Many people consider Iran a lost cause and assume the system is too deep in a hole to have any hope for true change. It is hard to argue against the fact that the Iranian system has made many mistakes. The situation is more complicated than many tend to realize. Most analysis about Iran is simplified based on personal or historical references that do not truly capture the realities of Iran. 
It’s easier to explain a known phenomenon rather than trying to examine a new experience. Many political analysts do a slothful job in regard to the Iranian system. Some may honestly believe what they say and some may think that’s close enough. In either case one rarely hears about the exact state of the Iranian system. To simplify the political events taking place in Iran, many refer to it as a dictatorship. Although the flavor of dictatorship is in the mix, the system is a despotic structure similar to China. The question is whether the system is capable of change or is it static in its current form? 
To answer the above question one must look at two variables that shape systematic change. We are assuming that there is a large demand inside the country for the system to open up and move towards democratization. These two major variables are obstacles that hold Iran back in one spot instead of allowing the system to be more dynamic in design. 
The first element is external factors that have been shaping the Islamic Republic since its birth. Although the Islamic Republic started as a wild and angry movement against the West, it had many opportunities to change course. Unfortunately for the Iranians, time and political geography together worked against that change. We have today a despotic and deformed system rather than what could’ve been, if the malice actions of both sides (meaning Iranian and Western) did not take place. I understand that is a big "If", and this kind of logic is not the right way of examining the situation. However it is necessary to point out that the structure of any system around the globe is not independently formed. 
Internal variables develop as a reaction to external factors. The harsher the outside world acts, the internal response would be raucous performance. The opposite therefore is that more restrained action by the outside will yield gentler conduct. This may not serve as a formula for all systems yet it should be accepted as a valid political argument. 
Based on our discussion here, we can conclude that the external forces are directly related to the internal changes of the Iranian system and most of the players within the system act reactionary to external pressure. Naturally many players within a system will take advantage of power changes that takes place while the system is reshaping in dealing with attacking forces. 
Next we can examine whether the candidates matter. In other words, does the election process influence change in the system’s behavior. If one’s conclusion assumes the Iranian system to be a dictatorship then the answer is no. However if it is despotic, the answer is maybe. Since the system acts as living thing and naturally would like to survive, it will adjust unwillingly to changes that may not be its essence if it can continue to become stronger without shoveling too many pieces out of place. One example of this kind of change is China in relation to the West. The Iranian situation is very similar to China but the Iranian culture is not. If the Iranian system can promote and establish a more efficient format of governance, it is very possible for it to rail on the right track and move forward. That’s the big "If". On the other hand if the pieces are too greedy to allow changes that may limit their profitability, the system is forced to become increasingly static and forceful; dictatorship would rise to replace despotism. I see that very unlikely at this point, but possible in the near future. 
If the changes are aligned with foreign policies that communicate its goals to be separate than the West’s interest in the region, there may be hope for change. In other words, the interests of Iran and the West are beyond their borders; Iran with its neighborhood and the West in the Middle East. If there is a grand bargain to share their interests then we may see a very different Iran in the coming years. Yet the reality is that Iran will stay on course because the forces that benefit from the current situation are too large, too strong, and too narrow minded for that kind of change. As mentioned earlier, the external forces won’t allow dramatic change in relationship to Iran, which conclusively reinforce the current attitude to remain.
The candidates can make a difference if the system is capable of increasing efficiencies in governance and change or removing some of its interests that fall beyond Iran’s borders that are in direct conflict with the West’s interest.
One must realize the enormous value that Iran needs to give up in order to move forward; value that has become the pillars of this system. For the system, the question remains whether any sign of weakness would yield action that will try to further weaken the central government and ultimately force it to collapse. That question may never be answered and the system may fall by fighting battles that it can’t sustain.