Why Was Foreign Policy Not Discussed in the Candidates' Debates?

Why was foreign policy not addressed in the candidates' debates? Is this due to the candidates' negligence regarding major foreign policy issues? This question arises because, in addition to the internal issues and problems of the country such as inflation, recession, unemployment, corruption, addiction, etc., the Islamic Republic is now grappling with major challenges in the realm of foreign affairs. Some examples include: the continuation of non-nuclear sanctions, military conflicts in Yemen and Syria, tensions with many Arab countries, multiple condemnations for human rights violations, and the severance of relations with several countries from Canada to Sudan, Djibouti, and the Maldives. Despite the extensive range of foreign policy issues, why were these topics not raised in the debates? This is while these issues are directly or indirectly linked to threatening topics in the realm of national security. A threat that affects a nation is referred to as a 'national threat.' Since nations entrust their affairs to governments, it is inherently the 'duty' of governments to eliminate threats to the security of a country. A government that fails to ensure national security is neglecting its fundamental duty. Until security is achieved, no other fruitful action can be taken. If this is the case, why were the next government's president not questioned on heated topics such as Iran's relations with Arabs, Iran and Israel, Iran and the US, Iran and the European Union, human rights, etc.? Contrary to popular belief, national threats are not solely internal issues like inflation, recession, unemployment, addiction, etc. National threats can also have external sources alongside internal ones. The possibility of war, the imposition of sanctions, entering regional disputes with other countries, and being in a state of international isolation are serious examples of external sources for national threats. If the realm of foreign issues is not less turbulent than internal issues, then why has there been no inquiry into all these heated topics? What percentage of the questions in the debates and interviews were focused on Iran's strained relations with regional countries? How many questions were directed at the possibility of non-nuclear sanctions? How many questions were focused on Iran's tense relations with the Arab world? How many questions were directed at Iran's policy-making during Trump's presidency in the US? How many questions were related to Iran's relations with the European Union? After three rounds of televised debates, dozens of radio programs, and hours of electoral propaganda that we have witnessed from each presidential candidate, which of them were actually tested and questioned about the external sources of national security threats? The deliberate avoidance of foreign policy questions seems evident. Although each candidate has focused on internal issues, primarily the worsening economic situation, and has provided solutions (mostly populist), it appears there was an 'obvious intention' to not raise questions in the realm of foreign policy at all. It is hard to believe that this neglect of heated foreign policy issues occurred out of negligence. So what is the secret behind this deliberate avoidance of foreign policy questions? The answer lies here: although the elected president is called the 'President,' who does not know that in the power structure of the Islamic Republic, his presidency is over the public minus one person? That one person (the Leader) holds a significant portion of the power. All military and police power of the country is in his hands. Appointing officials (Judiciary, Guardianship Council jurists, members of the Expediency Council, etc.) is done by him. Most importantly, policy-making in the realm of foreign affairs is also the responsibility of the Leader. It is a great deception to consider the Foreign Ministry as the main pillar of policy-making in foreign issues. The fact that, according to an unwritten law, the foreign minister is appointed with the Leader's opinion is evidence that foreign policy is not in the hands of the president. How can a president who cannot choose his foreign minister without the Leader's influence formulate foreign policy? Now, if we know that foreign policy-making is with the Leader and not with the president, questioning presidential candidates in an area that is not under their control makes no sense. For example, how could state television ask candidates what their views are on relations with the US and what model they propose? Do they consider continuing the severed relations with the US appropriate or revising their hostility towards the US? Can such a question even fall within the president's duties in the power structure of the Islamic Republic, where foreign policy is determined by the Leader? Can candidates promise the people, 'O people, if elected, I have a detailed plan to renew relations with the US'? Can they say that Iran's involvement in the internal war in Syria and Yemen is contrary to the national interests of the country? Is it conceivable that they could address the issues of human rights violations in Iran? Now that the judiciary has prosecuted the attackers on the Saudi embassy and Zarif has described the attack on the Saudi embassy as 'historical folly and treason,' can any of the candidates describe the attack on the US embassy in 1979 as the same kind of historical folly and treason and propose a new plan? It should not be forgotten that when Rouhani, on his own initiative in the early months of his presidency, had a phone conversation with the US president (Obama), his car in Tehran was attacked and shoe-throwing occurred by a group of protesters upon his return from New York. Interestingly, Ahmadinejad, the then-commander of the police, considered the attack on the president's car so insignificant that he said: 'Nothing special happened at Mehrabad Airport when the president returned to the country; after all, there are groups that agree and groups that disagree.' He added: 'We should not be strict about this; people came with different opinions, officials also endured, and the president had no objection in this regard.' This furious reaction from a small group and their attack on the president's car, however, was of such concern to Mohammad Khatami that he considered it the beginning of a dire end and warned that 'if these radical elements are not dealt with, we should expect assassination.' This initiative by Rouhani was also reprimanded by Khamenei, who described it as an 'inappropriate' action, and subsequently, the Friday prayer leaders considered the issue of relations with the US as 'specific to the authority of the Leader' and advised the president to refrain from entering it. This is just one example of the president's lack of authority in the realm of foreign policy. Hundreds of other examples can be cited. In other words, the exercise of the Leader's power in the realm of foreign policy binds the hands of a president so tightly that even if the elected individual were to secure 100% of the votes and the people had promised him, for example, to refrain from continuing involvement in Syria or to establish a new relationship with the US, he would never have such authority, even if his title is 'President.'