“Spiritual leader” is a huge stretch, dude was their dictator.

So, no. that’s not how any of that works.

He was the head of the Shia sect of Islam. i.e. he was essentially the pope.

He was not the head of state and had limited power beyond his role as spiritual leader. The head of state would be the president of Iran, or the Prime minister. Both of whom did consult him, of course as it’s still a theocratic republic, but he had as much power as the pope has in Italy.

Repeating far-right propaganda like you are does nothing to help anyone. Change cannot be brought about by objectively false analysis and propaganda; hence the current state of Afghanistan and Iraq.

So no, that’s also not how that works. The Supreme Leader directly appoints and can dismiss at will 6 of the 12 members of the Council of Guardians that decides who can and cannot run for elected office. The Chief Justice appoints the other 6 but he is also directly appointed and can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader. Opposition candidate are routinely prevented from running. The Assembly of Experts selects and can dismiss the Supreme Leader but those members also have to be approved by the Council of Guardians so they’re all loyalists. The supreme leader is legally considered “inviolable”, with Iranians being routinely punished for questioning or insulting him. Oh, he’s also the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian armed forces too. He is not just a pope-like figure, he is the highest authority in the country with effective control over every government position and policy. Effectively, a dictator.

Got literally any non-NED sources for that little buddy?

Because this sounds like some ‘Kim Jong-Un used AA to kill his uncle’ level nonsense that goes against literally all knowledge on the subject.

If you call your debate opponent anything like “little buddy”, “sweetheart”, etc., you instantly lose the argument.