Nuclear deal hangs on Iran’s unfinished revolution

Iran’s ability to abide by the nuclear deal, as well as its economic recovery, depends on a preelection debate over the secular authority of its reigning cleric, the supreme leader.

REUTERS
Iranians walk past a large picture of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (L), and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a park in Tehran, Iran, Jan.17.

To the surprise of skeptics, Iran has quickly implemented the first phase of an American-negotiated deal to dismantle much of its nuclear program. This is welcome news. The world is now safer from nuclear proliferation and possible war. And it suggests Iran might compromise on other issues, such as ending the Syrian war.

Yet a key part of the deal would set Iran free of many international inspections after 10 to 15 years. This assumes Iran will evolve into a very different country, one that will not pursue nuclear weapons.

But will Iran really be that different?

The answer depends on the results of an internal struggle raging within the Iranian elite over whether the supreme leader, who is currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, should continue to hold near-absolute political powers and be respected as the instrument of God in secular matters. That debate is playing out in the run-up to a Feb. 26 election of the Assembly of Experts, the body of Islamic clerics that will choose Mr. Khamenei’s successor.

All evidence suggests that Khamenei retains a strong hand in which candidates will run in the election of the Assembly. Yet at least one critic, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, suggested in December that the Assembly more closely monitor the decisions of the supreme leader. His comment drew sharp rebukes from conservatives.

The concept that a Muslim imam can also be a political ruler is still alien to many Shiite theologians. But in 1970, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinideveloped the idea from the Islamic idea known as “velayat-e faqih” (guardianship of the jurist). That traditional concept had long applied to mullahs exercising spiritual guidance for orphans, widows, and others – not the body politic. Khomeini elevated it to justify his rule over the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Even his chosen successor in the 1980s, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, turned against it, resulting in his house arrest. Mr. Montazeri worried that the idea violated the Quran’s requirement that a ruler abide by the consent of the people. “Islam is for the separation of powers and does not recognize the concentration of power in the hand of a fallible human being,” he told a journalist in 2003, a few years before his death.

This debate over clerical rule is also central to Iran’s economic recovery. While the lifting of most foreign sanctions will help Iran, much of the economy is still controlled by organizations under the control of Khamenei, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Just days after the nuclear pact’s implementation, President Hassan Rouhani complained that the “hands of government” in the economy are growing larger by the day. Private investors will be wary of such a government role, he warned.

Resolving this debate – preferably in favor of full democracy – is essential for Iran. Its young people, who protested in the streets in 2009 but were crushed by the regime, are too Internet-savvy and in touch with the outside world to tolerate strict clerical rule over politics. The power of religion lies in its spiritual attraction to individuals, not its authority over the state.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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 CSMonitor.com.