The rise of Ali Khamenei to power and his sustained ideological influence must be understood through the lens of structural realism. His intellectual formation and political strategy were never disconnected from the larger realities of power politics, the security dilemma, and the cultural dimensions of hegemonic competition. Unlike Western portrayals that often emphasise personality or idiosyncrasy, Khamenei’s trajectory reflects a rational response to the constraints and threats faced by a vulnerable state in an anarchic international system.
Khamenei was born in 1939 in Mashhad, Iran, into a low-income clerical family. His social positioning from the outset placed him in a class that traditionally served as the intellectual and religious backbone of Iranian society but lacked direct access to political and economic power. His early life was marked by exposure to Shi’a religious tradition and a highly structured education in Islamic sciences. From a young age, he pursued rigorous studies in logic, jurisprudence, and philosophy under the guidance of scholars like Ayatollah Borujerdi and Ayatollah Khomeini.
This background is not a romantic tale of spiritual discovery. Iran, as a historically vulnerable state surrounded by powerful rivals and subjected to foreign interference, required leaders who could understand that survival in such an environment depends on both material power and ideological cohesion. Khamenei’s formative education directly addressed the need to develop an intellectual framework capable of resisting external dominance.
Khamenei’s engagement with Sayyid Qutb
Importantly, Khamenei’s intellectual curiosity extended beyond Islamic sources. He systematically engaged with Western philosophers, novelists, and political theorists, not because he was sympathetic to Western liberalism, but because he understood the necessity of comprehending the ideological tools used by hegemonic powers to extend their influence. His exposure to thinkers like Tolstoy, Sartre, Russell, and Hugo was a tactical exercise, not a cultural reconciliation. He sought to understand the West’s internal logic, not to emulate it.
Khamenei’s later translation of Sayyid Qutb’s works was a direct intervention in the ideological battles of the Muslim world. His focus on Qutb’s critique of Western materialism and advocacy for Islamic governance was not incidental. Khamenei recognised that cultural penetration, what he later consistently termed the “cultural invasion”, was one of the primary instruments through which Western powers eroded the sovereignty of less powerful states. The decision to translate and promote Qutb’s works was a calculated effort to weaponise ideology as a defensive mechanism.
Khamenei’s engagement with Qutb’s framing of monotheism as a rejection of all forms of social and political subjugation reveals a key realist calculation. In his view, religious doctrine was not simply a matter of belief but an essential instrument in the state’s arsenal for resisting foreign domination. Monotheism, as articulated by Qutb and appropriated by Khamenei, functioned as a cohesive national ideology designed to fortify Iran against external influence.
Ali Khamenei against the West
From the 1990s onwards, Khamenei’s public speeches consistently demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of soft power as a tool of imperial projection. His denunciation of Western popular culture, Hollywood, consumerism, and Western music was not an abstract cultural critique. He identified these as deliberate instruments of soft imperialism, capable of undermining Iran’s cultural sovereignty, fracturing its social cohesion, and weakening the state from within.
Khamenei’s response to this threat was structural. He prioritised the creation of an extensive cultural regulatory framework, including strict media censorship, the promotion of domestic cultural production, and the alignment of the educational system with state ideology. These efforts were rational strategies designed to prevent cultural infiltration from becoming a vector for broader political subversion.
Critically, Khamenei’s perception of Western cultural exports was consistent with the basic assumptions of structural realism. In an anarchic system, where there is no overarching authority to protect states, survival depends on maximising relative power. Khamenei’s cultural policies were not about cultural purity; they were about safeguarding Iran’s relative position in the international system by resisting ideological subordination to the West.
Khamenei did not view the distinction between soft and hard power as analytically useful. For him, cultural influence and military coercion were part of the same strategic continuum. He believed that Western powers, particularly the United States, were systematically employing cultural hegemony to weaken adversarial states without direct military intervention. His policy responses were designed to close this gap.
The Western View of Khamenei
The Western narrative often frames Khamenei’s cultural controls as authoritarian excesses or as evidence of a closed society. From a realist perspective, this is a misreading. Khamenei understood that cultural autonomy is a critical component of state survival in a world where hegemonic powers weaponise cultural norms and values to establish ideological dominance. His policies reflect a rational assessment of asymmetric competition.
Khamenei’s broader geopolitical behaviour further supports this interpretation. His cultural resistance is not isolated from Iran’s foreign policy or military doctrine. The same structural concerns that drive Iran’s regional balancing, such as its support for Hezbollah, its investment in asymmetric warfare, and its reliance on missile deterrence, also underpin its cultural policies. In each domain, Khamenei’s strategy is consistent: deny the United States and its allies the ability to dominate Iran, whether through military means, economic pressure, or cultural influence.
From a realist standpoint, Khamenei’s intellectual formation, his embrace of Qutb’s anti-imperialism, and his cultural policies must be seen as interconnected elements of a comprehensive survival strategy. He does not believe in liberal peace theory, nor does he entertain the idea that economic interdependence will pacify hegemonic competition. He sees the international system as inherently hostile, and his entire strategic posture reflects this fundamental assumption.
His systematic critique of Western imperialism, his rejection of cultural relativism, and his control over Iran’s media and educational sectors are all designed to harden Iran against the pressures of an international system dominated by Western powers. His policies are consistent with the logic of balancing behaviour in the face of systemic threats.
Is Khamenei’s ideology only theocratic or parochial?
It is analytically inaccurate to interpret Khamenei’s cultural positions as purely theocratic or parochial. They are deeply political, deeply strategic, and fully integrated into Iran’s broader foreign policy architecture. For Khamenei, cultural resistance is not a secondary concern; it is an essential line of defence against hegemonic encirclement.
Khamenei’s intellectual development, his cultural policies, and his foreign policy behaviour are best understood through a realist framework. His actions are not driven by ideology alone but by a structural assessment of Iran’s position in the international system. His consistent objective has been to prevent Iran from becoming a subordinate state in an American-led order.
This is why Khamenei’s opposition to Western cultural influence has been so persistent and uncompromising. He does not see cultural penetration as a soft phenomenon; he sees it as an extension of hegemonic power, and therefore as a direct threat to Iran’s survival. His cultural policies are, in this sense, no different from his investment in missile capabilities or his regional alliances. All are designed to increase Iran’s strategic autonomy in a fundamentally competitive world.
From this perspective, Ali Khamenei’s intellectual journey is not a story of personal evolution; it is a case study in the logic of state survival under the conditions of international anarchy.
About the author: Kishan Kumar is a graduate in Economics from the University of Delhi with a strong interest in politics, policy, and media. Follow him on X (Twitter): @FreezingHindoo.
Note: The opinions in the article are those of the author alone and do not reflect the Editorial Line of ForPol.
