Photo Credit: Algerian Foreign Press

In an effort to reassure the Algerian public of his good health, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika made a television appearance last week from his hospital bed in Paris. President Bouteflika suffered a stroke in April, and an initial statement from his office claimed that he would return to Algiers within a week. His continued absence from the country has fueled succession rumors and questions about whether he will finish out his third term.

The video footage showed President Bouteflika meeting with Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal and the army chief of staff, General Gaid Salah. Sellal said the president’s health seemed “fine,” and that he had given him detailed instructions on running the country. Though it is speculated that President Bouteflika’s illness will make it unlikely that he will run for a fourth term next year, members of the National Liberation Front (NLF) insisted on their support for his candidacy. According to Bahaa Eddin Taliba, deputy head of the NLF, “We are not thinking about an alternative, because we are convinced that the covenant between the president and the people is not over yet.”

The president’s illness is viewed as an opening by Islamist parties. Leaders of the Islamist Green Algeria Alliance met last week, reportedly to discuss “specific ideas regarding the next presidential elections,” and agreed to “introduce these ideas to partisan institutions.”

Meanwhile, amid speculation that the president is not well enough to finish his current term, the Algerian press is calling for the application of Article 88 of the Constitution, which would require the president of the Council of the Nation to act as head of state for a maximum of 45 days while the presidential seat is declared vacant, and then remain in power for anther 60 days until elections can be held.

In an analysis for Foreign Policy, Riccardo Fabiani outlined three possible succession scenarios for Algeria, and noted that the current regime’s failure to groom a successor could increase the chances of formerly marginalized politicians at becoming “compromise candidates”.

On Tuesday, June 18, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “Elections in Iran: The Regime Cementing its Control.” Mr. Alireza Nader, Senior International Policy Analyst at RAND Corporation, Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and Mr. Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate at the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testified. The subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s opening statement, “in our fervor to repudiate all things Ahmedinejad,” Ros-Lehtinen called Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani a “moderate hope.” She argued that it would be detrimental for the United States to “lull itself” into believing that the election was a victory for the Iranian people, as it was still ultimately Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini who made the decision to let Rouhani become President. In her view, the regime continues with “cementing its control” and will march on with its nuclear program. She called Rouhani part of the “core of the inner circle and an ally of those who led the 1979 revolution. She also mentioned Rouhani’s 1999 role in leading a violent crackdown on a student uprising against the regime, his role in concealing Iran’s nuclear program for 20 years before becoming the project’s chief international negotiator, as well as condemned the Iranian government for deeming women and members of religious minorities in the country ineligible to run for President.

Representative Ted Deutch (D-FL) continued with his opening statement, in which he called President-elect Rouhani a “token moderate” who intended to reengage the international community respectfully. He commended the Iranian people for their “civic action” on election day, but expressed his disappointment with the number of candidates that were disqualified, as well as the suppression of reformist activists and websites. He called Rouhani a supporter of the regime that has been  hostile towards the United States and Israel. He called on Iran to end  its support of international terrorist organizations, as well as Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. He called the Iranian government unsustainable and urged that it needs to do more to support its young population that finds itself more and more frustrated with everyday life. Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) followed, arguing that the threats that Iran poses to American interests are far more urgent now than they were even ten years ago, and thus the United States simply cannot afford to wait and “see how things play out” in Iran with Rouhani as President.

Afterwards came Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), who described his disappointment with Iran’s democratic process overall and the lasting power of Iran’s Supreme Leader over the country’s elections, foreign policy, and nuclear program. He also expressed his concern for Iran’s elections on the future of the country’s people in general. Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) called Iran “a totalitarian state” in his opening statement, expressing his disappointment at how every candidate in the election was screened by the Supreme Leader. He argued that Rouhani was not a moderate, and said that Iran wants to join the civilized world, it cannot hold “sham elections” and fail to recognize Israel.

Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL) called on those in attendance to recognize that the President in Iran represents just a small part within a wider power structure, and was eager to hear from the panel about any transformative policies that may come from the Iranian presidency in the near future. In his opening statement, Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC) was not optimistic about Iran’s future in his opening statement, citing the threats the regime poses to both the United States and Israel in addition to the support the regime provides Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

In Representative Juan Vargas’s (D-CA) opening statement, he argued that the United States must remain steadfast against Iran’s nuclear program and presence in Syria. Finally, in Representative Grace Meng’s (D-NY) opening statement, she argued that the question that people should ask is not who Rouhani is or was, “but where he is going.”

As the panelists began their opening testimonies Mr. Nader argued that Rouhani’s election ultimately shows the population’s frustration with the regime, the nuclear program, and the country’s diplomatic and economic isolation from the rest of the world. Inflation in Iran currently stands at about 30%, though some say the figure is actually much higher. He argued that Khameini’s policies could “unravel the Islamic Republic,” and that Khameini could look to back out of the crises he faces through Rouhani. He expressed that U.S. sanctions could be viewed within Iran as a way to cause the regime to implode, and that future sanctions should continue to put pressure on Iran’s nuclear program without causing additional damage to Iranian society. Creative solutions like sanctions that target Khameini’s business holdings are solid ideas while targeting food security in Iran may only make things worse. Sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program should also be separated from sanctions on Iran’s regional behavior and human rights record.

Dr. Maloney continued with her opening statement, beginning that the outcome of the election in Iran should not alter American foreign policy in Iran as of this time. She also argued that while any dismiss the election as illegitimate, it did provide the opportunity for many to challenge the regime and to discuss issues that had been off the table in Iran for years. She contended that the presidency matters in Iran, as shown by the affect Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had on American foreign policy and America’s expanded sanctions regime in Iran, as well as by the control Ahmedinejad had over Iran’s budget and state institutions. Rouhani won, according to her analysis, not only because he led a “smart campaign” but because he took advantage of the disarray and lack of unity within the conservative camp. She called Rouhani a “pragmatic conservative” who represents a new political force in Iran, and has the opportunity to bail Iran out of the crises it faces similar to how the President did the same after the Iran-Iraq war. She suggested that the US offer tangible rewards in exchange for concessions on nuclear power. She cautioned that Rouhani will experience real restraints in designing policy for Iran in the future, though his new role could help the United States reach the deal it needs with Iran on the country’s nuclear program.

Mr. Sadjadpour made the third and final opening testimony, where he expressed his surprise at the outcome of the election in Iran, joking that “there are no experts on Iranian politics, only students.” He called the elections unfair but nonetheless surprising in that the only somewhat moderate candidate won. He was even more surprised that the Supreme Leader allowed Rouhani to win, yet viewed the decision more as a way for the regime to avoid creating mass popular discontent in Iran, and called the result overall “light rain after eight years of drought” for Iran’s people. While Rouhani’s predecessors like Khatami and Ahmedinejad show that the President matters within Iranian politics, Rouhani is “no Nelson Mandela or even a Khatami.” He recalled Henry Kissinger’s observation that few nations have as many common interests as the United States but as many reasons why the countries do not interact. Sadjadpour also called Iran one of the only countries where the United States’ strategic and moral interest coincide rather than “clash,” as the latter is the case for many countries in the Arab World. He concluded by arguing that for the United States, the best way to hurt the Iranian regime is to diminish its control the creation and distribution of information. He cited the success that BBC Farsi enjoys and suggested improving Voice of America in Iran.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen began the discussion section by asking what the United States can expect to be “different” about Iran’s future given Rouhani’s election, as well as asked what role Ahmedinejad will play within that future. Mr. Nader argued that the survival of the Islamic Republic means that major domestic changes in Iran seem unlikely, and that Rouhani will focus more on alleviating external pressure on Iran. Dr. Maloney argued that his top priority will be to reach a deal with the international community on the nuclear issue because that will be the only way to solve Iran’s long term economic problems, though perhaps a few political prisoners will be released under his administration. Nader followed up by stating that Ahmedinejad made a lot of enemies towards the end of his Presidency, and his future political career does not look bright. Dr. Maloney suggested that Ahmedinejad will be on trial soon and his top priority going forward will be to stay out of prison.

