US President Donald Trump said the Iranian regime has effectively changed: the first and second tiers of leadership have gone, and a third tier is now running the country, one that differs from its predecessors. Iran is a state ruled by a single man, the Supreme Leader. It is now on its third such figure since the Islamic Revolution. Many individuals have moved through positions of power; some have exited through dismissal, death, or assassination. This happens in all countries, including the United States.
In Iran, the system of governance operates on two levels: vertical and horizontal. At the top sits the Supreme Leader of the Republic, the Velayat-e Faqih, who holds all authority. No one opposes him, and his word is final. The horizontal level consists of multiple institutions: a president elected by the people who manages executive affairs; the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis), which legislates; the Guardian Council; the Expediency Discernment Council; the judiciary; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Basij forces; and the Assembly of Experts, which appoints the Supreme Leader.
All these bodies revolve around a single center: the Supreme Leader, who directs domestic and foreign policy and has the power to annul, amend, or endorse everything issued by the other institutions, including laws passed by parliament. Ayatollah Khomeini took decisions that contradicted laws passed by the Majlis and even the constitution. Since the 1979 revolution, many political and military leaders in Iran have been removed, with some placed under house arrest for long periods.
I first visited Iran as part of a ministerial delegation led by Major Abdul Salam Jalloud one year after the revolution. I visited again later when I was Minister of Information and Culture. We held numerous long and intensive meetings. Jalloud was highly enthusiastic about relations with the Iranian revolution, viewing it as a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause following Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel. He summoned me and Kamel al-Maqhour, the minister, ambassador, lawyer, and prominent intellectual, and asked us to draft a proposed agreement to unify the ideology of the Iranian and Libyan revolutions. We did not agree. Al-Maqhour, speaking as both a political and legal figure, convinced him there was no real ideological basis uniting the two revolutions, and we proposed instead a general framework for cooperation.
Jalloud was more enthusiastic about ties with Iran than Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, who preferred to wait and better understand Iran’s direction, especially amid the Iran–Iraq war. It was agreed to form a joint Libyan-Iranian committee for cooperation between the two countries. I was assigned to head the Libyan side, while Iran appointed Abdul Majid Moadd, Minister of Information and Guidance, to lead its side. He was a young man preparing a doctoral thesis on Nahj al-Balagha, attributed to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib.
He spoke about the awaited Mahdi and the role the Iranian revolution would play in the world. In a highly charged speech, he said the Islamic nation consists of three peoples: Arabs, Turks, and Persians. He added that while Arabs established an empire that ruled vast parts of the world through Islam, and the Turks did the same, the Persians, despite their scientific, creative, and philosophical capacities, had not yet achieved this.
I visited Tehran with Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, where we held meetings with President Hashemi Rafsanjani, as well as ministers, clerics, and intellectuals. My last visit to Tehran was in 2007 as part of a ministerial delegation led by Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmoudi. I observed severe congestion disrupting daily life, a decline in living standards evident in people’s appearance and vehicles, and pollution blanketing the city.
Iran is a country with a distinct character in every respect. Its political system resembles a Persian carpet, layered with interwoven colors. Shiite Islam, in its various expressions, permeates every aspect of public and private life. History, with all its burdens of sorrow and hope, remains deeply influential. Ideological ambition drives political and religious elites, yet there are also intellectual and political currents that are more pragmatic and moderate.
These tend to focus on domestic conditions, especially the economy and services, and call for policies based on understandings and settlements with regional and international actors, as well as expanding the space for freedoms, particularly for youth and women. However, the hardline clerical camp shows no flexibility toward the moderate reformist current. Some reformist figures have been placed under house arrest, including Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister, and Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker of parliament, while the role of former president Mohammad Khatami has been marginalized.
Iran is a deep, multiethnic nation with a distinctive human and natural geography. History, with all its turns, does not leave hearts and minds. The current war involving Israel, the United States, and Iran is driven by fears and anxieties. Egypt, Iraq, and Persia remain present in Jewish historical memory; the Babylonian exile helped shape Jewish religion and history.
No alternative system will emerge from within the clerical establishment. But once the flames of war subside, the scale of destruction inflicted on Iran will serve as a wake-up call for all. The clerics will weave a new carpet, tracing the paths of another Iran in new colors.
