Some critics in Iran's diaspora are expressing skepticism about Zohran Mamdani, the Muslim and self-described Democratic socialist frontrunner in elections for New York City mayor on Tuesday, even likening his populist vision to Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Mamdani, a 34-year-old state assemblyman, won the Democratic primary in June, edging out former New York governor Andrew Cuomo.
Born in Uganda to parents of Indian descent, he was raised in New York and has championed affordability in a campaign which has belatedly earned the praise of some Democratic leaders. If elected he would be New York's first Muslim mayor.
His platform emphasizes affordable housing, police reform and Palestinian rights, earning him strong backing from progressives and Muslim organizations.
But his left-leaning and pro-Palestine positions have unsettled some Iranian exiles who see echoes of populist and millenarian promises they say marred their homeland in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
"Modern Iranian history flashes a bright caution sign as America’s far left and Islamist movements converge in our cities and universities," Andrew Ghalili, senior analyst at advocacy group the National Union for Democracy in Iran, wrote in The New York Sun.
"Iranians have seen this movie before, and the American left are playing their role perfectly. It’s only a matter of time until the tragic third act," he added.
Mamdani was criticized for using the phrase "globalize the intifada" during the mayoral primary, a phrase referring to a Palestinian uprising years after campus protests against Israel's incursion into Gaza beginning at Columbia University in New York spread nationwide and inflamed debates about free speech and anti-Semitism.
He has since distanced himself from the slogan and has campaigned with representatives of many faiths, including Jewish and Muslim leaders.
Many first and second-generation immigrants from Iran are conservative and skeptical of the role of Islam in public life, holding up the nearly 50-year-old Islamic theocracy in their homeland as a cautionary tale.
Mamdani has hit out at what he has called Islamophobia in the wake of the 9/11 attacks but has not cited Islam as a basis of his political outlook.
University of Illinois at Chicago PhD candidate and commentator Sana Ebrahimi criticized Mamdani’s promises of free services on X, comparing them to Ayatollah Khomeini’s unfulfilled pledges.
“Every time I see those curated photos of Zohran Mamdani, I am reminded of Khomeini as a ‘humble servant of the people,'" she wrote. "Four and a half decades later, Iran is destroyed and its currency has been gutted. Grand promises are easy and that is Zohran’s game plan."
On the campaign trail, Mamdani said his aunt feared riding the New York subway in the wake of the 9/11 of attack for fear of being persecuted for her Islamic veil.
Iranian dissident Masih Alinejad, who resides in New York City, urged Mamdani to protect the rights of all citizens, including those who reject the hijab.
She was speaking after a US court in Manhattan last month convicted two men of attempting to kill her in a plot backed by Tehran.
“(Mamdani) said his aunt removed her hijab in New York because she didn’t feel safe. Well, I don’t feel safe in New York because the real killers, backed by Iran - the top sponsor of Hamas - came after me twice here simply for saying no to hijab. So yes, Mayor, step up and protect this city from terrorist organizations,” she posted on X.
In a podcast appearance with conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, Alinejad appeared to suggest Mamdani was a "radical" whose rise coincided with more public displays of Islamic and pro-Iranian activity in America.
"Let's talk about my concern in the West, in America, in New York City, the rise of radicals," she said. "There are more than 300 mosques in New York. What is it about this fantasizing with the radicals, saying we want to pray in the streets. So let's just talk about Mamdani."
Polls show Mamdani leading rivals Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa as voters weigh issues such as housing and crime.
In a statement carried by state television, the General Staff of the Armed Forces said comments by “uninformed or unauthorized individuals” had appeared in recent days and stressed that only official statements from its communications center represent Iran’s position. It urged media outlets to avoid reporting on such issues without coordination.
The warning came after parliament member Amirhossein Sabeti said there had been no disagreement between Iran and its key partners, Russia and China, over weapons deliveries. Sabeti said all weapons or systems that Iran requested and paid for had been delivered.
“There is no weapon we asked for from China or Russia that they did not give us,” he said earlier this week. “On the fourth day of the war, we received several air defense systems from China.”
He added that any delays in receiving equipment were due to domestic factors, not foreign unwillingness. “If there was any delay in delivery, it was from our side, not theirs,” Sabeti said, adding that Russia and China “had no ill intent” and that Iran should make better use of what he described as shared strategic interests.
The statement came amid escalating divisions in Tehran over the country’s reliance on Moscow and Beijing.
Former president Hassan Rouhani and ex-foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif have questioned what they call Iran’s overreliance on Moscow, prompting sharp criticism from hardliners.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused the two of “damaging national interests” after a video surfaced showing Rouhani noting that both Russia and China had supported UN sanctions on Iran in 2010.