Rep. Ted Deutch followed up by asking how Iran’s offers to compromise on the nuclear issue will change, and how those offers will affect the unity of purpose against Iran within the P5+1 countries. Mr. Maloney argued that the European negotiators with whom he has met called Rouhani frustrating to work with and that Iran will continue to oppose the sanctions. Mr. Deutch followed up by asking if the new “spokesperson” will cause Iran to “give up less” in negotiations, to which Mr. Sajadpour replied that it will be difficult for the P5+1 to offer meaningful concessions on the nuclear program if Iran is not willing to make meaningful compromises. Mr. Nader followed up by mentioning that while uranium could be enriched at lower levels, nuclear enrichment in Iran will not stop under Rouhani. However which way the issue may change, sanctions from China and Russia will continue against Iran.  Before Rep. Kinzinger asked his questions, he took a moment to acknowledge the parliamentarians from many countries around the world, including Kyrgyzstan, where he was deployed at one point with the U.S. Air Force. He pledged his support for their struggle towards democracy within their home countries. With respect to Iran, he argued that the United States lost a huge opportunity in 2009 to strongly condemn the Iranian regime after the rigged election, and then asked if the Iranians could continue to develop uranium enriched at levels higher than international laws permit them to. Mr. Nader responded by arguing that more intrusive IAEA inspections will keep Iranian enriched uranium at satisfactory levels. In response to Rep. Kinzinger’s other question on how to engage Iran if the country acquires a nuclear weapon while Rouhani is in power, Dr. Maloney argued that Rouhani’s election should not change Washington’s strategic calculus towards Iran. Mr. Sadjadpour also argued that we should continue to pursue negotiations with Iran, and if they comply and the United States gets what it wants, it has executed successful foreign policy, and if Iran fails to cooperate in negotiations, “then we expose them as the problem.” Mr. Sadjadpour followed up by arguing that the Iranian regime possesses no “Machiavellian brilliance,” and that much of their long term policies are ad hoc and probably had no idea who would win the election that day.

Rep. Cecilline asked that if the Supreme Leader’s motivation to allow Rouhani to win had to do with dispelling criticism for the regime both in Iran and abroad, how does that affect U.S. sanctions on the country and the Supreme Leader’s ability to progress towards attaining a nuclear weapon? Mr. Nader argued that the Supreme Leader is using Rouhani to build confidence in the international community (after essentially being forced to support Ahmedinejad over the last four years) and will not move towards developing a nuclear weapon until Iran is welcomed internationally. Dr. Maloney agreed, and argued that the best way to avoid an “Iranian ploy” is “to continue to approach negotiations with full seriousness.” Mr. Sadjadpour followed up, however, by arguing that the Iranian regime possesses less “Machiavellian brilliance” than the U.S. assumes: much of their long term policies are ad hoc and probably had no idea who would win the election that day. But the Supreme Leader definitely has gained some popularity in Iran as a result of the election. Afterwards, Rep. Meadows asked the panelists to expand on some of their previous statements with his time, to which Mr. Nader argued that the regime has little favorability in Iran and that the days of the Islamic Republic are numbered, though little domestic change will happen while Khameini is still alive. Mr. Sadjadpour argued that while Khameini is an unpopular figure who helped lead Iran’s “revolution without democracy” in 1979, what the people want right now is “democracy without revolution” because they see how transitions in countries like Syria have destroyed the state from the inside and do not want to see Iran face a similar reality, even though such a movement is highly improbable.

Rep. Schneider likewise thanked the visiting parliamentarians before he asked the panelists to elaborate on the significance of the election turnout and whether or not the election should change U.S. strategic calculus on strengthening or weakening sanctions. Dr. Maloney described the election as insanely significant for the Iranian public because the “blatantly rigged” elections in 2009 disinterested many Iranians from voting altogether. As for sanctions, she argued that changes in sanctions need to come at the negotiating table and not from U.S. lawmakers because sanctions from the latter suggest to the Iranian people an attack on them directly. Otherwise, “our benchmark shouldn’t change” but the U.S. should be prepared to “give meaningful sanctions relief in exchange for meaningful concessions in the nuclear issue.” In response to Rep. Yoho’s question regarding how the U.S. should engage Rouhani given his human rights record and stances on Syria and Israel, the panelists argued that his stances on said issues are highly unlikely to change: Dr. Maloney argued that Iran overall will not change its stance on Syria if its role in Syria further harms Iran’s standing in the world, and Mr. Sadjadpour called rejecting Israel one of the few pillars from the 1979 revolution that have survived to today.

