For Mehdi Ghadimi, the ideology behind Iran’s ruling system is not theoretical. It was something he was taught from childhood.
“You were told you are a part a small group chosen by God… to revive God’s religion and fight to defend it,” the Iranian journalist told Fox News Digital, describing the message repeated in schools, mosques and state media.
That early indoctrination, he said, framed the world in stark terms: a divine struggle between good and evil, with Iran’s leadership positioned at the center of a religious mission.
Iran’s ruling system is often described in political terms, but critics and former insiders say its core is far more radical — a belief structure rooted in religious absolutism, messianic expectation and a worldview that leaves little room for compromise.
IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER MOJTABA KHAMENEI ‘MISFUNCTIONING,’ NOT CONTROLLING REGIME: SOURCES
As a new generation of commanders rises within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps following recent military blows under Operation Epic Fury, analysts warn that this ideology may become even more entrenched.
Figures such as Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Ahmad Vahidi are often cited as part of a cohort shaped by years of conflict in Iraq and across the region — one that sees religion, security and survival as inseparable.
At the center of that worldview is the belief in the Mahdi — a messianic figure in Shiite Islam whose return is expected to usher in a final era of justice after chaos.
Twelver Shiism is the dominant belief for Shias, the Mahdi, identified as the 12th Imam, is alive but hidden and will one day return. Iran’s political system positions the supreme leader as his caretaker.
Critics say that framework gives political authority a religious dimension that can make it difficult to challenge.
“For the mullahs in Iran, the Mahdi idea is less about personal faith and more about power,” said Lisa Daftari, foreign policy analyst and editor-in-chief at The Foreign Desk. “They use it to suggest that the supreme leader’s views are not just political opinions, but carry a kind of divine weight.”
“The system is set up so that disagreeing with the leader can be portrayed as questioning the Hidden Imam himself,” she said.
“That turns ordinary policy debates into something almost untouchable… you’re no longer arguing with a politician, you’re seen as pushing back against a sacred figure.”
IRAN’S CEASEFIRE PUSH MAY BE A ‘CYCLE OF DECEPTION,’ ANALYSTS WARN AS SHADOWY FIGURE GAINS POWER
Ghadimi argues that this structure leaves little room for genuine political diversity.
“Groups labeled as ‘moderate,’ ‘reformist,’ or ‘pro-Western’ are created so that the West can negotiate with them,” he said.
“No one within the structure of the Islamic Republic thinks about anything other than defeating the Western world and establishing Islamic dominance globally.”
For Iran expert Daftari, the Mahdi doctrine also provides a flexible justification for policy.
“A lot of insiders know perfectly well that this language is being used strategically,” she said. “The Mahdi story gives the leadership a way to claim moral and religious cover for decisions that are often about preserving the regime or expanding its reach.”
“When they talk about ‘preparing the ground’ for the Mahdi, that phrase can be stretched to cover almost anything — crushing protests, backing militias abroad or asking people to accept more economic pain.”
“This religious framing makes compromise much harder,” she added. “If you convince your base that you are carrying out a holy mission… backing down can be painted as a betrayal of God’s plan.”
Ghadimi said that message is reinforced from childhood, shaping how generations understand their role in society.
In schools, media and mosques, he said, ideology was embedded into everyday life, leaving little space for alternative narratives.
That framing, analysts say, helps explain how the system sustains itself even under pressure.
It also contributes to a worldview in which conflict is not temporary, but part of a larger, ongoing struggle.
“The Islamic government, based on its own interpretation of the Quran, considers itself obligated to enforce Islamic law across the entire world,” Ghadimi told Fox News Digital, adding that the regime “sees itself as the leader of this belief globally.”
“They harbor hatred toward Iranians and Jews, whom they regard as enemies of Islam since its very beginning, and they consider killing them—such as on Oct. 7 and in the recent killings in Iran — to be divinely rewarded acts, much like the beliefs once held by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” he said.
“No one within the structure of the Islamic Republic thinks about anything other than defeating the Western world and establishing Islamic dominance globally,” Ghadimi said.
In that framework, critics say, Iran is not simply pursuing national interests but acting within what it sees as a broader religious mandate.
INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL
Some critics argue that within this framework, violence can take on religious meaning.
“They consider killing them… to be divinely rewarded acts,” Ghadimi said.
Still, analysts say the combination of messianic belief and absolutist ideology creates a system in which confrontation is not only expected, but justified.
An Iranian official rejected those characterizations and warned that economic collapse and destruction caused by war could drive long-term resentment.
“If a country is turned into ruins, poverty spreads. Out of such poverty comes hatred, resentment and a desire for revenge, and this cycle of hostility can continue for years. It is not correct to think that everything will simply end the day after a ceasefire. Even if there were no hostile government left in place, people within society who have lost everything may still be driven to seek retribution.”
For Ghadimi, the issue is not just how Iran behaves, but how it understands itself.
If the system is rooted in a belief that blends religion, power and mission, critics say, then policies like repression at home and confrontation abroad may not be temporary tactics but structural features.
And if moderation within that system is limited, as some argue, then the challenge for policymakers is not simply negotiation, but understanding the ideology that drives it.
