SAEDNEWS: The strange thing is that some of these opinions come from experts whose usual field of expertise is American affairs; yet the comments are presented as if they have almost no understanding of the United States or its power structure and are encountering it for the first time.
According to the political section of SaedNews, Farhikhtegan newspaper reported that it was hardly surprising that the election of a Muslim mayor in New York would attract attention in Iranian political analysis circles.
Among the reactions to this election, the most striking and unusual ones in Iran reflect an all-or-nothing perspective. What’s even more surprising is that these extreme reactions—some calling this election the “end of America” and others hailing it as the “ultimate demonstration of democracy”—demonstrate a fundamentally unrealistic reading of the event itself. Certain political elites not only interpret the mayoral victory through their personal lenses and biases, but their analysis of the event bears little relation to the actual facts.
A core principle of international event analysis is grounding conclusions in reality. Yet in Iran, for some elites, international developments often serve more as tools for political score-settling than for objective analysis. In pursuit of narratives that serve their interests, many resort to oversimplified, superficial interpretations. This analytical shortcut not only misrepresents reality but allows idealistic or wishful thinking to dominate, leaving the real significance of events overlooked.
The Semantics of a Socialist Muslim Mayor
Every event in the United States—especially since the Gaza conflict and amid U.S.–Iran tensions—inevitably intersects with Iranian domestic political discourse. Some members of the Iranian elite interpreted the election of Mayor Adams through the lens of Iranian politics, asking questions like: “If this young New Yorker ran for office in Iran, would the Guardian Council approve his candidacy?”
Others focused on constitutional balance and the U.S. system of checks and balances, framing Adams’ election at 34 as a legacy of the Founding Fathers, full of lessons to be learned—sometimes using it to critique Iran’s political structure. Meanwhile, some reacted with unbridled enthusiasm.
Pro-American observers portrayed Adams’ victory as proof that democracy reigns in the U.S., despite opposition from figures like Trump. Conversely, more extreme critics saw his election as a symbolic “message akin to Iran’s November 4.”
Several observations can be drawn from these interpretations:
Most analyses reflected what observers wanted to see—a Muslim Shia mayor in New York as a symbolic victory—rather than an objective reading of the facts.
Some elites interpreted the event solely through the lens of domestic political disputes, using it as a tool for political commentary, thereby creating a wide gap between perception and reality.
Even experts with specialized knowledge often ignored fundamental analytical principles, producing interpretations driven more by emotion and enthusiasm than by logic or data.
The Dream-Selling of the West-Enthusiasts
Beyond unrealistic analyses, comparing mayoral elections in the U.S. with democratic processes in Iran is fundamentally flawed. The U.S. political structure bears little resemblance to Iran’s at any level. Electoral mechanics, party operations, demographic composition, and political tendencies in the U.S. are fundamentally different from those in Iran, making direct comparisons meaningless.
The flawed interpretation also stems from a broader Iran–U.S. political and identity confrontation: some use the comparison to question Iranian democracy, while others interpret every event primarily in relation to the West, often exaggerating its significance.
Do 30-Year-Olds Get Disqualified in Iran?
Even assuming the comparison holds, claiming that young candidates like Adams would be blocked in Iran is misleading. In past parliamentary elections, many candidates of similar age competed against seasoned politicians. Minority religious Muslims have also participated in governmental roles, albeit with criticisms in some cases. Therefore, portraying Iran’s democracy as entirely closed while U.S. governance is fully open is a gross oversimplification. In reality, political participation in the U.S. requires integration into powerful parties—a nuance often overlooked in surface-level comparisons.
Extreme Idealism in Interpreting Western Decline
Equating Adams’ election with the end of secular governance in the U.S. also reflects a misunderstanding of reality. Adams is the second Muslim mayor in a Western capital, making the event significant but not revolutionary. His election, backed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama’s endorsement, was influenced by internal party strategies, including mobilizing Muslim voters against Trump’s policies.
The result should be analyzed within the U.S. electoral and party framework rather than as a sweeping commentary on American politics as a whole. Yet, some Iranian commentators—despite specializing in U.S. affairs—offer perspectives that suggest minimal understanding of the country’s political structure, as if encountering it for the first time.
In assessing New York’s election, it is essential to move beyond emotional reactions and excitement, examining all dimensions objectively. Only then can the true implications of the event, both in the U.S. and as perceived internationally, be understood.
