Bloodline and martyrdom shape Iran’s leadership struggle

In 632, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, died, triggering a fierce struggle over succession. The Shiites argued that only someone sharing Muhammad’s bloodline could inherit his authority and rallied behind Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. The Sunnis instead backed Abu Bakr, a wealthy patron who had supported Muhammad.

Although Ali held the stronger claim of legitimacy, he lacked comparable political influence and was eventually assassinated by a Sunni extremist faction. Shiites regard his death as martyrdom. Lineage and the narrative of sacrifice have since become defining symbols of Shiite identity.

On March 8, Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28, was chosen as the country’s new supreme leader. The selection of Mojtaba, known for his hard-line conservative views, signals a determination to confront external enemies. It also reflects the Shiite tradition that places strong emphasis on bloodline. Mojtaba reportedly lost his father, mother, wife, sister and nephew in the airstrikes. Among Iran’s hard-liners, those losses are also framed as part of a narrative of martyrdom.

How long Mojtaba can retain power remains uncertain. Israel, widely believed to have played a larger role than the United States in the operation that eliminated Ali Khamenei, has vowed to remove Mojtaba as well. Attention has therefore turned to another figure who could approach the center of power, Hassan Khomeini, a descendant of a prominent revolutionary family. Hassan is the grandson of Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader who led the 1979 Islamic Revolution and established Iran’s theocratic system. Before Mojtaba’s selection was confirmed, Reuters and other media outlets had identified Hassan as a leading contender for the country’s next leader.

One advantage for Hassan is that neither he nor his grandfather is widely associated with major political wrongdoing. Ruhollah Khomeini ruled for a decade after the revolution and died of natural causes. Had he governed longer, he might have carried out harsh crackdowns on political opponents similar to those later seen under Ali Khamenei. Yet such events never occurred. At the time, the internet and social media did not exist. For younger Iranians who did not experience the revolution, Khomeini remains a historical figure with enormous influence but little direct connection to their daily lives.

Ali Khamenei, who ruled for 37 years after Khomeini’s death, presents a stark contrast. His suppression of political opponents intensified after suspicions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program emerged in 2002. As Western sanctions over the nuclear issue deepened Iran’s economic hardship, Khamenei remained focused on expanding Shiite influence and strengthening military capabilities. Yet whenever anti-government protests erupted over issues such as fuel tax hikes or deaths linked to enforcement of the hijab, authorities responded with force. Those crackdowns were broadcast worldwide in real time. Public resentment toward Mojtaba, who assisted his father and reportedly helped lead those bloody suppressions, could surface at any moment.

During his lifetime, Ali Khamenei often brought Hassan with him when visiting Ruhollah Khomeini’s tomb. The gesture appeared intended to reinforce the legitimacy of his rule through association with Khomeini’s legacy. Hassan is known as a cleric who places importance on issues such as women’s rights. He has also criticized former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who faced allegations that his reelection in the 2009 presidential vote was secured through electoral fraud.

Whether Hassan will one day assume power remains uncertain. It is equally unclear whether he would maintain his current reform-leaning stance if he did. Still, Mojtaba’s apparent dynastic succession and the emergence of Hassan as another potential heir highlight the fragility of the Iranian Islamic Revolution’s claimed legitimacy. The revolutionary leadership itself appears to show that opposition to hereditary rule once served primarily as a tool used to topple the monarchy.