Deeper opportunities in Iran nuclear pact

The nuclear deal with Iran must withstand many tests to achieve its aim. Yet also worth testing is whether it will lessen conflicts within the Muslim world, especially over the use of violence in the name of Islam.

Iranians in Tehran gesture as they celebrate following a July 14 nuclear deal with major powers.

The nuclear agreement reached July 14 between Iran and six world powers will need to withstand many tests in the months and years ahead to ensure it contains Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The American Congress must weigh in, for example, while inspectors need access to Iranian nuclear sites. Israel needs further assurance of its safety. Perhaps the most critical test may be this: Would a less-threatening Iran bring the Muslim world closer to resolving conflicts within Islam itself?

Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution was driven in large part by rivalries within Islam as well as between Islam and the West. Its nuclear program was just one of many strategic aims to enable Iran to lead the Islamic world’s 1.6 billion believers, or 23 percent of the world’s population. Iran (the country) claimed geopolitical reasons for needing to acquire advanced nuclear know-how. But perhaps Iran (the religious revolutionary) decided its secretive, militarized nuclear program was hurting its reputation as the leader of all Muslims. After all, a violent and political version of Islam has lost much support since 9/11 in favor of an Islam that is peaceful. The rise of Islamic State has shown a need for Muslims to assert a tolerant, respectful version of Islam.

Within Iran itself, the mass of young people has turned against the regime of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since the rigging of an election in 2009 and a harsh crackdown on dissent. The tough sanctions also softened public opinion in favor of reaching a nuclear deal. This strengthened the hand of the relatively moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, against regime hard-liners. Mr. Khamenei was forced to say he was exercising “heroic flexibility” during the negotiations.

Iran still has other means to further its strategic goals, such as militant proxies in Gaza and Lebanon. A steady lifting of sanctions will now revive the businesses of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, enabling it to challenge the West or rival Muslim countries. The threat of an American military attack or another cyberattack on its nuclear plants is gone for now, encouraging investment in Iran.

Besides agreeing to mothball much of its nuclear program, Iran has shown the Muslim world it is willing to talk to its most dreaded foe, the United States. The largest and most powerful Shiite country could even now seek US help in lessening tensions with its Sunni rivals, especially Saudi Arabia. Islam’s religious disputes, reflected in the Saudi-Iranian rift, have become overshadowed by popular demands among Muslims for democracy, seen in the 2011 Arab Spring, the 2009 protests in Iran, and earlier protests in Pakistan and Indonesia.

In Iran and Saudi Arabia, regime survival has become more important than sectarian contest. A recent commentary in the Iranian publication Resalat warned that the Iranian people may expect “paradise” with a lifting of sanctions and, when they are disappointed, it “will inflict an irreparable blow to the revolution.”

President George W. Bush and later President Obama were smart to open a door for talks with Iran, even as they kept the “military option” on the table and rallied allies to impose sanctions. Over time, the real test of the new agreement may not be only in Iran’s compliance. The real test will be in whether Iran’s concessions lead to a rejection of violence within the Islamic world.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Deeper opportunities in Iran nuclear pact
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today