Next year’s parliamentary elections in Iran have intensified infighting among its conservative elites amid moves by the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader to tighten control of the political system, a panel of Iran specialists concluded at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on Nov. 18.

Next year’s parliamentary elections in Iran have intensified infighting among its conservative elites amid moves by the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader to tighten control of the political system, a panel of Iran specialists concluded at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) on Nov. 18.

The March 2012 parliamentary elections will be the first national-scale contest since the disputed presidential election of 2009 and the ensuing mass protests demanding the removal of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad known as the Green Movement. Next year’s legislative elections could see “the supreme leader’s systematic effort to consolidate power,” particularly to “subordinate conservatives” to his will, said Daniel Brumberg, a Middle East politics expert and a senior advisor in USIP’s Center for Conflict Management. But the success of that effort is not a foregone conclusion, as some conservatives may resist a further closing of the Iranian political system to any form of competition.

Iran’s supreme leader is not the elected president but rather a Shiite religious figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has held the post since 1989. Ahmadinejad has worked to undercut the role of the parliament, known as the Majlis, in its legislative, budgetary and oversight roles. Ahmadinejad enjoyed Khamenei’s strong support for many years. But Ahmadinejad’s moves to carve out a more independent and powerful role seem to have run afoul of the supreme leader, and Khamenei supporters in parliament and elsewhere have been emboldened to challenge Ahmadinejad on key issues, such as excluding Ahmadinejad’s allies from what is expected to be the leading conservative bloc in the upcoming elections.

Iran’s internal political struggles are also taking place against a backdrop of economic weakness, driven in part by the growing international pressure and sanctions against Iran for its failure to account for and suspend nuclear fuel production and suspected nuclear weapons activities.

The next presidential election will take place in March 2013, though tensions within the regime have led to speculation that Khamenei has considered eliminating the office of the presidency—a prospect some of the panelists consider unlikely. “The Iranian political system remains very vibrant and very factionalized and very difficult to predict,” said Brumberg.

The significance of the parliamentary contests is seen in the pace of negotiating and horse-trading over which candidates will be part of the leading conservative bloc, said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran expert and political scientist at Syracuse University. Boroujerdi, who spoke on a Skype connection, said the regime is “trying to bring some order to the chaos of factional fighting.”

Another panelist, Yasmin Alem, agreed that the parliamentary elections are used as an “institutional mechanism” to control factionalism. Iran’s appointed Council of Guardians has increasingly relied on “systematic disqualifications” of reformers and others outside the system by closing legal loopholes for candidacies and making candidate criteria more stringent, and it has manipulated the certification of electoral results, she said. The intent is “to ensure that only those who are really loyal to the supreme leader…are permitted into the parliament,” according to Alem, an independent analyst and author of Duality by Design: The Iranian Electoral System.

Farideh Farhi, an independent political scientist and Iran expert, noted that despite the banning of reformist parties, not all reformers have been purged from parliament or silenced. She said about 30 reformers remain in a parliamentary faction of their own, which can draw on the support of perhaps another 30 deputies.

The fights among conservative players are “about pure power,” she said, and are energized by a “closing of the circle” of those deemed to be reliable supporters of the supreme leader. Said Farhi, “We have entered a period where the most aggressive parts of the Islamic Republic are fighting each other.”

Explore Further

Related Publications

The United States Weighs Its Options in the Face of Iran’s Provocations

The United States Weighs Its Options in the Face of Iran’s Provocations

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

By: Sarhang Hamasaeed;  Mona Yacoubian

Three U.S. troops were killed and at least 34 injured in a drone strike on a U.S. base in northeast Jordan on January 28. The attack comes against a backdrop of rising regional tensions since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.

Type: AnalysisQuestion and Answer

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal PolicyViolent Extremism

Making Sense of Iran-Pakistan Cross-Border Strikes

Making Sense of Iran-Pakistan Cross-Border Strikes

Friday, January 19, 2024

By: Asfandyar Mir, Ph.D.

In a surprising turn on January 16, Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, claiming it had hit two strongholds of anti-Iran insurgent group Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice). Iran announced the attack in Pakistan concurrent to its strikes in Iraq and Syria. Less than two days later, Pakistan hit back with not only missiles but also fighter jets in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchistan province — claiming to target hideouts of anti-Pakistan ethno-nationalist insurgents operating from Iranian soil.

Type: Analysis

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal PolicyViolent Extremism

A Slippery Slope? U.S., U.K. Launch Strikes on Iran-Backed Houthis in Yemen

A Slippery Slope? U.S., U.K. Launch Strikes on Iran-Backed Houthis in Yemen

Friday, January 12, 2024

By: Sarhang Hamasaeed

On January 12, the United States and the United Kingdom, supported by Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands, launched military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen in response to the group’s attacks on civilian and military ships in the Red Sea. The U.S.-led strikes are a significant escalation and part of the growing regional impact of the Israel-Hamas war, which the United States has been actively trying to prevent from turning into a regional war.

Type: AnalysisQuestion and Answer

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

View All Publications