vetting process when he sought to run for the Assembly of Experts in 2016. Hassan Khomeini, a reform-leaning cleric who enjoyed strong support among younger voters, protested the decision and asked the council to explain its reasoning. The Guardian Council replied that it had no legal obligation to disclose the reason. It added that a message had been sent asking him to attend the vetting session but that he did not appear. Hassan Khomeini said he had never received such a message. The council responded that the message had been sent and ended the exchange.

Given these circumstances, the call to elect every reformist candidate who managed to appear on the ballot seemed detached from political reality. That was why I shook my head at the time. Yet Iran’s young voters delivered a remarkable outcome. The final result was 30+15. Until the last ballot box was opened, the count had stood at 30+16.

Determined to push out hardline politicians and conservative clerics, young voters actively supported reformist candidates who rarely appeared in state media. They used Telegram and WhatsApp to share information and rally support, helping produce a striking electoral result. After the Guardian Council blocked many candidates favored by younger voters, they cast their ballots for lesser-known moderates or reformists who had passed the vetting process, hoping to prevent hardliners from tightening their grip on power.

The unprecedented “30+15” outcome in 2016 was fueled by the nuclear agreement concluded in July 2015 between Iran and the United States, along with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany. However, on May 8, 2018, the United States withdrew from the agreement and reinstated its “maximum pressure” sanctions against Iran. As a result, reformists were unable to deliver the economic and social progress they had promised to the public.

Even if the United States and Israel call for regime change and drive Iran’s hardline leadership into a corner, the hope represented by the “30+15” moment of 2016 is unlikely to return. Outside powers may speak of democracy and human rights while pursuing regime change. Yet it is difficult to believe that a leadership installed with foreign backing would devote itself entirely to the Iranian people.

In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had been democratically chosen by parliament, was removed in a royalist coup orchestrated by the U.S. CIA and Britain’s MI6, restoring the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah. The shah then worked to safeguard the interests of the United States and Britain. The question now is whether that tragic history, in which foreign intervention altered the course of a nation, will be repeated. At this very moment, Tehran is burning.