Iran’s Dual Political Voice–Part One
Does Iran’s governing framework and prevailing religious ideology create mixed political messages for the West? Why is the Iranian leadership fixed on the notion of nuclear development and the eventual acquiring of a nuclear weapon? Is there reason to believe that Iran will use its future growing Eurasian alliances to influence geopolitical outcomes in the Middle East? Does the Bible give us a future perspective for the people of Iran? Iranian leaders know the challenges they face as they walk a thin line between achieving modernization—while positively participating in a globalizing world—and preserving a Muslim national identity for the Islamic State of Iran. Complicating this religious and political balancing act is an apparent dual political voice that resonates from Iran’s leadership, which has certainly—in the decades following the 1979 Iranian Revolution—opened the door for critical misunderstandings regarding Iran’s political, social and economic goals, which has further muddled Iran’s on-going political and economic conflicts with Western nations. How, then, are we to understand the nature of this dual political voice in the context of Iran’s social, political and economic goals and what does this dual political voice mean for the future of Iran? To grapple with this question we need a starting point that demonstrates that there is indeed a dual political voice in the first place, and that point of beginning is the 1979 Iranian Revolution. With the 1979 Revolution the world witnessed the demise of the last monarch of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the world also saw the rise to power—and to political office—of the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But, more than this, with the 1979 Revolution the world also saw the establishment of a Sharia-based Iranian Constitution for the then newly founded Islamic Republic of Iran. This constitution, which would seem peculiar in some ways, perhaps in many ways to Western thinking, is nonetheless a document that established Islamic law (Sharia) as a foundation for the political, economic and social aspirations of Iran. While at the same time Iran’s constitution became a testimony to the significance of the Islamic faith as a guiding principle for State governance. Consequently, one could question the validity of such a constitution and whether or not it has or has not allowed for a modernization of Iran without losing a Muslim national identity. One could also question whether or not Iran’s constitution has allowed for a people’s voice in determining the political direction of the country, especially when this same constitution allows for the supreme leader to be the most important religiopolitical administrator in the government of Iran. Leading us then to consider what this constitutional form has created for the political voice of Iran. In a sense, we could say that what took place with the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an attempt at social and political engineering where some principles of secular governance became melded with the tenets of Islam—more specifically Shi‘a Islam (Shi‘ism). Bringing us then to consider the result of this social and political engineering in the decades following the revolution, because since the 1979 Revolution we can say with some confidence that the world has become increasingly aware of a nation-state that voices two aspects of its constitutional framework to the Western world. This is certainly due in part to the nature of the Iranian Constitution, which gives the appearance that Iran is fronting two different and conflicting political faces—one that is pseudo-democratic and one that is theocratic—which has led some political analysts to refer to the Iranian Constitution as a “hybrid” social contract, and one that is notably contrasted against the political, social and religious ideals of the predominantly Christian-professing nations of the West and also the country of Israel. Something that became apparent with the rise to power of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who announced that: “we will export our revolution throughout the world… until the calls ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’ are echoed all over the world.” Khomeini is also understood to have said that “Islam is politics or it is nothing,” which one might reasonably say casts an aura of religious zeal over the political ambitions of Iran. Thus, the religious statement becomes the political statement in an attempt to seek a political heritage in Islam’s beginning, while also pursuing some form of social justice in a new historical narrative for Iran that became defined in the Iranian Constitution. Creating then a dual political voice—religiopolitical—that comes from the leadership of Iran. This same dualism was later advanced when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced a condemnation of the West and publicly denied the significance of the Jewish holocaust. It was President Ahmadinejad who has been quoted (perhaps misquoted) as saying that “as the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” and this comment only served to confirm the Iranian position regarding the region of Palestine, because the Iranian’s will not accept the two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. (Supporting the two-state solution would mean that Iran recognizes Israel’s right to statehood in the Middle East.) Consequently, such a political position has only served to further disenfranchise Iran from amicably participating in a globalizing world. Notably, from a biblical perspective it should be understood that in a larger context this same political standing held by Iran is clearly in opposition to what is reflected in biblical prophecies regarding the people of Israel. So, one could reasonably see why such political rhetoric would not go over well in the West as it certainly was not well received by the State of Israel. To some degree we could also say that Iran’s political posturing does not sit well with Saudi Arabia, which is a country that sees Iran as a threat militarily and a competitor in exporting a different branch of Islam (Shi‘ism vs. Sunnism). Noting importantly that this exporting of Islam as a religion around the world—by both Iran and Saudi Arabia—may be seen as giving a political relevance to the otherwise weak social institutions