After the decisive defeat of ultraconservative candidate Saeed Jalili in Iran’s July presidential election, his political allies have become increasingly isolated in both the political arena and the Iranian parliament (Majles).
Adding to this, a former aide to ex-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed that Ahmadinejad, who had Jalili as his nuclear negotiator from 2007 to 2013, had almost fired him during his tenure. This internal criticism further highlights Jalili’s diminishing influence.
In an interview with Khabar Online, hardline cleric Abbas Amirifar claimed that Saeed Jalili has never secured more than four million votes in any election. In the most recent presidential race, Jalili reportedly received around 3.5 million votes out of the nearly 30 million ballots the government claims were cast.
He also argued that Jalili could not be an effective president, although he was Masoud Pezeshkian’s main rival in the election, because he lacks executive experience. "He has never been even a deputy minister or the head of a small organization,” Amirifar said.
The cleric also alluded to the transformation of the political balance in recent months with the election of conservative Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf as parliament speaker and Masoud Pezeshkian as president. This has weakened the ultraconservatives, he said and quoted Ghalibaf as saying that "some individuals do not want the government to be successful," he clear reference to Jalili and his allies.
Amirifar pointed out that some hardliners entered parliament with as little as 3 percent of the vote in their constituencies. He also claimed that Jalili's 3.5 million votes in the recent presidential election were partly due to the influence of hardline local officials. Furthermore, Amirifar suggested that hardliners harbor resentment toward Speaker Ghalibaf for steering the parliament in a way that ensured all of Pezeshkian's cabinet ministers received a vote of confidence, undermining their political influence.
The cleric further accused hardliners in the Majles of opposing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, despite his call for full support of Pezeshkian’s administration. He pointed out that some of these hardliners have been convicted of various offenses and should not even be in parliament. Amirifar emphasized that their resistance to Khamenei’s directive and their questionable backgrounds raise concerns about their credibility and commitment to national interests.
Meanwhile, conservative activist Hossein Naqavi Hosseini has also told reporters that the hardliners in the Majles are the same individuals who were nicknamed as the "deviant group" during Ahmadinejad's presidency. He said the hardliners, particularly the members of the ultraconservative Paydari Party are the only group in parliament who do not believe in Pezeshkian's "national accord" policy.
He stated that Iran's conservatives have already warned hardliners they are on the wrong path. They have told them that fair criticism of the government is not the same as outright confrontation. Conservatives cautioned the ultraconservatives that they risk isolation if they refuse to join the unity call by Pezeshkian.
In another development, former conservative lawmaker Mostafa Mirsalim claimed that unlike the hardliners in the ultraconservative groups, the main body of the Iranian conservatives are quite transparent in their political behavior. He said the radicals among ultraconservatives will soon vanish from Iran's political scene.
Prominent conservative commentator Nasser Imani told reporters that Iranian conservatives have a responsibility to confront the radicals among ultraconservatives. He added: "We are facing a group of radical politicians who should not be allowed to expand their influence."
Like Amirifar, Imani accused radicals in the Majles of ignoring Khamenei's advice to maintain parliamentary calm. However, he noted that by overwhelmingly endorsing Pezeshkian's administration, the main body of the Majles has demonstrated its independence from radical influence. This overwhelming vote of confidence, he suggested, shows that the radicals do not have the control they claim, and the broader parliament is committed to supporting the new government rather than aligning with extreme factions.
