44 years ago this week, a mid-ranking cleric stood before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at Jamaran Hosseinieh and received endorsement as Iran’s president.
The date was October 9, 1981 - just months after assassinations had killed top officials of the Islamic Republic’s leadership and pushed the revolutionary government to the brink of collapse.
That cleric was Seyyed Ali Khamenei, then 42 years old, a man known more for loyalty than charisma, more for ideological rigidity than administrative prowess.
He took office not in triumph but in trauma, inheriting a country engulfed by war with Iraq, beset by internal bombings, and struggling to define what kind of state the Islamic Revolution would create.
Today, 37 years after ascending to supreme leadership following Khomeini’s death, Khamenei remains Iran’s most powerful man.
As economic sanctions strangle the economy, social unrest simmers, and military confrontation with Israel escalates, he continues invoking the language of “progress” and “resistance” - rhetoric forged in those crucible years of the 1980s when he learned a fundamental lesson: crisis, properly managed, can be converted into control.
Understanding how Khamenei used crisis as a tool for consolidating power offers insight into why Iran’s current leadership responds to mounting pressures not with reform but with doubling down on confrontation.
The patterns established four decades ago continue shaping Iranian policy today.
To grasp Khamenei’s rise requires understanding the chaos of the summer of 1981. The Islamic Republic was barely two years old and already fracturing.
President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, elected with popular support, found himself in escalating conflict with the clerical establishment and Khomeini himself.
The parliament moved to impeach him. Street battles between rival revolutionary factions turned deadly.
Then came the bombings. On June 28, a massive explosion ripped through the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party, killing 73 people, including Chief Justice Mohammad Hosseini Beheshti, an architect of its theocratic constitution.
Among the dead were four cabinet ministers, six deputy ministers, and 27 members of parliament.
The country had barely absorbed this blow when, two months later, another bombing killed President Mohammad Ali Rajaei and Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar.
In less than three months, the Islamic Republic lost its top judge, its president, its prime minister, and much of its political brain trust.
The attacks, attributed to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq opposition group, threatened to unravel the revolution itself.
Parliament Speaker Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Supreme Court Chief Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardebili, and Interior Minister Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kani formed an emergency council to organize new presidential elections.
They needed someone unquestionably loyal, ideologically sound, and capable of projecting stability amid catastrophe.
They turned to Khamenei.
Just four months earlier, Khamenei had stood in the Parliament delivering a withering denunciation of Bani-Sadr, the man who became Iran’s first elected president after the revolution.
Khamenei declared Bani-Sadr lacking in “political, moral, and managerial qualifications” for the presidency.
He accused him of disrespecting legal institutions, opposing Khomeini’s leadership, cooperating with counterrevolutionaries, weakening the constitution, and plunging Iran into crisis through arrogance and dishonesty.
Now Khamenei himself would assume that same office, facing challenges that made Bani-Sadr’s problems look manageable.
Iraq’s forces occupied Iranian territory. The economy was collapsing. Armed opposition groups were carrying out a campaign of bombings and assassinations. International isolation was nearly complete.
His nomination met initial hesitation within revolutionary circles. Khamenei was a second-tier figure, known as a Friday prayer leader in Tehran but lacking the scholarly credentials, political experience, or popular following of senior ayatollahs.
What he possessed was unwavering loyalty to Khomeini and an ability to articulate revolutionary ideology in uncompromising terms.
Khomeini’s endorsement settled the matter. The Islamic Republican Party, the Combatant Clergy Association, and other revolutionary institutions rallied behind Khamenei.
In the October 1 election, authorities disqualified 42 candidates. Those permitted to run - Ali Akbar Parvaresh, Hassan Ghafouri-Fard, Reza Zavarei, and Khamenei — represented variations on revolutionary orthodoxy, not genuine alternatives.
Khamenei’s campaign emphasized supporting “the oppressed,” eliminating what he called “tyrannical culture,” and mobilizing human talent for reconstruction.
On foreign policy, he promised complete independence from both East and West. Above all, he stressed the fight against Israel - not as one priority among many, but as an existential imperative.
“If the Iranian Revolution succeeds within these borders, that does not mean we should be satisfied and think we have achieved final victory,” he had said the previous year.
“As long as this festering wound, this putrid abscess in the heart of Islamic and Arab lands called the usurper state of Israel exists, we cannot feel victorious; we cannot tolerate our enemy’s presence beside us, in our occupied lands.”
The election produced the results revolutionary leaders wanted: 16 million votes for Khamenei, representing 95 percent of ballots cast, with 74 percent turnout. The Islamic Republic declared the outcome proof of popular loyalty to “the Imam and revolution.”
On October 9, 1981, during ceremonies coinciding with Eid al-Adha, Khomeini formally endorsed Khamenei’s presidency at Jamaran Hosseinieh.
“Almighty God blessed us by guiding public opinion to elect a committed and militant president, in the straight path of Islam and knowledgeable in religion and politics,” Khomeini wrote.
Three weeks later, Khamenei appointed Mir Hossein Mousavi as prime minister, forming the Islamic Republic’s third government.
The division of power was clear from the start: Mousavi would manage the economy and domestic affairs while Rafsanjani would handle war strategy and coordination.
Khamenei’s role was to embody revolutionary legitimacy and maintain unity among competing revolutionary factions.
By mid-1983, with the war entering its third year, Khamenei had developed a coherent vision of what the Islamic Republic should be.
