PR in the Philippines

(SeaPRwire) –   For Mehdi Ghadimi, the ideology underpinning Iran’s ruling system is not an abstract concept. It was a doctrine instilled in him from a young age.

“You were informed that you belong to a select group chosen by God… to resurrect God’s religion and combat to protect it,” the Iranian journalist explained to Digital, recounting the message echoed in educational institutions, places of worship, and government-controlled media.

This early conditioning, he stated, presented the world in absolute terms: a celestial battle between good and evil, with Iran’s leadership at the heart of a divine undertaking.

While Iran’s governing structure is frequently characterized in political language, detractors and former officials contend its foundation is significantly more extreme — a system of beliefs grounded in religious absolutism, messianic anticipation, and a perspective that allows minimal space for concession.

With a new wave of commanders ascending within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after recent military strikes under Operation Epic Fury, experts caution that this ideology could become even more deeply ingrained.

Individuals like Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ahmad Vahidi are frequently mentioned as members of a generation molded by prolonged conflicts in Iraq and throughout the region — a group that perceives religion, security, and survival as inextricably linked.

Central to this perspective is the faith in the Mahdi — a messianic personality in Shiite Islam whose reappearance is anticipated to initiate a final period of justice following turmoil.

In Twelver Shiism, the principal sect for Shias, the Mahdi, recognized as the 12th Imam, is believed to be living but concealed and will eventually return. Iran’s political framework designates the supreme leader as his representative.

Critics assert that this structure imbues political power with a religious aspect that complicates opposition.

“For Iran’s clerical leaders, the concept of the Mahdi is more concerned with authority than personal belief,” stated Lisa Daftari, a foreign policy analyst and editor-in-chief at The Foreign Desk. “They employ it to imply that the supreme leader’s perspectives are not merely political stances, but possess a form of heavenly significance.”

“The establishment is configured so that opposition to the leader can be framed as doubting the Hidden Imam directly,” she explained.

“This transforms standard policy discussions into topics that are nearly sacrosanct… you are no longer debating a political figure; you are perceived as resisting a holy personage.”

Ghadimi contends that this setup allows minimal space for authentic political pluralism.

“Factions designated as ‘moderate,’ ‘reformist,’ or ‘pro-Western’ are manufactured to give the West someone to engage with,” he claimed.

“No individual within the Islamic Republic’s framework considers anything beyond overcoming the Western world and instituting Islamic supremacy worldwide.”

According to Iran specialist Daftari, the Mahdi doctrine also offers a versatile rationale for policy actions.

“Many insiders are fully aware that this terminology is employed tactically,” she noted. “The narrative of the Mahdi allows the leadership to assert ethical and theological justification for choices frequently related to maintaining the regime or broadening its influence.”

“When they discuss ‘preparing the ground’ for the Mahdi, that expression can be expanded to rationalize nearly any action — suppressing dissent, supporting foreign militias, or demanding that citizens endure greater economic hardship.”

“This religious context significantly complicates finding middle ground,” she continued. “If you persuade your supporters that you are executing a sacred duty… retreating can be depicted as a disloyalty to God’s design.”

Ghadimi indicated that this messaging is consistently bolstered from youth, influencing how successive generations perceive their societal function.

In educational settings, media, and mosques, he remarked, ideology was integrated into daily existence, allowing scant room for competing stories.

This conceptual framework, analysts suggest, aids in clarifying how the system perpetuates itself despite challenges.

It also fosters a outlook where conflict is viewed not as transient, but as a component of a grander, continuous battle.

“The Islamic government, according to its own Quranic interpretation, deems itself duty-bound to implement Islamic law worldwide,” Ghadimi informed Digital, noting that the regime “views itself as the global standard-bearer of this belief.”

“They hold animosity towards Iranians and Jews, whom they see as adversaries of Islam from its inception, and they regard killing them—as seen on Oct. 7 and in recent fatalities in Iran — as actions meriting divine reward, similar to convictions once held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” he asserted.

“No one within the structure of the Islamic Republic thinks about anything other than defeating the Western world and establishing Islamic dominance globally,” Ghadimi reiterated.

Within this paradigm, critics argue, Iran is not merely advancing national interests but operating under what it perceives as a wider religious directive.

Some detractors maintain that in this context, violence can acquire theological significance.

“They consider killing them… to be divinely rewarded acts,” Ghadimi said.

Nonetheless, analysts indicate that the fusion of messianic faith and uncompromising ideology forges a system where confrontation is not just anticipated, but validated.

An Iranian official disputed these portrayals and cautioned that economic devastation and ruin resulting from war could foster enduring bitterness.

“If a nation is reduced to rubble, destitution becomes widespread. From such deprivation emerges animosity, bitterness, and a craving for vengeance, and this cycle of enmity can persist for decades. It is erroneous to assume that all hostilities cease immediately after a truce. Even absent an adversarial administration, individuals in society who have been stripped of everything may still be motivated to pursue retaliation.”

For Ghadimi, the concern extends beyond Iran’s actions to its self-perception.

If the system is founded on a credo that merges faith, authority, and purpose, critics suggest, then practices such as domestic suppression and international antagonism may be inherent characteristics rather than short-term strategies.

And if the potential for moderation inside that system is constrained, as some contend, then the difficulty for decision-makers lies not merely in dialogue, but in comprehending the driving ideology.