1. A Theocratic Regime in Hitchens’s Eyes
Hitchens regarded the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a tragic hijacking of popular aspirations. What began as a broad-based uprising against authoritarian monarchy and for dignity and social justice was, in his view, “turned into a clerical dictatorship” by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his successors. Hitchens saw this process not as the fulfillment of a true democratic revolution, but as a counter-revolution: the imposition of a religious oligarchy that suppressed the very freedoms the Iranian people had fought for.
His critiques rested on two main pillars:
-
The regime’s denial of basic autonomy to the Iranian people. Hitchens pointed out that under the rule of the clerical establishment, citizens were deprived of meaningful political agency and treated as wards of the state rather than full participants in their own governance.
-
The cultural and informational repression enacted by the clerical authorities. He argued that the regime’s efforts to block satellite dishes, control media, and suppress dissent were ultimately futile in an era of global connectivity, and that the Iranian people would continue to assert their desire for freedom.
Taken together, these criticisms show that Hitchens did not salute the clerical leadership of Iran — whether under Khomeini or his successors — as legitimate representatives of popular will. Instead, he saw them as part of a theocratic structure at odds with the aspirations of ordinary Iranians.
2. The Iranian People vs. the Clerical Elite
Perhaps the clearest through-line in Hitchens’s view was his distinction between the Iranian people and the clerical regime that ruled them. Drawing from his own travels and conversations, he insisted that Iranian society — especially its younger generations — was not inherently supportive of religious authoritarianism. Many Iranians, he believed, simply wanted basic freedoms: of expression, of inquiry, and of personal autonomy.
For Hitchens, this meant that any moment of potential political rupture — including the death of a Supreme Leader — was not merely geopolitical news but a human opportunity: a potential catalyst for real popular change. He was not an advocate for external military intervention, but he did champion the idea that Iranians themselves should have the freedom to determine their own future.
3. On the Death of a Supreme Leader
Given these principles, here is how Hitchens would likely have interpreted the reported death of a Supreme Leader of Iran:
-
He would not have mourned the passing of a theocratic ruler. Hitchens’s secular humanism led him to be critical of religious authority as such, and the Iranian Supreme Leader was the apex of that authority. Theocratic power, in Hitchens’s view, inevitably clashed with the values of free inquiry and open society.
-
He would have expressed sympathy for the Iranian people. Rather than focusing on the death of a ruler, Hitchens’s attention would have shifted to the people most affected: Iranians who had been denied civil liberties and whose protests for reform had repeatedly been suppressed.
-
He would have seen the event not as an endpoint but as a historic opening. For Hitchens, any weakening of entrenched clerical power could become a moment for democratic revival — provided the impetus for change came from within Iranian civil society itself.
In sum, though Hitchens did not comment on this specific event, his broader body of work suggests that he would have framed the death of a Supreme Leader of Iran not primarily as the end of a life but as the possible beginning of a new chapter — one that could only be judged by its impact on freedom, human rights, and the self-determination of the Iranian people.
