— Initial thoughts about tonight’s debate performances of each candidate:– Peze…

– Pezeshkian (Reformist): He appealed a lot to ‘normies’ in Iranian society. Used a lot of relatable rhetoric, kept things simple and tried to connect with the people, which is one of his strengths. Usually reformists like him try to talk ‘common sense’ and present themselves as being from among the people. He made a few major blunders, such as comparing Iran to Turkey. Unfortunately, he has no real plans for Iran’s economy, and merely makes some nice promises which he won’t be able to deliver on, except for trying to continue failed liberal policies that have already been proven not to work in the past, such as the Nuclear Deal, and over-reliance on the West. As of now, he still has a decent chance, especially being the only viable reformist candidate. Also, I must say he seems like a genuine guy who believes in what he says, unlike some previous reformists.

– Pourmohammadi (Moderate): Not good, not bad, mostly very boring and uncharismatic. Didn’t seem to have the relevant expertise to properly engage in the debate, and repeated points that have been made by various others in the past. Lacks the guts to pick a side, and tries to somehow balance his ideas to appease both reformists and conservatives, alienating both as a result, because his points were way too general. He will likely drop out of the race soon.

– Ghazizadeh (Conservative): Good debater, knows what he is talking about & what he wants to say. He has a clear vision for Iran’s economy, and is able and willing to elaborate on it. However, he lacks political and executive experience, making him a lightweight in Iran’s political scene. He is mostly present in order to assist the other conservatives in the debate, and will likely drop out in favor of another candidate at some point.

– Zakani (Conservative): Very good debater, probably had the best or second best performance of the night. Has a clear vision, explains it well, and has the balls to take multiple shots at the other candidates. He is the only one who mentioned Iran’s ‘dollarization’ problem, and emphasized on overcoming the sanctions by a surge in local production and other domestic ways. In previous elections, Zakani was a ‘cover candidate’ for Raisi, this time, he’s really going all in. He already said he will stay in the race until the end, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

– Ghalibaf (Conservative): Disappointing performance, lots of populism. Has no real solution or vision, and mostly rambles about the problems while mentioning some vague ideas on how to solve it. He lacks a detailed plan to tackle the issues, and is mostly riding on his enormous political standing, experience, and name recognition. He failed to connect with the ordinary Iranians, and at times it even felt like he was talking to Iran’s elites, rather than the population. He seemed a bit disconnected from reality. His neoliberal economics are very predictable, and he is too engrained in ‘the system’ to make the major changes needed in Iran. However, he still has a big chance, due to all his past experience and name recognition.

– Jalili (Conservative): Good performance, but somewhat lacking charisma. Has a very promising and detailed vision for the economy, is able to explain his plans flawlessly, and has plenty of evidence to back it up. At times, it feels like you’re watching a university professor lecturing his students on a topic. On one hand this is good, because it shows extreme competency and knowledge of the subject matter, on the other hand he fails to be relatable to the ordinary Iranian. I really like Jalili’s ideas on the economy, foreign policy and domestic policy, where he mostly advocates for self-sufficiency and knowledge-based economic growth. However, as I said, many viewers will find his arguments ‘too intellectual’ to connect with and to understand their relevance, which might influence his chances. Despite this, he still enjoys major support among educated Iranian religious youth.

@Middle_East_Spectator