New remarks by a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts have provided one of the most detailed public accounts to date of the process that led to the selection of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s third Supreme Leader. Mohsen Heidari Al-Kathir, a representative from Khuzestan Province in the Assembly of Experts, recently described the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the leadership vote held on March 8. According to his account, members of the Assembly were transported under heavy security measures and in great haste to the meeting location amid wartime conditions and concerns over potential attacks.
.jpg){kind=link}
Heidari stated that the meeting was held under exceptional security conditions and that a large majority of Assembly members participated in the proceedings. At the same time, he revealed that some members were not informed of the meeting and therefore did not attend, despite the fact that the Assembly ultimately achieved the quorum required to make a valid decision.
Perhaps most notably, Heidari stated that Mojtaba Khamenei’s name was not initially included among the candidates presented to the Assembly. According to his account, members were first presented with the names of Sadegh Larijani and Alireza Arafi. Heidari said that he and several other members objected to the omission of Mojtaba Khamenei from the list of candidates. Following those objections, Mojtaba Khamenei’s name was introduced for consideration, after which he ultimately received overwhelming support from Assembly members.
The comments offer a rare glimpse into a process that has largely remained behind closed doors. Since the leadership transition, Iranian officials have released only limited information about the deliberations that took place before the vote. Heidari’s remarks also shed light on the reasoning offered by some supporters of Mojtaba Khamenei’s candidacy. According to previous statements by Heidari, one of the considerations discussed during the succession process was a view attributed to the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran’s next leader should be someone who is “hated by the enemy” rather than praised by it.
In this context, Heidari pointed to public statements by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Mojtaba Khamenei. Before the leadership transition was finalized, Trump publicly identified Mojtaba as a likely successor and described such an outcome as “unacceptable.” In separate comments, Trump suggested that the United States should have a role in shaping Iran’s future leadership and expressed opposition to Mojtaba assuming the position. For Heidari and other supporters of the new leader, those statements were viewed as evidence that Mojtaba Khamenei fit the criterion of being opposed by Iran’s principal adversaries rather than accepted by them. While it remains unclear how influential this argument was in the final deliberations, Heidari’s comments suggest that Trump’s public hostility toward Mojtaba Khamenei was discussed by at least some members of the Assembly during the succession process.
Public statements from other members of the Assembly have largely emphasized the legitimacy of the process and their view of the qualifications of the new leader. In a statement issued following the transition, the Assembly of Experts said that despite direct threats and attacks on facilities associated with the Assembly’s secretariat, the constitutional process for selecting a new leader continued without interruption.
Several senior clerics have subsequently defended the choice. Ayatollah Gholamali Safaei Bushehri stated that the new leader possesses exceptional religious and scholarly qualifications and enjoys the support of leading seminaries. Ayatollah Ali Akbar Rashad similarly argued that Mojtaba Khamenei accepted the position only after repeated insistence from Assembly members and that the decision was reached through consultation and coordination among senior figures.
Other members have focused on the importance of national unity following the transition. Ayatollah Seyed Hassan Ameli, Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri, and several other Assembly members have called on Iranians to support the new leader, arguing that political cohesion is particularly important given the country’s current security challenges.
Heidari himself has previously described the vote as taking place under exceptional wartime conditions, stating that Mojtaba Khamenei ultimately secured approximately 90 percent of the votes cast. He characterized the decision as one made without public campaigning or political maneuvering and argued that it reflected a broad consensus among participating members.
The latest comments have attracted attention because they provide one of the first public descriptions of how candidates were discussed inside the Assembly before the final vote. While the Assembly’s constitutional authority to select the Supreme Leader has not been challenged by any official institution, Heidari’s account suggests that there was meaningful debate regarding the candidates under consideration and that Mojtaba Khamenei was not among the initial names presented to members.
The remarks also offer a rare glimpse into how Iran’s political and religious establishment navigated a leadership transition under wartime conditions. Many details of the process remain undisclosed, including the full list of candidates considered, the extent of debate among members, and the criteria ultimately used to reach a consensus.
For now, the available public accounts indicate that the Assembly of Experts convened under extraordinary security circumstances, considered multiple candidates, and ultimately selected Mojtaba Khamenei by an overwhelming majority vote. As additional information emerges, attention is likely to focus not only on the outcome of the succession process but also on the internal deliberations that shaped one of the most consequential decisions in the history of the Islamic Republic.