After Khamenei, who leads Iran and what’s next? The country enters a critical transition

Dubai: The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — without a formally designated successor — plunges the Islamic Republic into its most critical leadership transition since the 1979 revolution, raising urgent questions about internal stability and the risk of broader regional escalation.

For more than three decades, Khamenei stood at the apex of Iran’s political system, holding ultimate authority over the armed forces, judiciary, intelligence services and state broadcasting.

His absence would not merely create a vacancy; it would test the resilience of the system he spent decades consolidating.

Under Iran’s constitution, the next Supreme Leader is selected by the Assembly of Experts, an 88-member body of clerics elected by the public but vetted by powerful oversight institutions.

The Assembly is empowered to:

Appoint the Supreme Leader

Dismiss him if deemed incapable

Form a temporary leadership council if necessary

When Ruhollah Khomeini died in 1989, the Assembly convened swiftly and elevated Khamenei — then president — despite questions over his clerical rank.

The constitution was amended to lower the religious threshold for the position, allowing a less senior cleric to assume leadership.

A similar fast-tracked decision would now be expected to prevent instability.

Although the Assembly formally votes, real influence lies within Iran’s entrenched power centres — particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Over decades, the Guard evolved into the backbone of the Islamic Republic, commanding elite military units, overseeing ballistic missile forces, and controlling vast economic assets.

In a moment of uncertainty, the IRGC’s stance could prove decisive in shaping consensus around a candidate — or in ensuring continuity through a transitional council.

No clear heir apparent has been officially named. However, several figures have long been viewed as potential contenders:

Mojtaba Khamenei — The Supreme Leader’s son, believed to wield influence behind the scenes. His candidacy would be controversial, potentially criticized as dynastic succession in a system founded on revolutionary principles.

Alireza Arafi — A lesser-known figure, Arafi is an established cleric with a track record in government institutions who was also a confidant of Khamenei.

He currently serves as deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts and has been a member of the powerful Guardian Council, which vets election candidates and laws passed by parliament. He is also head of Iran’s seminary system.

According to Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute, Khamenei’s willingness to appoint Arafi to senior and strategically sensitive positions showed he had “a great deal of confidence in his bureaucratic abilities.” Still, Arafi isn’t known to be a political heavyweight and doesn’t have close ties to the security establishment.

He is said to be tech-savvy and fluent in Arabic and English, as well as having published 24 books and articles, Vatanka wrote.

Hassan Khomeini — Khomeini is the grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, giving him religious and revolutionary legitimacy.

He serves as the custodian of the Khomeini mausoleum but hasn’t held public office and appears to have little influence with the country’s security apparatus or ruling elite. He is known to be less hardline than many of his peers and was barred from running for the Assembly of Experts in 2016.

Also, senior clerics within the conservative establishment — particularly those aligned with the security apparatus — could emerge as compromise figures acceptable to both religious and military elites.

Another scenario involves a leadership council, rather than a single supreme authority, though historically Iran’s system has gravitated toward centralised power.

Khamenei’s tenure coincided with mounting domestic discontent — from the 1999 student protests to the 2009 Green Movement and the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprising. Economic hardship, sanctions and generational shifts have further strained the system.

Externally, Iran remains locked in confrontation with Israel and the United States, with tensions heightened by strikes on nuclear facilities and senior commanders. A leadership vacuum could embolden rivals — or prompt a forceful internal consolidation.

Iran’s constitutional mechanism for succession is clear on paper. But in practice, the transition will hinge on negotiations among clerical elites, security commanders and political hardliners.

Khamenei’s death does not automatically signal systemic collapse. The Islamic Republic was designed with layers of institutional redundancy. Yet without a unifying figure at its summit, the balance between ideological authority and military power may face its most serious test since 1989.

Whether Iran experiences continuity, recalibration or internal rupture will depend on how swiftly and cohesively its ruling establishment moves to fill the void.

The Assembly of Experts convenes

The 88-member Assembly of Experts is constitutionally responsible for selecting the next Supreme Leader. It can appoint a single leader or establish a temporary leadership council.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), now the most powerful institution in Iran, will likely play a decisive behind-the-scenes role in shaping consensus around a successor.

Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son, has long been rumoured to wield influence within security circles. His elevation would be controversial, potentially criticised as dynastic succession.

Ali Larijani — a former parliament speaker, ex-IRGC commander and long-time national security official — is viewed by some analysts as a pragmatic conservative with deep establishment ties. While not among the most senior clerics, he could emerge as a consensus political figure if the system prioritises stability over strict clerical hierarchy.

Iran’s constitution allows for a temporary council instead of a single supreme leader — a mechanism that could ease factional tensions during transition.

With tensions already high following US-Israel strikes, a power vacuum could increase the risk of miscalculation — or prompt a swift hardline consolidation.