Rep. Vargas asked about what the dynamic between the Supreme Leader and President Rouhani will look like, especially given that they are both clerics, and how U.S. sanctions should change as a result. Mr. Nader described how the problem with Ahmedinejad was that “in Persian culture, you respect your elders,” and that Ahmedinejad often defied Khameini’s commands. Dr. Maloney discussed how Khameini has spent years publically making remarks against Rouhani, especially with regard to his stance on the nuclear issue. Whether or not Rouhani now takes the opportunity to defy the Supreme Leader on this issue, the United States should work to ensure it does not have to change its own stances on Iran’s nuclear program. Finally, Rep. Meng likewise welcomed the women dignitaries, and asked how the U.S. can reconcile its goal to aid Iran’s marginalized youth and women while also weakening the regime. Mr. Nader argued that regime change is ultimately out of America’s hands, but both he and Mr. Sadjadpour agreed that improving Voice of America (VOA) in Iran could have a huge effect against the regime. Millions of people in Iran receive their news through satellite TV channels, and the only alternative to state-sponsored news is BBC Farsi, which enjoyed an enormous leading up to the election. Mr. Sadjadpour expressed his dissatisfaction with VOA in Iran and argued that for the cost of an F-15 fighter jet, the United States could expand the station’s reach to several million more Iranians. Nonetheless, Mr. Nader argued that the U.S. should still focus first and foremost to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and Dr. Maloney argued that going forward, the top priority for the Iranian people is still to improve the economy.

With that, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen expressed her satisfaction with the discussion and adjourned the hearing.

Photo Credit: Maryam Rahmanian

In the wake of Hassan Rouhani‘s win in Iran’s elections on Friday, analysts have produced varying responses regarding the election’s implications on Iran’s future. Speaking of U.S.-Iranian relations going forward, Vali Nasr wrote that Rouhani’s election was not a change in Iran, but rather, a “game-changer.” He emphasized that the U.S. would have to take steps to benefit from Rouhani’s victory, saying that ”to take advantage of Rowhani’s victory and break the logjam over nuclear negotiations, Washington has to put on the table incentives it has thus far been unwilling to contemplate…The ball is in Washington’s Court.”

Writing for Bloomberg, Shashank Joshi noted that former reformist presidents Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami “both put their personal stamps on Iranian policy, foreign and domestic.” He continued, “It is understandable that we, on the outside, treat geopolitical issues as the litmus tests of Iran’s trajectory. But if Rohani can start renewing and protecting cultural, social and political freedoms, the longer-term effects may be just as consequential for the rest of the world.”

Suzanne Maloney argued in Foreign Policy that Rouhani’s win was part of a broader strategy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “Perhaps allowing Rouhani’s victory is [Khamenei's] way of empowering a conciliator to repair Iran’s frayed relations with the world and find some resolution to the nuclear dispute that enables the country to revive oil exports and resume normal trade.”

The Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian called Rouhani “more cautious than reformist,” and predicted that the new president was more likely to focus on Iran’s economy before bringing about sweeping social change. He said, “Rouhani’s supporters tout his diplomatic skills and prospects for unifying Iran’s polarized political landscape. But as a onetime holder of top positions in Iran’s most important ministries, a lawmaker for 20 years and a former lead nuclear negotiator, he is also the definition of an Islamic republic insider. That has made him adept at navigating the many competing centers of Iranian power — and disinclined to rock the boat.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told world leaders not to be “lulled into complacency” regarding Rouhani’s win, adding that it was the Supreme Leader and not the president who would determine Iran’s unclear policy.

Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw cautioned the West not to oversimplify the dynamics in Iran, saying, “The mistake that many in the West make about Iran is to write it off as a one-man show, a dictatorship of the Supreme Leader. Power and governance in Iran is highly complex,” and calling Netanyahu’s comments “unthinking and self-defeating.”

Photo Credit: Mohsen Shandiz/Corbis

In his first press conference since Friday’s elections, newly elected Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said he would “follow the path of moderation and justice, not extremism,” and declared his electoral win the beginning of “a new era.” Rouhani won Friday’s election, reportedly receiving 51% of the vote in the first round, meaning that a runoff round was not required. According to the interior ministry, turnout exceeded 72%.

In his speech on Monday, Rouhani expressed hopes for pursuing greater transparency in Iran’s nuclear program and for repairing ties with the West. He said he would take steps to reassure the West about Iran’s nuclear program: “The first step will be showing greater transparency. We are ready to show greater transparency and make clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s actions are totally within international frameworks…The second step is promoting mutual confidence.” However, he also emphasized Iran’s right to pursue a nuclear program and calling on the U.S. to stop interfering in Iran’s domestic affairs and to “put aside oppressive… policies towards Iran.” He remained optimistic about Iran’s relationship with Washington, saying it was a “very old wound that is there; we need to heal this injury.” He urged other countries to “seize this opportunity created by our people and their vote.”

Rouhani also discussed the economy, saying that the government would work to stabilize prices and raise employment by increasing domestic production. He declared it would be a “priority” of his administration to have positive relations with all of its neighbors, and specifically noted its biggest regional rival, Saudi Arabia: “We are not only neighbors but also brothers…Every year hundreds of thousands of Iranian pilgrims visit Mecca. We have many common points with Saudi Arabia.”

On Syria, Rouhani said, “We are opposed to foreign intervention. We hope peace and tranquility will return to Syria through the co-operation with countries of the region and world.” He did not comment on the participation of Iran-backed Hezbollah in the conflict, and added, “Until the next election in Syria in 2014, the current government must be officially recognized by the world countries.”

Photo Credit: AFP

Kuwait’s Constitutional Court ordered for the dissolution of parliament on Sunday and called for new elections. The top court’s ruling came after an opposition challenge to the voting system was thrown out. The case had questioned the constitutionality of a change to the electoral system ordered by the emir, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah. The government argued that the new system, which reduced the number of votes per person to one instead of four, brought Kuwait in line with other countries. The opposition however deemed the decree to be unconstitutional and an attempt to stop them from forming a majority in parliament. Political parties were banned in Kuwait and the four-vote system helped opposition members of parliament form alliances in elections and gave them more influence in parliament. Former opposition Member of Parliament Waleed Tabtabie posted on twitter saying, “This verdict is the worst decision.”

While Kuwait has arguably the most democratic political system in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the emir has the final say in all state matters and chooses the prime minister who then selects a cabinet with members of the ruling Al-Sabah family assuming top posts. According to Al Jazeera, “The case has international significance because political stability in Kuwait, owner of more than six percent of global oil reserves, has traditionally depended on cooperation between the government and the elected parliament, the oldest and most powerful legislature in the Arab Gulf states.”

This is the second time in a year that Kuwait’s Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of parliament. Last June, it ended an opposition-dominated parliament, claiming there had been flaws in election procedures.

Photo Credit: Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency

Moderate candidate Hassan Rouhani has been elected as president of Iran to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rouhani reportedly won more than 50 percent of the vote, which was enough to avoid a second round runoff. During his campaign, Rouhani promised to ease Iran’s tensions with the West (something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is staunchly opposed to), end international sanctions, allow greater freedom of the press and reduce government interference in private lives. Hard-line conservatives who were aligned with the supreme leader finished last in the presidential race, indicating that Iranians are looking to their next president for a change in tone. Rouhani, for example, was pivotal in nuclear negotiations with the West under earlier reformist president, Mohammad Khatami.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran analysts and pundits claimed that if Mr. Rouhani won by a large margin, it should serve as a wake-up call for Ayatollah Khamenei and his conservative advisers that the majority has rejected their hard-line policies. Yasmin Alem, author of “Duality by Design: The Iranian Electoral System,” argued, “His victory is a challenge to the status quo, lots of Iranians, not necessarily those opposed to the current regime, were fed up with the country’s trajectory and wanted a change.” Member of Parliament Sharif Hussein warned however that “nothing would change” in Iran’s nuclear policies regardless of the election’s outcome. ”All these policies have been decided by the supreme leader,” he added.

