In Iran, Pezeshkian will be the scapegoat for the failed MoU
Research Fellow at the International Institute of Social History. Over the past few days, the US-Israeli war on Iran has seen yet another escalation that threatens to derail peace talks. Strikes by t
Research Fellow at the International Institute of Social History. Over the past few days, the US-Israeli war on Iran has seen yet another escalation
Read Full Story at Al Jazeera →Why This Matters
The appointment of Masoud Pezeshkian as Iran’s president was framed as a potential thaw in domestic reform and international diplomacy, but the escalation of US-Israeli strikes risks turning him into a political casualty of forces beyond his control. His survival as a viable leader now hinges on navigating a perilous moment where external aggression could eclipse his capacity to deliver on promised reforms, reshaping Iran’s trajectory for years to come.
Background Context
Iran’s 2024 presidential election followed years of economic strain and political repression, with Pezeshkian’s victory seen as a mandate for cautious détente with the West. However, the fragile geopolitical landscape—marked by stalled nuclear negotiations, regional proxy conflicts, and Israel’s increasingly aggressive posture—creates a high-stakes environment where even symbolic diplomatic progress can be undone by a single strike.
What Happens Next
If Pezeshkian is sidelined as a scapegoat for the failed MoU (Memorandum of Understanding), hardliners may push for a more confrontational stance, further isolating Iran on the global stage. Alternatively, his ability to weather the storm could redefine Iran’s political calculus, either reinforcing the reformist faction’s influence or proving that no Iranian leader can outmaneuver the region’s escalating tensions.
Bigger Picture
This episode reflects a broader pattern where Middle Eastern leaders—regardless of ideology—are increasingly held hostage by external military actions that dictate domestic political outcomes. As regional conflicts intensify, the line between domestic legitimacy and foreign policy crises blurs, leaving fragile mandates like Pezeshkian’s at the mercy of geopolitical storms they cannot control.
