We can set two boundary conditions and check if the methodical design result would be the Qaher.
1. Your engine technology is 3-4 decades behind that of your opponents.
2. Your country to defend has one of the most mountainous topographies on this planet, where mountain chains are 2000m on average.
The resulting design can be independent and no foreign companies or mainstream idol designs have influence on it.
In such a case a result could be the following:
Make use of the mountainous terrain to avoid detection by radar, IR and ESM. The design has to fly low in valleys to mask it. I wont go for the high altitude high speed game of air superiority fighters, hence no long range radar-tech/engine-tech driven BVR engagements. Now difference of speed at sea level is at best around 30% for a subsonic fighter and a advanced opponent fighter with advanced engine-tech due to the high drag. This lower speed difference compared to low engine-tech vs. high engine-tech engagements at high altitude helps to compensate.
As for the deficits with the engine, a physical effect, the ground effect is taken into the design, which effectively creates more thrust. A possible turbofan variant of the J85 at 70s tech level without afterburner, optimized for low altitude, plus the bonus by the ground effect, decreases the gap in engine-tech. It may provides mach 0,9 for a draggy internal weapon VLO design.
In a hunt, the opponents high engine-tech fighter, far from home base on short afterburner might do mach 1,3 with or without internal weapons, a short-lived difference of 30% for 30 years difference in engine technology.
Its clear that this 1:1 hunt scenario is not everything and the opponents fighter will try to shot it down from higher altitude, look-down. However the topographie will always force it to get close in order to have a direct line of sight for radar/IR and weapons and the VLO design will futher hinder long rnage shots from look-down positions. With a intact IADS and LR-SAMs the initial engagements could be limited to that low-altitude hunt scenario where the kinematic advantage of the modern fighter is decreased.
The Qaher is surely designed to make use of ground effect, its WIG like wingtips clearly point to it. Here is a technology where no experienced metallurgy is necessary, benefit by a physical effect affecting kinematics by developing a terrain avoidance system with digital maps and multiple redundant sensors. A mature terrain avoidance system for very low altitudes, state of the art. Ground effect was used on sea surface because land operation would be too dangerous but with today's technology this limitation can be eliminated.
Additional advancing communication technology with data-links and sensor-fusion/IADS could provide the Qaher with the necessary situational awareness to do its low level operation, approach a target, pop-up, attack and dive back and leave the battle. This dive/low-level subsonic escape is also a method used by the B-2 to out run interceptors that have detected it.
The tandem wing design is also noteworthy for the ground effect optimization. A question is what range performance would be possible for such a ground effect operating aircraft with an non-afterburning J-85 turbofan variant. Would the ground effect operation at mach 0,9 max. provide it with the same range performance as a medium to high altitude operating fighter?
The tandem wings have a interesting design, the forward wing/canard is conventional for a fighter, but the rear wing has a very thick leading edge. The benefit for such a thick wing profile is foremost the fuel that can be carried inside it, especially for a design that has internal weaponbays in the fuselage occupying space. The forward-wing apparently "breaks" the high speed airflow, so that the thick rear wing is just confronted with a low pressure region at the leading edge which could result into a thick wing as a airflow design result.
The decision not to go with a supersonic VLO design and stick to a low-level mach 0,9 design would also be a brave one, supersonic sounds good but in a operation regime hypothesized for the Qaher the effort-benefit ratio would be too low. In high subsonic operation the design gets much cleaner and more efficient.
Then there are always questions about the cost effectiveness. How much cheaper would be two turbofan modifications of the J-85 compared to modern engines (1/10 of a F404?)? How much cheaper is a small aperture low power AESA for 80km max. range against a 1m² target? How much easier design and hence cheaper is a VLO inlet like that of the Qaher? Just due to positioning it could provide the same VLO effect in its operation regime as complex fan-face avoiding supersonic designs. What high angle of attack penalties are expected for the inlet and how important are high AoA for its operation regime?
If all these trade-offs and design elements are clarified we can judge if the methodical design result of the Qaher makes sense or not.
Iranian defense industry are known for such unconventional designs and operation regimes, so this hypothesis might not be that far from reality.
At this point the project remains up for debate, neither IRGC nor IRIAF have shown support for it and development seems to be slow. Lets see if we see a airworthy prototype soon.