On the eve of the election, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran. The resolution highlighted that the Iranian regime blocked numerous candidates from running in the presidential election and that Iran’s government has had a long history of abusing human rights and holding elections that are neither free nor fair. Senator John Hoeven stated, “The eyes of the world are watching Friday’s election, and we condemn the country’s historically corrupt election process and remain committed to standing with the people of Iran as they continue striving for fundamental human and democratic rights, including the right to free and fair elections.”

Update: Secretary John Kerry responded to the election outcome saying, “We admire the courage of the Iranian people who went to the polls and made their voices heard in a rigidly controlled environment that sought to limit freedom of expression and assembly…Despite these challenges, however, the Iranian people have clearly expressed their desire for a new and better future.” Kerry added that “We, along with our international partners, remain ready to engage directly with the Iranian government. We hope they will honor their international obligations to the rest of the world in order to reach a diplomatic solution that will fully address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.”

Photo Credit: Hassan Mousavi/Fars News/Reuters

Iran’s Interior Minister Mostafa Moammad Najar announced that the voting period in today’s presidential elections in the country will be extended to grant Iran’s more than 50 million eligible voters more time to cast their ballots. The polls opened at 8:00am local time (3:30 am GMT) and were supposed to be closed by 6:00pm local time. However, the “rush of voters” has prompted the government to extend the voting period indefinitely.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini cast his ballot but declined to mention for whom he voted. In response to western criticism of today’s election in Iran, Khomeini rebutted, “I recently heard that someone at the U.S. National Security Council said ‘We do not accept this election in Iran’…We [in Iran] don’t give a damn.” Presidential candidate and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rouhani, the only reformist candidate left in the race, also cast his ballot, commenting after voting that “I have come to destroy extremism and when I see that these extremists are worried by my response and my vote I am very happy. It means that with the help of the people we can instill the appropriate Islamist behaviour in the country.” Rouhani has hardly been considered a front runner in the race, but recent dropouts of other reformist candidates, as well as the endorsements of former presidents and fellow reformists Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have created “increasing excitement in Tehran over his candidacy during the past 24 hours” and improved his chances at making it to a run-off.

Among the 60,000 voting stations for Iran’s presidential election are 96 placed across five continents to allow the Iranian diaspora to participate in the election. 25 are located in the United States, but none have been set up in Iran or the United Kingdom due to “the suspension of Iran’s diplomatic relations” with those countries. Iran has employed over 300,000 security officers for today’s election and increased its election budget by 400% since the previous presidential election in 2009. Security measures remain tight to “pre-empt and, if needed, foil any election unrest,” according to al-Monitor.  ”International observers and independent monitors are prohibited from monitoring the electoral process. But the six presidential hopefuls are permitted to have an agent present in polling stations during voting hours as well as during the count.”

POMED will continue to provide updates to Iran’s election as the day continues, both on the Wire Blog and on our Twitter feed, @POMEDwire .

Update: As of Midnight Iranian Local Time, the polls have closed.

Photo Credit: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

Google claims it has detected and stopped tens of thousands of phishing scams targeting the email accounts of Iranian users in light of the June 14 presidential election. According to Google, the timing and targets suggest that the attacks were “politically motivated in connection with the Iranian presidential election on Friday.”  Google’s Vice President of Security Engineering Eric Grosse said the phishing scams originated from Iran, adding that “For almost three weeks, we have detected and disrupted multiple email-based phishing campaigns aimed at compromising the accounts owned by tens of thousands of Iranian users.” While the perpetrators of such attacks were not identified, Google alerted users in Iran to “state-sponsored attacks and other suspicious activity.”

