Sure: the man in the title of this thread, elected by the voters in a race between two main candidates, both of whom were “conservative” but who clearly had differing agendas - including somewhat different opinion on the role of religion in Iranian society - and different supporters. This was certainly far shjort fo teh degree of "choice" offered in many other countries, but it’s also far different from the role of citizens in Libya, or even Saudi Arabia.
It’s also worth noting that the popularity of Ahmadinejad’s party declined in the recent election, inculding voting for the islamic body which will chose Iran’s next supreme religious leader – certanly a choice of potnetially great consequence both witin Iran and outside its borders.
Iran’s citizens backed themselves into a nasty corner when they approved a constitution creating a theocratic state and without any provision for its revision, and it’s quite possible it with take another generation or two for them to find a way out this trap.
But IMO the fact that Iranians are getting into the habit of establishing the legitimacy of government via regular elections is an encouraging sign that eventually even the role of the theocracy will have be renegotiated on similar terms.
And BTW... it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a reasonably stable and tolerant government in Tehran before the same was established in Baghdad.