Iran’s six presidential candidates stressed differing views about foreign policy in their fourth debate on June 24, with one candidate insisting on restoring the 2015 nuclear deal, and others saying it was a waste of time.

The Islamic Republic is holding a snap election to choose a replacement for Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter accident on May 19, along with other officials, including Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and Tabriz Friday prayer’s leader.

The six candidates include three so-called religious fundamentalists, a centrist pragmatist speaker and a single representative of the reformists, and one cleric who has remained ambiguous about where he stands.

During the fourth round of their debate on June 24, which was on the subject of foreign policy, the candidates expressed their views on how to boost international relations in the light of Western sanctions.

Masoud Pezeshkian, the sole reformist nominee, along with Mustafa Pour Mohammadi, a cleric who is in neither camp, advocated efforts to have the sanctions removed through negotiations and diplomacy.

Iran has been under sweeping American sanctions since 2018 when the United States pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  

Pezeshkian said removing sanctions is essential to overcoming economic problems and normalising international relations.

He defended the nuclear deal, saying it was a beneficial agreement for Iran which is why the US quit it.

Pour-Mohammadi said the nuclear deal and similar efforts are no magical solutions but national efforts to release the country from the sanctions trap.

“Continuing these efforts to remove the obstacles to Iran's development is necessary but definitely insufficient,” he said.

The other four candidates, however, were critical of the deal and negotiations with the West, saying the sanctions have to be “neutralised” instead.

Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf was not generally against negotiations on JCPOA revival but said he would pursue that within the framework of the parliamentary law passed in December 2020.

The law required the government to take further steps beyond the deal’s restrictions in response to the sanctions and outlined a step-by-step method of returning to the agreement.

Former foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, known as the JCPOA architect, had earlier said the law impeded the revival of the deal when his team was close to resurrecting it several times.

Parliament speaker and all-round ambiguous character Qalibaf said he would simultaneously draw on the capacities of international organisations such as BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union, to neutralise sanctions.

Saeed Jalili was the toughest opponent of the nuclear deal and called it a useless agreement which did not have any benefits, referencing the depreciation of the national currency and increase in the number of sanctions in the following years.

According to Jalili, economic growth reached zero and below that even when the deal was in full force. This is while, according to the Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI), economic growth was 14.2% and 4.8% in the two years following the accord's signing.

He said in foreign relations, countries with shared interests should be targeted, and it is wrong to focus on a few countries [the US and other allied states] with which Iran has little in common.

“They don’t create opportunities for you; they will create threats,” he said.

Amir-Hossein Qazizadeh Hashemi said those who promise they will ensure the lifting of sanctions will not be able to do so since sanctions are the “security strategy” of the US.

He showed no intention to pursue talks with the world powers in this regard, saying, “We should offset the effects of sanctions to the extent that the imposers’ greed will fade away.”

Alireza Zakani also criticised the nuclear deal and said it caused “massive loss”. He showed opposition to negotiations, saying, “The problem is [a policy of] begging the West, so they give us our rights.”

However, none of the four candidates proposed Iran’s withdrawal. Qazizadeh said the deal was an “absolute betrayal” but claimed that its terms had tied Iran’s hands for withdrawal. Jalili said the other sides owe Iran based on JCPOA, and the country should remain in it to uphold its rights. Zakani also said the US quit the pact because Iranian negotiators were careless, but Iran should stay in it until the other parties meet their side of the agreement.

Meanwhile, Pezeshkian and Pour-Mohammadi stressed the need for the country to conform to the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—something that has been increasingly difficult for the country, which funds groups including Lebanon Hezbollah and Iraq’s PMF forces.

Iran has been on the global watchdog’s blacklist for years. In 2016, Iran adopted a FATF-devised Action Plan, which is yet to be completely ratified and implemented.

Pezeshkian said Iran should finalise the Action Plan and follow global regulations to be able to cooperate even with allied countries such as China and Russia.

He underlined that Iran’s economic issues have not been resolved with a scenario against the JCPOA and FATF, citing business associations such as the Chamber of Commerce.

Jalili said Iran is already meeting most FATF requirements and accused the watchdog of acting on political motivations.

During the debate, like the past three rounds, the four candidates constantly attacked Pezeshkian over the performance of former president Hassan Rouhani, boasting about late Raisi’s record.

They accused him of intending to form a third administration for Rouhani, which they claimed was the root cause of all problems in the country.

Finally, Pezeshkian complained about his five-minute time to respond in return for twenty minutes for the other four to attack him.

The fifth and final debate concluded a day later, on June 25, with several points from the previous four rounds covered.