Meanwhile, severe restrictions have been imposed on foreign and domestic media to ensure tight control over Friday’s presidential election. According to The Guardian, international media watchdogs claim that most visa applications from foreign news organizations to cover the contest have been rejected or largely ignored. Reporters Without Borders added that Iranian authorities have not issued visas to a majority of foreign journalists who requested them and those who have obtained visas “have been prevented from moving freely in Tehran, banned from meetings of candidates supported by reformers and from contacting government opponents or the families of political prisoners.” Moreover, the Committee to Protect Journalists deputy director, Rob Mahoney, stated “The Iranian regime fears any voice that could challenge its official narrative, whether a local journalist or an international journalist at a Tehran hotel.”

BBC News has also responded to the crackdown on journalism in Iran, condemning the “unprecedented levels of intimidation” of BBC employees. Liliane Landor,  head of languages services at the BBC World Service, said that “in the past few days alone 15 family members have been questioned by the Iranian intelligence ministry in Tehran and other cities across the country.”

Photo Credit: ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

Former Iranian president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani declared his support on Tuesday for Hassan Rohani’s candidacy in Friday’s presidential elections. Rohani, a cleric and former nuclear negotiator, has unified many reformists and moderates after the resignation of reformist Mohammad Reza Aref from the race on Tuesday morning. Rohani has also received the endorsement of former reformist president Mohammad Khatami, and some are saying that the endorsement of the two former presidents will increase Rohani’s chances of winning.

As Friday’s election approaches, analysts are conflicted about how meaningful the polls will be. In an article for Time, Aryn Baker wrote, “What once seemed an exercise in picking the least-worst option has turned into something resembling a real race.” Others claim that there is little variation among the policies of the remaining six candidates. In an article for Reuters, Yeganeh Torbati noted that the president would not have much leeway to impact important policies, such as support for the Assad regime or the continuation of Iran’s nuclear program, with both of these being within Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s power. Exiled former president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr expressed concern that any of the six men would be pawns of Khamenei: ”Any one of these men picked by Khamenei will execute his orders,” he said. “The Republic is erasing itself in the face of the Leader.”

Khamenei called for high participation in Friday’s elections, saying, “A maximum turnout at the ballot box is more important than anything else for the country. And the nation with a powerful action on Friday will prove its firm relationship and connection with the Islamic system and will once again make the enemy unfulfilled and hopeless.”

Meanwhile, despite claims by PressTV earlier this week that over 1,000 journalists would be covering the elections, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders argued that the majority of visa requests from foreign journalists had not been approved or simply ignored. Foreign journalists permitted to cover the elections are subject to strict limitations, and cannot move freely in Tehran, while local journalists are often censored and harassed.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Stringer

Mohammed Reza Aref, widely considered to be the only reformist candidate in Iran’s upcoming presidential elections, withdrew from the campaign on Tuesday. This move leaves four conservative candidates, one “outsider,” and one moderate cleric, Hassan Rohani, to compete in Friday’s elections.

In a statement on Tuesday, Aref said, “In consideration of Mr. Khatami’s explicit opinion, and the experiences of two past presidential elections, I declare my withdrawal from the election campaign.” Some reports claim the move was orchestrated by Khatami in order to unite reformists and moderates. Aref was seen as a “low-profile candidate,” while Rohani was more popular in the polls and received Khatemi’s endorsement on Monday. Recently, Rohani told voters that he would end political suppression and release all political prisoners if he were elected president.

Rohani, who previously served as Iran’s nuclear negotiator, was critical in the presidential debates about Iran’s nuclear policy. In the June 7 debate, he said, ”it is good to have centrifuges running, provided people’s lives and livelihoods are also running.” Iran’s current nuclear negotiator is popular conservative candidate Said Jalili. The Guardians Council denied rumors that it would disqualify Rohani based on his critical statements of the nuclear program.

The four conservative candidates, all close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni, are facing even more pressure to form a coalition. Scott Lucas, an Iranian affairs expert at Britain’s Birmingham University, speculated that Rohani might have a chance if elections were free and fair, turnout among moderates and reformists was high, and if conservative votes remained divided among the four candidates.