Tehran and the 900-Year Ayatollah Mentality: A Call for Historic Transparency and Political Renewal with Updates

Based on Ayatollah Khamenei’s September 23, 2025 speech—which firmly rejected negotiations with the United States and emphasize on Iran's national strength

A modern, well-structured political infrastructure is the cornerstone of a nation's strength because it ensures stability, accountability, and adaptability in the face of internal and external challenges. It provides the legal and institutional frameworks through which power is exercised transparently, rights are protected, and public resources are managed efficiently. 

When governance systems are inclusive, technologically integrated, and responsive to citizens’ needs, they foster trust, attract investment, and enable long-term development. Moreover, such infrastructure empowers societies to uphold justice, navigate crises, and evolve with global shifts—making it not just a tool of administration, but a strategic asset that defines national resilience and credibility.

Pan-Iranist Progressive interprets today's political dynamics in Tehran not as isolated developments, but as a historical extension of governance models rooted in Shiraz and Isfahan during the Zand and Safavid dynasties. From this perspective, Tehran’s centralized authority, symbolic architecture, and strategic messaging reflect inherited patterns of statecraft—where cultural legitimacy, urban planning, and elite control were used to consolidate power and shape national identity. 

The Safavid emphasis on clerical influence and Isfahan’s role as a curated imperial capital, alongside the Zand dynasty’s pragmatic administration from Shiraz, are seen as prototypes for Tehran’s modern political infrastructure. This continuity underscores how historical governance templates continue to inform Iran’s present-day political choreography, often at the expense of democratic reform and institutional modernization.

Here’s a structured overview of major flawed policies during the Safavid and Zand dynasties, with attention to religious dogma, administrative dysfunction, and the historical roots of Sunni-Shia unity efforts—particularly under the Afshar dynasty:

Safavid Dynasty (1501–1722)

1. State-Imposed Shiism and Sectarian Exclusivity Shiism was declared the official religion, leading to persecution of Sunnis and suppression of religious diversity. This entrenched sectarian divides and fostered long-term instability.

2. Fusion of Religious and Political Authority The Shah claimed descent from the Imams and ruled as both spiritual and temporal leader, creating a theocratic model that blurred governance with superstition and divine right ideology.

3. Empowerment of the Qizilbash Tribes Tribal militias were granted excessive autonomy, undermining centralized control and creating internal power struggles that weakened the state.

4. Weak Bureaucratic Structure Offices like the ṣadr (religious head) and wazīr (civil administrator) had overlapping and ill-defined roles, leading to administrative confusion and inefficiency.

5. Neglect of Provincial Integration Governors operated as semi-independent rulers, remitting minimal revenue and resisting central oversight, which fragmented national cohesion.

Zand Dynasty (1750–1794)

1. Lack of Institutional Reform Despite Karim Khan Zand’s benevolent rule, the dynasty failed to establish enduring institutions or a modern administrative framework.

2. Figurehead Monarchy Karim Khan ruled as regent for a Safavid prince, maintaining symbolic continuity but avoiding full sovereign authority, which limited structural innovation.

3. Succession Instability Post-Karim Khan, rapid turnover of rulers and internal disputes led to fragmentation and vulnerability to external threats.

4. Limited Religious Reform While less theocratic than the Safavids, the Zand dynasty did not challenge entrenched clerical influence or promote pluralistic religious policy.

Afshar Dynasty and the Roots of Sunni-Shia Unity

• Nader Shah Afshar’s Religious Pragmatism Unlike the Safavids, Nader Shah sought to reconcile Sunni and Shia factions. He proposed recognizing Shiism as a fifth school of Sunni Islam to reduce sectarian tension—a precursor to the modern concept of Unity Week.

• Diplomatic Outreach to the Ottoman Empire His efforts to normalize relations with Sunni powers reflected a strategic, inclusive approach to religious identity, contrasting sharply with Safavid exclusivism.

Conclusion

The Safavid and Zand dynasties institutionalized sectarianism, centralized superstition, and failed to modernize governance. In contrast, the Afshar dynasty—though short-lived—planted the seeds of Sunni-Shia reconciliation through pragmatic statecraft. The concept of Unity Week, often attributed to later clerical initiatives, arguably reflects this royal heritage of inclusive diplomacy.

Other titles discussed in the article

• From Baghdad to Tehran: Unmasking 900 Years of Ayatollah Governance
• Historic Transparency in Tehran: Breaking the Ayatollah Cycle
• Political Capital in Crisis: Tehran’s Struggle Against Centuries of Clerical Control
• Ayatollah Legacy vs. Modern Iran: 900 Years Without Political Infrastructure
• Tehran’s Turning Point: Dismantling the Ayatollah Mentality Through Transparency

The Crisis of Political Infrastructure in Iran

Pan-Iranist Progressive finds no meaningful value in the current presidential election debates. The absence of a modern, proper political infrastructure renders these discussions hollow. No candidate has emerged with a credible political party that reflects public empowerment or labor representation. Without a party structure that is acceptable to labor activists and wage negotiators, especially over the past two decades, presidential candidacy lacks proper political party legitimacy. If it is not political, then do not apply to become a president.

Pan-Iranist progressive compiled a list of organizations and macro policies within the Islamic Republic of Iran that have obstructed the development of a modern and functional political infrastructure.

