LONDON - Not much is known about Ayatollah Seyed Mojtaba Khamenei. He was not a man in the spotlight and his father held the reins of leadership that charted the general course for serving the people, framed by dignity and pride. Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei did not highlight his children, though they are several, and Mojtaba is one of them.

Perhaps this is what drew my attention: that the Leader’s sons lived in the shadows and were not considered centers of power or influence to be exploited, as is often the case with the children of leaders.

I heard that the Leader did not prefer any of his sons to assume leadership, and perhaps he hinted at this to some close associates, as some media outlets reported. But when the Assembly of Experts unanimously agrees on choosing a leader, and agrees on the name Ayatollah Sayed Mojtaba under extremely difficult circumstances, this undoubtedly reflects the many years he spent with his father, in his household, known to all officials.

Their consensus on his character gave him sufficient credibility, that he is qualified and worthy of leadership. They elected him under the most difficult conditions, amid a fierce war aimed at forcing the Islamic Republic into complete submission. When these leaders unite in seeing him as the country’s leader, it means a lot. He himself was unaware of this; he said he saw it on television and did not put himself forward or nominate himself for leadership, unlike competing presidents.

Another aspect of Ayatollah Mojtaba’s personality is his closeness to the people. He would directly check on people’s conditions without intermediaries, sometimes disguising himself and going into the streets and riding taxis to hear people’s real opinions and understand the true situation.

The goal of this was to understand reality in order to propose effective solutions without relying on intermediaries who might distort facts. Taking matters from their sources reveals the true nature of crises and the real problems people face, making solutions more practical and effective. These points are enough to make him a suitable leader for a country like Iran, guiding it safely forward.

He summarized all these goals under the slogan: “The Year of Resistance Economy alongside National Solidarity and National Security.” The approach is resistance, with an economic structure adapted to its needs and consequences. And the goal is strategic national security that includes regional allies, protected by national solidarity and internal unity, under a leadership deeply aware of these objectives. A mature young leadership that moves the country from a stage of absorbing harm to confronting it.

In his first speech, I was surprised by the strategic vision he possessed. He outlined several key matters and strategic steps for governing the state. These were steps that, with the help of institutions and the people, seem to have brought Iran to its current position, moving beyond danger to a stage of imposing conditions.

Among the strategies he presented in his first speech was the Strait of Hormuz. This reflects an understanding of its profound impact on global economies and what it represents as a strategic weapon in the hands of the Islamic Republic if used accordingly. Such a strategic tool could bring the entire world to its knees before Iran, because the world cannot change geography nor Iran’s position overlooking the entire northern side of the Persian Gulf.

Another point he raised was that Iran should not be isolated in solutions and arrangements from its allies, those who share similar ideas and goals in West Asia and a liberated Arab-Islamic region. This includes Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and revolutionary movements resisting occupation.

He considered them one broad front in any agreement that cannot be separated, thereby breaking one of the main goals of American and Zionist dominance, to isolate and target one arena after another and eliminate all liberation movements in the region.

This cohesion represents the shared cause of all parties in the Islamic revolutionary alliance, with the Islamic Republic as its heart. He emphasized that the heart cannot be separated from the rest of the body without weakening both, this was the second strategic line he proposed.

In his speech at the end of Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, and Nowruz, he presented additional points. He outlined the general policy of the Islamic Republic toward its neighbors, focusing on brotherly relations with Islamic countries. He highlighted the eastern front in relations with Pakistan, due to its strategic depth and the potential for cooperation that serves both countries away from American pressure.

Some neighboring Islamic countries, however, host American military and security bases, giving space to forces hostile to the Islamic Ummah, whether out of necessity or interest. Choosing the eastern front is therefore a significant geopolitical and security strategy.

This stands in contrast to the alliance line envisioned by Zionists, an alliance including Israel, India, Cyprus, Greece, and the UAE, publicly proposed by Netanyahu after his belief in eliminating the “Shia axis” and then the emerging “Sunni axis,” to establish an Israel-led axis “from the Euphrates to the Nile.” Such a plan would hand over all of West Asia to Israel to manage American projects while taking its share and monopolizing regional leadership, something that would be catastrophic.