Ruhollah KhomeiniEdit
Ruhollah Khomeini stands as a towering figure in late 20th-century politics, theology, and international relations. A cleric who rose to the highest leadership of the state, he helped fuse religious authority with political power in a way that reshaped Iran and had a lasting impact on the region. He led the 1979 uprising that toppled the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic, a theocratic constitutional order that prioritized religious law, national sovereignty, and resistance to foreign influence.
The movement around Khomeini drew broad support from diverse quarters: devout religious students in the seminaries of Qom and other religious centers, urban workers and merchants angered by years of corruption and stagnation, and rural voters weary of secular rule they felt had betrayed Persian heritage and national independence. His rhetoric framed the shah’s modernization as an erosion of traditional values and national dignity, while presenting the revolution as a restoration of sovereignty to the Iranian people under the guidance of islamic principles. The emergence of a political order centered on religious authority challenged long-standing trends toward liberalization and Western alignment, a shift that shaped Iranian politics for decades and drew widespread international attention.
Early life and religious formation
Ruhollah Khomeini was born in the city of Khomein in what is now central Iran and was educated within the Shia Islam scholarly tradition. He studied theology and jurisprudence in center cities such as Qom and later in Tehran, earning the title of Ayatollah as his authority grew. His early writings addressed jurisprudence, ethics, and the role of religion in public life, laying the groundwork for a political program that would emerge from clerical leadership united with popular sentiment. His life in exile in Istanbul, Najaf, and other centers hardened his stance against the Pahlavi regime and helped him cultivate a transnational network of clerical and political allies.
The revolutionary movement and the founding of the Islamic Republic
With widespread discontent toward the shah, Khomeini’s ideas gained traction among a broad coalition that included religious authorities, students, and labor groups. After returning from exile in 1979, he played a central role in shaping the political settlement that followed the collapse of the monarchy. A key element was the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a state where the supreme leadership derives from clerical authority and policy is guided by a framework of islamic law within a constitutional system. The referendum that created the new order affirmed the legitimacy of the revolution for many Iranians who sought a break with foreign influence and the old regime. The period also saw the Iran hostage crisis unfold, as elements within the new state asserted sovereignty by challenging Western powers and seeking to redefine Iran’s foreign alignments.
Governance and ideology
Khomeini’s core political project fused clerical authority with state power. The system rests on the principle of Velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist), which posits that senior clerics should oversee political and legal life to ensure governance aligns with Islamic law. This approach produced a distinctive form of governance in which religious authorities exercise executive and judicial influence, while elected institutions exist within the boundaries set by the theocratic framework. The constitution and political culture emphasize national independence, social justice as understood through religious principles, and a resistance to what supporters view as imperialist threats or meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. The regime also maintained a large security apparatus, including institutions inspired by the revolutionary period, to deter internal dissent and preserve order.
Key features of this system include a strong executive led by a supreme leader, a guardian council to oversee elections and legislation for conformity with Islamic law, and a revolutionary ethos that shaped domestic politics, cultural life, and law. Supporters contend that this arrangement curbed corruption, stabilized a previously turbulent political landscape, and protected a distinct national identity in the face of external pressure. Critics, however, point to limitations on political pluralism, civil liberties, and freedom of expression, especially within the framework of religious law and state control over many aspects of public life. The regime’s approach to gender, education, and minority rights has been a constant source of internal and external debate.
Foreign policy and regional stance
Iran’s post-revolution foreign posture emphasized independence from rival powers and opposition to what was framed as interference in the region. The leadership asserted sovereignty in matters of security and ideology, aligning with various non-Western movements and exercising influence in neighboring states where sympathetic currents existed. The dynamic produced tense relations with the United States and Western governments, most famously illustrated by the Iran hostage crisis and a protracted confrontation over nuclear, military, and diplomatic questions. Iran’s stance toward regional conflicts was marked by a mix of support for allied groups and a willingness to confront rivals, which affected stability and security across the Middle East.
The regime’s foreign policy also embraced the voice of anti-imperialism as part of its legitimacy, often arguing that Iran served as a counterweight to foreign domination in the region. In the long run, this approach contributed to a durable, though controversial, regional influence that shaped interactions with neighboring states and global powers alike. The wartime period of the Iran–Iraq War further tested the regime’s resilience and redirected national priorities toward defense, investment in domestic industries, and the mobilization of public support.
Domestic policy and civil liberties
Inside Iran, the new order sought to align social and cultural life with religious norms. Government authority extended into education, media, dress, and public behavior, with the aim of creating a society that reflected islamic values and national self-determination. The state maintained control over political dissent, which reflected a priority placed on social cohesion and security in a volatile post-revolution environment. This approach produced a stabilization of state structures and a consistent narrative about national independence, but it also raised serious questions about civil liberties, freedom of speech, and political pluralism. The regime’s actions toward critics, dissidents, and opposition movements—especially in the late 1980s—become a focal point of international scrutiny and domestic debate over the proper balance between order, security, and individual rights.
Economic management under the new system also affected daily life. The government maintained significant control over key industries and sectors, shaping development patterns as it pursued self-sufficiency, social welfare programs, and redirected resources toward strategic priorities. Proponents argue that this approach protected sovereignty and promoted social welfare within a religiously grounded framework, while critics contend it constrained entrepreneurship, reduced consumer choice, and created inefficiencies that deepened economic pressures over time.
Controversies and debates
Khomeini’s legacy remains the subject of intense and often polarized discussion. Supporters highlight the regime’s success in unifying a fragmented society, resisting external domination, and preserving a distinct Iranian identity, arguing that the system provided stability and social order after decades of upheaval. Critics, by contrast, point to suppressed political dissent, limitations on civil and political rights, and episodes of mass repression associated with the revolutionary period and the early years of the Islamic Republic. Debates continue over the balance between religious governance and democratic norms, the treatment of women and minority communities, and the degree to which Iran’s religious framework should influence national policy and law. From a conservative viewpoint, some critics of Western liberal models misinterpret the goals of the regime and underestimate the region-wide resistance to perceived cultural and political overreach. Proponents of this approach often argue that perceptions of repression are overstated, or that religiously rooted governance offers endurance against external pressures that liberal models might not withstand.
In international discourse, opponents sometimes frame Khomeini’s Iran as a destabilizing force; supporters counter that the regime’s stance reflects a legitimate claim to national sovereignty and a principled challenge to foreign interference. The debate over religion in politics, the legitimacy of the velayat-e faqih framework, and the regime’s use of force against internal opponents are central points of contention, with differing evaluations of the costs and benefits of the revolutionary order.
Legacy
Khomeini’s influence extends beyond his lifetime through the enduring theocratic structure that continued under his successors, most notably the current leadership. His insistence on international independence and a governance model anchored in religious legitimacy left an imprint on Iran’s political evolution, its relationship with the West, and its role in regional geopolitics. The concept of clerical guardianship and the connection between religious authority and state power remain defining features of Iran’s political landscape, shaping successive leadership, policy choices, and the country’s strategic calculations in an often turbulent region. His life and work continue to be studied as a key case in the interaction between religion, nationalism, and politics in modern history.