How Iran’s Supreme Leaders are chosen? In recent days, speculation has surged over Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly being groomed to ascend as the next Supreme Leader. This development has reignited discussions about the process through which the Supreme Leader—the highest authority in the Islamic Republic—is chosen. While the constitution and official protocols outline an ostensibly structured selection mechanism, in reality, the process is deeply influenced by political maneuvering, religious authority, and factional power plays.
This article explores the constitutional framework, historical precedents, and the evolving political culture surrounding the selection of Iran’s Supreme Leader, offering insights into one of the world’s most opaque leadership transitions.
How Iran’s Supreme Leaders are chosen? The Constitutional Framework
Iran’s 1979 Constitution, drafted under the guidance of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, established the office of the Supreme Leader as the pinnacle of the country’s political and religious authority. Article 107 of the Constitution outlines the selection process for this position:
The Supreme Leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts (Majles-e-Khobregan), an 88-member body of clerics elected by the public for eight-year terms.
These clerics are tasked with identifying a candidate who possesses Islamic jurisprudential expertise (marja-e taqlid), political acumen, and a commitment to the principles of the Islamic Revolution.
The Assembly also monitors the Supreme Leader’s performance and holds the theoretical power to remove them if they fail to meet the criteria.
Despite this procedural clarity, in practice, the process has been far from transparent or strictly constitutional, as seen in both leadership transitions to date.
The Historical Precedents: Khomeini to Khamenei
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was effectively the architect of the Islamic Republic, assuming leadership during the 1979 Revolution. His authority was never contested, as he was both a revered marja (source of emulation) and the leader of the revolutionary movement. The Assembly of Experts merely formalized his role as the Supreme Leader, making this the only instance of a clear-cut leadership appointment.
The real test of Iran’s leadership selection mechanism came with Khomeini’s death in 1989. At the time, Ali Khamenei was serving as the President of Iran but was not recognized as a high-ranking cleric or marja, a critical requirement for the position.
The Assembly of Experts, influenced by pragmatic considerations and factional interests, amended the constitutional criteria to enable Khamenei’s appointment. This shift marked a significant deviation from the idealized process and set a precedent for political negotiation playing a decisive role in selecting the Supreme Leader.
Factionalism and Power Dynamics: The Real Determinants
Theoretically, the Assembly of Experts holds the decisive vote, but in practice, its autonomy is constrained by various power centers within the Iranian political system.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) wields substantial influence in Iran’s political and economic spheres. Over the years, its support has become a key factor in consolidating the Supreme Leader’s authority. The IRGC’s alignment with a candidate can effectively secure or block their path to leadership.
The Guardian Council, responsible for vetting candidates for the Assembly of Experts, plays a crucial role in shaping the pool of eligible clerics. This filtering mechanism ensures that only those aligned with the ruling establishment are elected, indirectly influencing the Supreme Leader’s selection.
Despite the formal mechanisms, the Supreme Leader’s appointment often hinges on internal consensus among Iran’s clerical elite. This consensus is shaped by considerations of ideological fidelity, political pragmatism, and the need to preserve the Islamic Republic’s stability.
The Debate Over Mojtaba Khamenei
Recent reports suggest that Mojtaba Khamenei, currently a cleric with no official position in government, may succeed his father. Such a transition would mark a significant departure from traditional leadership norms in Iran, where Supreme Leaders have been chosen from among the clerical elite rather than through hereditary succession.
Critics argue that Mojtaba’s ascension could cement a dynastic model, undermining the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary ethos. Proponents within conservative factions, however, emphasize his proximity to power, loyalty to the Islamic Revolution, and his purported backing by the IRGC as strengths.
Challenges and Controversies in the Process
The opaque nature of the Supreme Leader’s selection process has long been criticized for sidelining public opinion and fostering factionalism. The Assembly of Experts rarely provides detailed accounts of its deliberations, fueling skepticism about the legitimacy of its decisions.
In recent decades, reformist clerics and political figures have been systematically excluded from the Assembly of Experts. This marginalization has limited the diversity of perspectives in leadership discussions, further consolidating the power of conservative factions.
As Iran grapples with economic challenges, social unrest, and international isolation, the legitimacy of the Supreme Leader—seen as the embodiment of the Islamic Republic—is increasingly questioned. The next leadership transition will be critical in determining whether the system can maintain its internal cohesion and popular support.
Comparisons with Other Theocratic and Monarchical Systems
Iran’s process of selecting a Supreme Leader is unique in blending theocratic principles with elements of a political system. While some aspects resemble monarchical succession—especially in the case of Mojtaba Khamenei—the requirement for clerical expertise sets it apart.
The election of the Pope by the College of Cardinals shares similarities with the role of the Assembly of Experts. However, the process is far more transparent, with clear protocols and public declarations of the chosen leader.
The reported grooming of Mojtaba Khamenei evokes comparisons with Saudi Arabia’s monarchical system, where succession often involves familial lineage. However, Iran’s emphasis on Islamic jurisprudence as a criterion for leadership adds a distinct ideological dimension.
What Lies Ahead?
Iran’s next Supreme Leader will face a nation at a crossroads. The enduring effects of international sanctions, widespread public discontent, and regional rivalries demand a leader capable of addressing both domestic and global challenges.
Although the general public has no direct role in selecting the Supreme Leader, popular sentiment plays an indirect role in shaping the political climate. Protests over economic hardships and demands for greater freedoms have amplified calls for reform, even within conservative circles.
While the current system prioritizes stability and ideological continuity, it may face mounting pressure to incorporate greater transparency and accountability. Reforms could include expanding the Assembly of Experts to include more diverse voices or establishing clearer criteria for leadership transitions.
The selection of Iran’s Supreme Leader remains one of the most enigmatic and consequential processes in global politics. As speculation mounts over Mojtaba Khamenei’s potential ascension, it is clear that this decision will have far-reaching implications for Iran’s political trajectory, its people, and its place in the world.
The interplay of constitutional provisions, factional interests, and historical precedents underscores the complexity of this process. As Iran prepares for its next leadership transition, the question remains whether the system will adapt to contemporary challenges or adhere rigidly to its traditional mechanisms.