• Guardian Council Vets and disqualifies electoral candidates, particularly reformists and independents, restricting political diversity and democratic participation.
• Assembly of Experts Tasked with overseeing the Supreme Leader but lacks transparency and independence, functioning more as a rubber-stamp body than a genuine supervisory institution.
• Expediency Discernment Council Resolves legislative conflicts but often reinforces conservative dominance, sidelining reformist legislation and stalling institutional modernization.
• Basij Organization A paramilitary force under IRGC command used to suppress dissent, enforce ideological conformity, and intimidate civil society.
• State-Controlled Media (e.g., IRIB) Monopolizes public broadcasting, limits free expression, and promotes state narratives while marginalizing alternative viewpoints.

Macro Policies Undermining Modern Governance

• Centralized Theocratic Authority The Supreme Leader’s unchecked power overrides elected institutions, stifling democratic evolution and institutional accountability.
• Opaque Economic Management Dominance of state monopolies and IRGC-linked enterprises discourages private sector growth, transparency, and innovation.
• Sanctions-Evasion Strategies Reliance on shadow banking and illicit trade networks prioritizes regime survival over long-term reform and global integration.
• Anti-Western Foreign Policy Doctrine Limits diplomatic engagement and isolates Iran from international governance standards and cooperative development.
• Militarized Budget Priorities Excessive spending on defense and regional interventions diverts resources from infrastructure, education, and public welfare.
• Corruption and Patronage Networks Endemic graft among elites erodes public trust, misallocates resources, and entrenches systemic inefficiencies.
• Suppression of Civil Society Restrictions on NGOs, unions, and independent media prevent civic participation, grassroots accountability, and institutional reform.

Ayatollah Mentality and the Failure of Political Development

The modern Ayatollah mentality has failed to develop a modern political framework for nearly half a century. Presidents Mahmood and Hasan both navigated this broken system, and the result has been continued suffering for the Iranian people. The Ayatollahs have long operated as a clerical elite, disconnected from the democratic demands of the population.

Their ideological lineage traces back 900 years, to Baghdad, and even further to 1300 years ago, when religious authority began to intertwine with governance. This historical arc includes the conversion of Mongol rulers to Islam under clerical influence—a moment often romanticized to justify religious dominance in politics.

They have been in politics for centuries already. But longevity does not equal legitimacy.

Sufi Resistance and the Legacy of Mansoor al-Hallaj

Pan-Iranist Progressive Principal grew up in the Nematollahi Sufi community in Isfahan, where our global leader held a PhD in psychiatry and lived in London. Our local sheikh in Isfahan showed remarkable tolerance in the face of hostility from the Ayatollah establishment. This hostility dates back to the assassination of Mansoor al-Hallaj, a mystic executed in Baghdad nearly 900 years ago.

Hallaj’s declaration—“There is nothing in my cloak except Allah”—was not a claim to divinity, but a mystical expression of Fana, the annihilation of self in divine presence. He fasted, prayed, and performed pilgrimage. Yet, the Ayatollah mentality condemned him, unable to grasp the depth of Sufi realization. His execution was a tragedy born of literalism and fear.

True understanding of Hallaj requires walking the Sufi path, reaching Fana ul Fana, and progressing to Baqa under the guidance of a capable sheikh. Otherwise, one risks becoming Majzoob—lost in divine ecstasy without direction.

Al-Hallaj’s Execution: Political Suppression Beneath the Cloak of Heresy in Abbasid Baghdad

The execution of Mansoor al-Hallaj in 922 CE, often framed as a religious punishment for heresy, was in fact deeply political—especially when viewed through the lens of Baghdad’s Iranian population and the broader socio-political tensions of the Abbasid era. 

Al-Hallaj, a Persian mystic from Fars, had gained significant influence among diverse communities, including many Iranians living in Baghdad who were drawn to his radical spiritual teachings and populist rhetoric. His emphasis on direct divine experience and critiques of religious formalism challenged not only orthodox Sunni scholars but also the political legitimacy of the Abbasid caliphate, which relied heavily on religious authority to maintain control.

At the time, Baghdad was a cosmopolitan center with a substantial Iranian demographic—many of whom were marginalized within the Arab-dominated power structure. Al-Hallaj’s popularity among these groups threatened the status quo, as his message resonated with those disillusioned by both theological rigidity and political exclusion. 

His execution, orchestrated by the Abbasid elite and sanctioned by conservative jurists, served to silence a figure who had become a symbol of dissent and spiritual autonomy. In this context, the killing of al-Hallaj was not merely a theological verdict—it was a calculated move to suppress a growing undercurrent of Iranian-influenced resistance and to reassert centralized control over Baghdad’s volatile religious and ethnic landscape.

Amir Kabir, Royal Heritage, and the Atomic Kittens

Say it: Diamonds. Treasures. Royal Heritage. Amir Kabir’s legacy is not just governmental—it is cultural and historical. Yet during the presidential debates, even the so-called “atomic kittens” who aspire to luxury lifestyles acknowledged the harassment faced by his descendants. This is not nostalgia—it is a reminder of ongoing injustice.

Lotf Ali Khan and the Retaliation Against Shrine Politics

In memory of Lotf Ali Khan, the prince who should have been king, Pan-Iranist Progressive proposes a radical legislative act: destroy every Imam Zadeh shrine built in the last 900 years without proper identification. If defenders of these shrines cannot produce historical evidence—like the documented lineage of President Ibrahim’s family—then expect super tax retaliation for legal obstruction.

This is not symbolic. It is a political cleansing of fabricated sanctity used to suppress national heritage.

Pan-Iranist Progressive: Steel in Spirit, Clear in Purpose

We are not sentimental. We are not ambiguous. We are empowered by the spirit of Shahanshah Bahram V and the legacy of Karvan. We do not tolerate the distortion of history, the misuse of religion, or the erosion of public service vocabulary.

Service public is not a slogan—it is a political responsibility. To invoke it without institutional reform is to insult the people.