Second Debate; Medicalian and Jalili Clash Over Sanctions, Economy, and Attacks on Embassies

The second debate between Masoud Medicalian and Saeed Jalili, candidates who advanced to the second round of the presidential election, was officially focused on the economy but quickly turned into a scene of disagreement over foreign policy and its economic impacts. This disagreement had already been evident in the previous debate, but intensified in the second debate held on Tuesday evening, July 12. In the first part of his remarks, Masoud Medicalian once again criticized the strategic action law of the previous parliament regarding the nuclear file, stating that this issue must be 'resolved' in cooperation with the parliament and the Supreme National Security Council. He did not elaborate on his proposed methods in this regard. Medicalian also attributed the policies of Saeed Jalili to Iran's continued presence under international sanctions, stating, 'We cannot grow in a cage.' When asked by the debate host whether he could lift all sanctions against Iran, he emphasized, 'It is never going to be about lifting all sanctions or not. It depends on what they give and what we give in dialogue and negotiation.' In response, Saeed Jalili criticized Medicalian for saying 'we are in a cage' and accused him and his advisors of intending to concede new concessions to lift Western sanctions. This part of the debate turned into a heated exchange between the two presidential candidates. Jalili remarked, 'You know one way in the sanctions discussion, and you say it and go, and you don’t get a response, and you are sanctioned again, and you say you will go the same way again?' Medicalian retorted, 'So with your sanctions, will you fly?' Jalili also pointed out that the country has been under the control of Medicalian's like-minded individuals for 40 years and that he is still 'demanding.' He did not mention Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, under which he was responsible for the nuclear file for most of its duration. Jalili also claimed that Ebrahim Raisi's government was able to create 'a flood of foreign investment and exports.' Medicalian, after criticizing the tone of his rival's speech, asked him why, if the economic situation has improved, people do not feel this change. He asked the public whether their situation was better during Mohammad Khatami's government or now, and then told Jalili that if he has a plan, why did he not present it to Raisi's government? In the next part of the debate, Jalili accused his rival of evading answers to his solutions for lifting sanctions, adding, 'The only solution was that we go and concede again and put pressure internally to make them retreat.' He also claimed that no resolution against Iran was issued during his term, apparently referring to the time he served as Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, during which several resolutions were passed against Iran's nuclear program in the UN Security Council. He reiterated his plan to make the US regret sanctioning Iran while calling the performance of Mohammad Javad Zarif, the foreign minister under Hassan Rouhani's government, 'disgraceful.' Medicalian, in contrast, viewed the path to the country's progress as 'engagement with the world and lifting sanctions,' and referring to his opponent's plan for achieving 8% economic growth, he said, 'They think they can achieve 8% growth without relations with the world.' In another part of his remarks, he referred to the level of public participation in the first round of the presidential election, stating, 'With all our disputes, 40% of the people came; 60% did not come and do not accept either of us. If this thinking continues, it will be 20%! He also denied his opposition to the Mehr housing plan that Jalili had mentioned. A verbal clash again broke out between the two presidential candidates. Medicalian considered Iran's problem to be 'incompetent and inexperienced managers' and added, 'They say the people around me are bad. Who are gathered around them? People who have gone up the embassy.' Jalili responded, 'Name one.' Medicalian replied that he had brought photos and files of them. Jalili again asked him to name one. Medicalian responded that the people know who took the British and Saudi embassies. In his concluding remarks, Medicalian said, 'I did not come to be another danger for Iran. I came to make the government hear the voices that have not been heard.' He rejected the accusation of being the 'third government of Rouhani' and emphasized that many members of Ebrahim Raisi's and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf's campaigns cooperate with his campaign. This reformist candidate added, 'I came to be a spokesperson and advocate for the demands of all the deprived and marginalized with national understanding and consensus. I consider the continuation of the current unjust situation to be dangerous and unbearable for the people; we must not allow Iran to become weaker day by day and its noble and dear nation to become poorer.' Medicalian stated that 'most citizens' in Iran have been deprived of a normal and worry-free life and that 'their legal rights and old and new demands' have been ignored in various fields. In the final part of this debate, Jalili addressed 'the people of Iran,' emphasizing that the time for 'choice' has come. This principlist candidate asserted that it is now time for 'choosing between returning to 8 years of the country's shutdown or extending' Ebrahim Raisi's government. Jalili stated, 'My 35 years of experience in foreign policy has brought me to this point that solving these issues requires the mastery and courage to stand against internal corruption and external pressure. With a leap in production and the role of the people, in justice, in advanced technologies, and in broad relations with the world, we should not wait for two or three powers. This solution requires popular backing.' Meanwhile, Hamideh Zarabadi, spokesperson for Medicalian's campaign, criticized the moderator of this debate and accused him of asking 'biased' questions. Ms. Zarabadi wrote on social media platform X, 'The biased questions of state TV show how the sitting of a candidate's brother on the chair of the deputy head of the state TV organization can give this national organization an un-national direction.'