For Mehdi Ghadimi, the ruling ideology of Iran isn’t an abstract concept – it’s a deeply ingrained truth instilled from childhood. He recalls being taught that Iranians were a select group, chosen by God to resurrect faith and defend it at all costs.
This early indoctrination didn’t allow for nuance. It painted a world divided into absolute good and evil, with Iran’s leadership positioned as the vanguard of a divine mission. The system wasn’t simply political; it was fundamentally rooted in religious absolutism and a fervent messianic expectation.
As a new generation rises within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, following recent setbacks, concerns are growing that this ideology will only become more deeply entrenched. Figures hardened by years of conflict view religion, security, and survival as inextricably linked.
At the heart of this worldview lies the belief in the Mahdi – a central figure in Shiite Islam, a messianic leader whose return will herald an era of ultimate justice. For most Shiites, the Mahdi, the 12th Imam, is alive but hidden, awaiting his destined return.
Iran’s political structure uniquely positions the Supreme Leader as the Mahdi’s caretaker, a framework critics say imbues political authority with a dangerous religious weight. Challenging the leader isn’t merely disagreeing with policy; it’s questioning the divine itself.
“For those in power in Iran, the idea of the Mahdi isn’t about personal faith, it’s about control,” explains Lisa Daftari, a foreign policy analyst. “They leverage it to suggest the Supreme Leader’s pronouncements aren’t opinions, but carry divine authority.”
This creates an environment where dissent is framed as sacrilege. Ordinary policy debates become untouchable, transforming disagreements with leaders into perceived attacks on a sacred figure. Genuine political diversity becomes virtually impossible.
Ghadimi argues that so-called ‘moderate’ factions are merely created for Western engagement. Within the Islamic Republic, the sole objective is the defeat of the West and the establishment of global Islamic dominance. There is no room for compromise.
The Mahdi doctrine provides a remarkably flexible justification for any action. “They use the Mahdi story to claim moral and religious cover for decisions that are often about regime survival or expanding influence,” Daftari notes.
“‘Preparing the ground’ for the Mahdi can mean anything – crushing protests, supporting foreign militias, or demanding economic sacrifices from the population. If you convince your followers you’re on a holy mission, backing down is seen as betraying God’s plan.”
This message is relentlessly reinforced from childhood, shaping generations’ understanding of their place in the world. Schools, media, and mosques all contribute to embedding the ideology into everyday life, stifling alternative perspectives.
This pervasive framing helps explain the system’s resilience, even under immense pressure. It fosters a worldview where conflict isn’t a temporary state, but an inherent part of a larger, ongoing struggle.
According to Ghadimi, the Islamic government believes it’s obligated to enforce Islamic law globally, viewing itself as the leader of this belief system. This conviction fuels deep-seated hatred towards perceived enemies, including Iranians and Jews.
He draws a chilling parallel to the beliefs of figures like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, stating that acts of violence, like those seen on October 7th, are considered divinely rewarded. This isn’t about national interest; it’s about fulfilling a religious mandate.
Critics argue that within this framework, violence isn’t simply a consequence, but a religiously justified act. The combination of messianic belief and absolutist ideology creates a system where confrontation is not only expected, but actively encouraged.
One Iranian official cautioned that economic devastation and the horrors of war could breed long-term resentment, creating a cycle of hostility that extends far beyond any ceasefire. The scars of ruin, they warned, could fuel a desire for retribution for years to come.
For Ghadimi, the core issue isn’t just *how* Iran acts, but *how* it understands itself. If the system is truly rooted in a fusion of religion, power, and mission, then repressive policies and aggressive foreign actions aren’t temporary tactics, but fundamental characteristics.
And if genuine moderation within the system is limited, as many believe, then the challenge for policymakers isn’t simply negotiation, but a profound understanding of the ideology that drives it.
