The Iranian political system underwent a profound transformation with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. At the center of this transformation stands the doctrine of "Velayat-e Faqih" ("Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist"), developed by the first supreme leader of the country, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which became the founding principle of the Iranian state.
According to this doctrine, during the occultation of the 12th Imam, the governance of society should be exercised by the most qualified Islamic jurist. In classical Shiite political thought, the absence of the Imam generally produced a cautious and politically quietist approach. Khomeini radically reinterpreted this tradition by arguing that political authority could and should be exercised directly by the jurist during the period of occultation.
In this sense, Velayat-e Faqih represents not only the institutional foundation of the Iranian Islamic Republic but also a major transformation in Shiite political theology. It replaced centuries of passive expectation with an active theory of governance and legitimized the direct involvement of the religious establishment in political authority.
Khomeini grounded this authority not merely in political necessity but in religious legitimacy. According to him, the authority exercised by the jurist during the occultation represents the continuation of the political authority of the Prophet Muhammad and the infallible Imams.
One of the clearest examples of this understanding can be seen in the decree issued by Khomeini when appointing Mahdi Bazargan as the head of the provisional government after the revolution. In that decree, Khomeini explicitly stated that the ultimate source of his authority derived from prophetic authority.
In a later ruling issued in 1988, he went even further by declaring that the Islamic state could temporarily suspend certain religious obligations if necessary to protect the interests of the Islamic system.
This interpretation effectively placed the survival of the state above other considerations and turned Velayat-e Faqih into the central organizing principle of the Iranian political order.
The ideological framework of the Iranian political system is not based solely on Velayat-e Faqih. Another key element is the historically shaped Shiite-Persian identity that has long formed part of Iran’s state tradition.
Together, these two elements function as the main pillars of the Iranian political order. While Velayat-e Faqih defines the source of political authority, Shiite-Persian identity provides the historical and cultural legitimacy of the state. The institutional architecture of the Islamic Republic was designed to preserve these two pillars.
Alongside republican institutions such as the presidency, parliament and judiciary, the system also includes powerful religious institutions like the Guardian Council, the Expediency Discernment Council and the Assembly of Experts.
Among these bodies, the Guardian Council plays a particularly crucial role. It reviews legislation to ensure its conformity with Islamic law and the constitution and also vetoes candidates in presidential and parliamentary elections. Through this mechanism, the Council effectively sets the ideological boundaries of the political system and limits the possibility of radical political change from within.
The Assembly of Experts, on the other hand, holds the authority to appoint and theoretically dismiss the Supreme Leader. During periods of leadership transition, it serves as a key mechanism ensuring the institutional continuity of the system and preventing potential power vacuums.
Together, these institutions create a political structure that is highly resistant to sudden institutional transformation.
The 1979 revolution was not the product of a single political movement. It emerged from a broad coalition that included Islamists, Marxist-leftist groups and nationalist-liberal actors united in opposition to the Pahlavi monarchy.
After the revolution, however, the Islamist movement consolidated power and gradually pushed secular opposition groups out of the political arena. Over time, divisions also emerged within the Islamist camp itself.
Today, four political tendencies can be identified within Iran’s political system: conservatives, reformists, pragmatists and neo-conservatives. In practice, however, the political landscape largely revolves around two broader blocs: the conservative camp and the reformist camp.
Despite their differences, both camps accept the fundamental framework of Velayat-e Faqih. Their disagreements, therefore, concern policy priorities and governance methods rather than the basic structure of the state.
The core balance of power in Iran rests on a conservative coalition composed of the religious establishment, the traditional merchant class (bazaaris) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Since the revolution, the IRGC has gradually evolved into one of the most influential actors in Iran’s political, economic and security spheres.
At the same time, large segments of the lower and middle classes are connected to the system through networks of religious charitable foundations known as bonyads. These foundations distribute economic resources and social benefits, strengthening the regime’s social base and reinforcing the relationship between the state and society.
Possibly, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu jointly believe that synchronized military pressure and large-scale civil protests could trigger a rapid political collapse in Iran.
The logic behind such strategies assumes that external shocks combined with internal unrest could paralyze the regime’s decision-making mechanisms and ultimately lead to regime change.
So far, however, this scenario has not materialized. Large-scale protests capable of destabilizing the regime have not emerged, and the state apparatus has shown no signs of major institutional fragmentation.
One of the main reasons for this outcome lies in the Iranian political system's multilayered resilience. Coordination between the IRGC, the Basij militia, the security bureaucracy and religious institutions provides the regime with significant capacity to contain social unrest.
Another factor is the absence of a unified and organized opposition capable of transforming social discontent into a sustained political movement. The fragmented nature of opposition forces and the lack of centralized leadership make it difficult for protests to evolve into systemic political change.
For these reasons, scenarios predicting a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime often underestimate the institutional, ideological and social resilience embedded in the structure of the Islamic Republic.
The critical question at this point is how the election of Mojtaba Khamenei, son of late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will affect Iran’s war policy.
Considering the current balance of power, the leadership debate in Iran was likely to unfold within conservative networks historically associated with Mojtaba Khamenei. In the end, the anticipated outcome materialized, and he was selected as the new supreme leader.
Under normal circumstances, the open discussion of Mojtaba Khamenei’s name in succession debates would have been considered highly unlikely. However, the political context at the time, particularly the support networks within the security establishment, made this possibility appear more rational and increasingly discussable within the system. Under different political conditions, such a scenario would likely have triggered much stronger public reactions and potentially significant protests.
His lack of direct experience in formal executive positions within the state makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about his governing style. Nevertheless, an examination of the political circles with which he has been associated suggests that he maintains close ties with groups commonly described as the “new generation of conservatives.” Considering the political orientation of these circles, it appears likely that he will largely continue the political line shaped during the leadership of his father, and may even pursue this trajectory with a firmer and more security-oriented tone in certain areas.
