Maryam Habib (Director at the Islamabad Institute for Interfaith Harmony and Public Life, Islamabad)

Tehran’s corridors of power continue to echo the intellectual legacy of Imam Khomeini as Iranian policymakers navigate the complex terrain of international politics. More than four decades after the Islamic Revolution his teachings remain the compass for Iran’s foreign policy. The core of his doctrine is independence from Western domination and reliance on divine justice as the foundation of governance. This ideological stance continues to define Iran’s posture in the face of mounting pressure from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations Security Council. Despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation Iran’s strategy still flows from the moral architecture built by Khomeini who warned that Western powers would always seek to control Muslim nations through economic dependence and cultural manipulation.

The persistence of sanctions has not shattered Iran’s resolve but has instead strengthened its determination to build a self-reliant economy. Khomeini’s principle of resistance against oppression remains at the heart of this response. Iranian leaders have repeatedly invoked his emphasis on dignity and perseverance in the face of foreign coercion. Each round of sanctions, whether related to nuclear activities or alleged regional interventions, has been portrayed not as punishment but as proof of Western fear of Islamic independence. The economic resistance strategy promoted by successive governments in Tehran echoes Khomeini’s call for self-sufficiency and rejection of Western financial systems. By turning sanctions into a moral battlefield Iran projects its endurance as a form of national honour.

The role of the United Nations Security Council has often been viewed in Tehran through the lens of Khomeini’s scepticism toward global institutions dominated by Western powers. He once argued that international law would serve the interests of the strong unless it was grounded in justice and moral equality. This outlook still shapes Iranian diplomacy, where every resolution or restriction from the Security Council is seen as a reflection of political manipulation rather than impartial governance. Iran’s representatives often remind the global community that Western powers used the Council as a tool during the Iraq War and continue to apply double standards when dealing with the nuclear programmes of allies and adversaries. The legacy of Khomeini’s political philosophy empowers Iranian diplomats to frame such actions as imperial arrogance disguised as multilateral consensus.

The unshakable alliance between the United States and Israel remains a focal point of Iran’s foreign policy resistance. Khomeini’s interpretation of Quranic justice condemned the oppression of any people and he regarded the Palestinian struggle as a universal duty of the Muslim world. This moral foundation continues to define Iran’s support for resistance movements in the region. Iranian officials consistently describe Washington’s Middle Eastern policy as an extension of colonial ambition, aimed at maintaining control through Israel’s military and intelligence superiority. Even as regional dynamics shift with new Arab-Israeli normalisation agreements, Iran adheres to Khomeini’s warning that peace without justice is submission. The Iranian state therefore interprets its confrontation with Israel not merely as a geopolitical rivalry but as a continuation of its revolutionary responsibility to defend the oppressed.

European Union diplomacy, despite its softer tone, has also failed to gain Tehran’s full trust. From Iran’s perspective the EU acts as a secondary pillar of US policy rather than an independent mediator. Khomeini’s critique of cultural imperialism predicted that Europe would pursue influence under the cover of human rights and democracy while aligning economically and militarily with American strategies. This perception still guides Iranian caution during negotiations with European powers. The collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action after US withdrawal in 2018 reaffirmed Khomeini’s insight that reliance on Western promises leads only to humiliation. Even as European leaders advocate dialogue they continue to support sanctions and limit technological cooperation, reinforcing Tehran’s conviction that the West operates as a single civilisational bloc.

Within this strategic environment NATO’s expanding activities in the Middle East are seen by Iran as further evidence of Western encirclement. The alliance’s presence in the Persian Gulf and cooperation with regional monarchies reflect what Iranian analysts describe as a hidden agenda to contain Islamic self-determination. Khomeini’s teachings warned that military alliances under Western command would always protect imperial interests. This principle still drives Iran’s determination to strengthen ties with non-Western partners such as Russia, China, and the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. These partnerships are viewed not only as political necessity but as moral realisation of Khomeini’s call for an international front against domination.

Iran’s leaders frequently refer to Khomeini’s concept of spiritual sovereignty to explain their endurance under isolation. They argue that power is not measured by military arsenals or global approval but by the ability to maintain moral direction against all pressures. The Islamic Republic’s diplomatic doctrine, often described as resistance diplomacy, mirrors this belief. It blends pragmatism with ideological consistency by seeking tactical engagement without compromising the foundational principle of independence. Even when negotiating with adversaries Iranian officials maintain a rhetoric of defiance framed by Khomeini’s understanding of honour. This balance allows Iran to participate in global politics while preserving its revolutionary identity.

Across Tehran’s academic and religious institutions Khomeini’s thought continues to guide analysis of global affairs. His interpretation of Quranic verses related to justice and resistance provides the ethical justification for confronting Western power structures. Iranian universities teach his writings not only as theological material but as political strategy. His discourse on the unity of the oppressed has become a moral framework through which Iran views conflicts from Gaza to Yemen. The state’s media outlets constantly remind citizens that steadfastness is a sacred duty and that submission to foreign dictates would betray the martyrs of the revolution. This narrative sustains public morale during times of hardship and sanctions fatigue.

Despite constant pressure Iran’s leadership remains confident in its path. Khomeini’s vision of a self-reliant Islamic civilisation has become the moral engine of national endurance. Each new wave of Western hostility seems to reinforce rather than weaken the commitment to this vision. Tehran’s foreign policy thus remains less a reaction to Western aggression and more a continuation of Khomeini’s revolutionary philosophy. His doctrine of divine sovereignty stands as both a political shield and a moral weapon in a world where material power still dominates global politics. The endurance of his teachings proves that ideas born in the seminaries of Qom continue to shape the strategic will of a nation that refuses to bow before empire.