Zarif separately clashed with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, accusing Moscow of trying to block the 2015 nuclear deal and of keeping Iran “in a state of controlled isolation.”
Several lawmakers echoed Ghalibaf’s remarks, accusing the former officials of undermining Iran’s strategic partnerships.
Addressing students and officials at a ceremony commemorating the anniversary, Khamenei said the event should be understood “from both a historical and an identity-based perspective.”
“From a historical viewpoint, without doubt, this day will be remembered as a day of pride and triumph for our nation,” he said. “It was a day when our young people stood up without fear to a power that intimidated politicians around the world, and they attacked its embassy with reasoning and purpose. It is a day of honor, a day of victory.”
Khamenei described the embassy takeover as revealing the “true identity of the United States” and said it showed that “the essence of America’s arrogance was to see itself as entitled to dictate to others.”
“The occupation of the embassy clarified the real nature of the United States and also defined the genuine identity of the Islamic movement,” he said. “Our nation already knew the arrogant nature of America, but this incident made it even clearer.”
He linked anti-US sentiment to Iran’s modern history, citing the CIA-backed 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. “The American plot on the 28th of Mordad was a major blow to Iran,” he said.
“It toppled the first national government that stood against colonial powers. The Iranian nation has known ever since what a dangerous enemy America can be.”
Rejecting the view that the embassy seizure triggered hostilities between the two countries, he said the conflict “did not begin on the 13th of Aban; it began on the 28th of Mordad.”
He added: “The students uncovered a serious conspiracy against the revolution. The embassy was not an ordinary diplomatic post -- it was a center of plotting and coordination.”
Khamenei said Iran’s differences with the United States were not circumstantial. “The dispute between the Islamic Republic and America is not tactical or temporary. It is a fundamental and structural contradiction,” he said.
“Whenever America can, it acts. It supports those who attack us, it imposes sanctions, it even shoots down a passenger plane. The nature of arrogance and the nature of independence cannot coexist.”
On prospects for future relations, Khamenei said that Iran’s strength was the key to security. “We cannot predict the distant future,” he said. “But today the solution to many problems is to become strong, scientifically, militarily, economically. If the country is strong, the enemy will not dare to attack.”
He added that any improvement in ties would require a fundamental shift in US policy. “America sometimes says it wants cooperation with Iran,” he said.
“Cooperation with Iran is incompatible with supporting the Zionist regime. If one day America abandons that regime, removes its military bases from the region and stops interference, then issues could be reviewed -- but that time is not now.”
Growing debate over a legacy
While Khamenei defended the embassy seizure as a historic victory, his comments contrasted with those of several political figures who in recent years have described the event as a strategic mistake that complicated Iran’s international position.
Former parliament deputy speaker Ali Motahari said earlier this week that the takeover was “a hasty act influenced by leftist groups” that damaged Iran’s global image and “in the end worked in America’s favor.” He argued that while a short occupation could have been justifiable, prolonging it for 444 days was “unnecessary and damaging.”
Former speaker of parliament Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri made similar remarks in past years, saying that “in the early years of the revolution there was inexperience and immaturity,” and that the embassy seizure was “a major mistake” that created long-term challenges for Iran’s foreign relations.
“Many of the difficulties we later faced began at that point,” he said, adding that reciprocal measures by Washington, including the freezing of Iranian assets, stemmed from the initial occupation.
At the same time, hardline media and conservative figures have defended the 1979 action, arguing that the embassy was then “a den of espionage” and that concerns about a repeat of the 1953 US-backed coup justified the students’ move.
Accounts from some of the former student organizers have also shed light on internal disagreements at the time.
Former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who represented the University of Science and Technology in student councils in 1979, was among those said to have opposed the embassy seizure -- not on diplomatic grounds, but because he believed occupying the Soviet embassy would have been more significant.
Former hostage-taker Abbas Abdi has confirmed that Ahmadinejad and a small group of others objected to the plan on those grounds.
During an interview in 2024, Ahmadinejad said, "For how much longer do we desire to remain in conflict with the US? Following the revolution, there was potential to resolve matters with the US, but certain individuals occupied the embassy, complicating matters."
In later years, figures such as Abdi and other former participants in the embassy takeover said the event should be viewed in its historical context, arguing that while it was driven by revolutionary fervor and fear of renewed foreign interference, its long-term political consequences were complex.
Analysts say such comments reflect a broader debate within Iran’s political class over the legacy of the embassy seizure and its impact on foreign policy. But Khamenei’s remarks reaffirmed his long-held view that resistance to US influence is central to Iran’s revolutionary identity.
“The United States cannot tolerate an independent Iran,” Khamenei said. “But this nation will never surrender. The path of dignity, independence and faith will continue.”