He described a system where ultimate authority belonged to God but operated through popular participation and consent.
Legitimacy derived not from democratic elections in the Western sense but from combining the “religious qualification of the ruler” with “people’s acceptance.”
Citizens served not merely as voters but as active participants in jihad, financial contributions, and governance.
The Islamic Republic was “the government of the oppressed,” serving the masses rather than elites. Its enemies were “Western and Zionist propaganda networks seeking to divide people from the government.”
Khamenei had delivered Tehran’s first Friday prayer sermon after Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, framing the conflict not as a border dispute but as an existential battle between faith and disbelief.
He compared it to the Battle of the Trench in early Islam, when Medina’s Muslims faced overwhelming enemies.
America, he argued, intended to destroy Iran and crush the revolution. Instead, the war would spread Islamic revolution and begin “Islam’s global conquests.” Iraq was only “the gateway to conquests.”
In The Unfinished History of the Iran-Iraq War, historian Annie Tracy Samuel argues that Khamenei’s contribution during his presidency was not military strategy but political management.
He was not a battlefield commander but a politician who balanced competing power centers — Revolutionary Guards, regular army, clergy, and government bureaucracy — and forged from their rivalry a functional war machine.
His key achievement was bridging the bitter divide between the Revolutionary Guards, zealous but undisciplined, and the regular army, professional but politically suspect.
Forcing these institutions to cooperate in planning major operations enabled Iran’s successes, including the May 1982 liberation of Khorramshahr, a victory that became central to revolutionary mythology.
Khamenei visited the fronts more than any other senior politician, appearing in military fatigues among Basij militia and Guards forces.
These images transformed him from a second-tier cleric into a symbol linking religious authority, governmental power, and battlefield sacrifice.
But his most important contribution happened beyond the battlefield.
Samuel says Khamenei understood earlier than most that war served not only as military confrontation but as a source of legitimacy rooted in collective memory and narrative control.
During his presidency, he initiated a project to systematize “the war narrative.”
With his support, institutions like the War Studies and Research Center were established. Their purpose was not simply documenting military operations but creating a unified narrative framing all aspects of the war - victories and defeats alike - within an overarching concept: “Sacred Defense.”
Controlling how Iranians remembered the war, Khamenei grasped, meant controlling how they understood the revolution itself.
He viewed war fundamentally as opportunity. In a 1982 interview, believing victory was near, he said: “We emerged from this state of negligence and gained attention… Our army became cohesive, our Guards strengthened… Among our people, the spirit of jihad came alive… People set aside comfort-seeking, forgot premature expectations, and got used to hardships.”
When Iran accepted a ceasefire in August 1988 - Khomeini famously called it “drinking the cup of poison” - Khamenei immediately began reframing the war’s meaning.
In a Friday sermon, he said, “What you great nation accomplished in these eight years laid the foundation for an inexhaustible national pride. Is eight years of war a joke? This defense of yours preserved this nation’s honor and independence.”
The war transformed from an unfinished revolutionary project into a completed founding myth, proof of the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy and the revolution’s permanence.
In the spring of 1989, weeks before Khomeini’s death, Khamenei made an official trip to China and North Korea.
Iran, emerging from eight years of war into economic devastation and diplomatic isolation, sought new partnerships to balance against the West and the Soviet Union.
The visit to Beijing focused on economic cooperation. But the journey’s symbolic significance crystallized in Pyongyang.
North Korean officials provided extensive welcoming ceremonies. Khamenei met Kim Il Sung and delivered a speech to the Supreme People’s Assembly that Iranian television broadcast live.
He spoke of “independence of nations,” “common struggle against imperialism,” and “the right to resist global domination.”
Khomeini had followed the trip with great interest. Ahmad Khomeini, the son of the revolution’s founder, later recalled visiting his ailing father, who, after watching Khamenei’s speech in North Korea, said, “He is worthy of leadership.”
When Khomeini died on June 3, 1989, the Assembly of Experts convened to choose his successor. Senior ayatollahs had stronger religious credentials, and several names were discussed.
But a recollection by Rafsanjani—who chaired the Assembly—of Khomeini’s alleged remark about Khamenei, reinforced by Ahmad Khomeini’s testimony, turned the tide. Within hours, Khamenei, despite lacking the formal clerical rank required, was elevated to Iran’s most powerful position.
Khamenei moved immediately to secure his authority. In successive meetings with army and Revolutionary Guards commanders, he said, “Our path is the Imam’s path; our goals are the Imam’s goals.”
He told the army to maintain wartime discipline and faith in peacetime. Before the IRGC, he acknowledged Khomeini’s absence as “the orphanhood of the Islamic world” but quickly added, “His legacy is in our hands; the Islamic Republic is his legacy.”
He called the IRGC “the light of the revolution’s eyes” and emphasized simultaneously strengthening both the IRGC and the regular army.
Three days after the founder’s death, Khamenei had established a new order based on faith, readiness, and military authority.
From the beginning, he intertwined supreme religious and political leadership with military power in ways Khomeini never had.
Today, as Iran faces its most serious challenges since the 1980s - economic crisis, social unrest, military conflict with Israel, diplomatic isolation - Khamenei responds with the methods he learned 40 years ago.
Crisis is not a problem requiring policy adjustment but an opportunity for demonstrating resolve, demanding sacrifice, and consolidating control.
Interested in writing for IranWire?
Share your stories.
comments