In death, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was able achieve something that had eluded him the last decade of his life: favorable coverage from Iran’s conservative and state-run media. Watching their effusive coverage of Rafsanjani’s funeral, one could easily forget that these outlets had spent the better part of the last decade committed to destroying the elder statesman’s political career. The editorial about-face, rather than being a result of a sensational media overcome with emotion over the death of a figure who played a central role in shaping the 37-year-old Islamic Republic, appears instead to have self-serving objectives — which does not bode well for Reformists and moderates hoping to ride Rafsanjani’s legacy and popularity to electoral victories.

In Iran’s political world, Rafsanjani’s four-decades-long political career has covered various, and even sometimes conflicting, identities: revolutionary activist cleric; right-hand man to the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; powerful executive tasked with post-war reconstruction; and finally, surrogate of the fledgling Reformists and moderates. Conservative media outlets, which are sometimes backed by powerful conservative politicians and security organizations, seem intent on posthumously tacking on one more role to Rafsanjani’s political legacy: that of a revolutionary committed to Khomeini, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and, ultimately, the Islamic Republic as it currently is.

For those who closely follow Iran, they would understand that in recent years Khamenei and Rafsanjani — sometimes referred to as the two pillars of the state — had disagreements about the direction of the Islamic Republic. Rafsanjani advocated better relations with the West, while Khamenei believes any drop in revolutionary fervor will lead to state collapse. Conservatives rallied around Khamenei’s message, while Reformists and moderates rallied around that of Rafsanjani. Yet if history is written by the victors, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, history will be written by those who live longer and are better financed. For conservatives and Khamenei, their history will take center stage when it comes to framing Rafsanjani’s life.

Rafsanjani’s true role in Iranian politics outweighed his official titles. He had political leeway to express controversial opinions due to his history within the political establishment. He would open up sensitive political discussions, giving the chance for Reformists and moderates to piggyback on those ideas without having to pay the political cost themselves. His comments in favor of a more open society and better relations with the West, such as his support for ending the "Death to America" chants, gave the space for Reformists to expound on these ideas with less risk of censure from conservatives.