On Iran, the Reform Movement, and Arms Control
By Maggie Hannick
Our headlines have been full of stories of the United States’ geo-political struggle with Iran.
President Donald Trump made good on his campaign promise to remove our country from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear arms control pact with Iran. This led to tension between our country and long- time allies. Iran’s economy is struggling from sanctions imposed by the administration and Iran recently shot down a United States unmanned drone.
On the other hand, Iran’s theocracy has alienated itself from the Western world not only because of the religious nature of it government but also because of the country’s support of terrorist factions. In addition, Iran has supported the brutal Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. When Iran became a theocracy in the late-1970’s, several American hostages were seized at an American embassy and our country endured a political crises with the country.
However, there is another side of Iran that needs to be talked about and encouraged. There is a movement in the country, several movements lumped together and called reformist, that has worked to change the country and move it in a different direction. Former President Mohammad Khatami, who held office from 1997 to 2005, was considered a voice for the movement then and now. The Iranian Students Polling Agency conducted a poll in April of 2017, finding that 28 percent of Iranians identify as a reformist.
From the beginning, Iranian intellectuals were very involved in the movement. Reformers – represented by 18 groups and political parties -work under a banner called the Second of Khordad Movement. The Islamic Iran Participation Front is one of the leading organizations in the movement. It doesn’t want for Iran to move away from the Islamic form of government, but it wants to introduce democratic reforms into the current system. The Association of Combatant Clerics is a group of clerics who seek to limit the power of the clergy in the affairs of Iran. There is a group of reformers who call themselves Islamic Liberals that favor feminism, gay and lesbian rights and the concept of human rights in general. In addition, there is a movement called Islamic Democracy that seeks to incorporate democratic ideals into an Islamic society. When Khatami was elected in 1997, he campaigned on the need to pay attention to the needs of younger Iranians and also to improve the status of women in the country. He also put an emphasis on rule of law and democracy.
These movements obviously seek to synthesize Western Humanism with the Islamic way of life in Iran. Writer Michael Lind defined Humanism in his story “Toward a Sino-Hellentic Humanism.” He said Humanist Cultures have “a focus on human life, combined with a high degree of indifference toward supernatural and metaphysical questions; an emphasis on practical reason or common sense, as opposed to supernatural revelation, deductive rationalism or individual genius; and a respect for the classical literary tradition embodying the wisdom of the past (as distinct from scriptural tradition from allegedly divine revelation).” Humanists seek to improve the human condition through reason and set aside the supernatural. However, that doesn’t mean religion is not practiced in humanist societies or by humanists, as people practice religion in humanistic societies and there are religious forms of humanism. Lind also states that humanism was a mode of thought that emerged in ancient Greece, Rome and China as well as the Renaissance and Baroque areas.
He uses Iran as an example of a religious culture, a culture at odds with Humanism. A religious society is ordered by the tenants of a religion. However, these reformers want to add some elements of Humanism to a religious society. Nations that have something in common are more likely to engage in productive diplomacy and arms control than those that do not. Might another version of democracy (Islamic) be emerging in Iran? Wouldn’t it be more productive to work for an open Iran than to isolate the country with Trump-style foreign policy?
With nuclear weapons, as the JCPOA was designed to manage, geo-political conflicts could escalate into very deadly affairs. Openness is essential for U.S. peace and security, Iran’s peace and security and the world’s peace and security. Who will win? Will it be openness or unilateralism and isolation?
Maggie Hannick is an Arms Control Fellow at the Peace Economy Project. Do you like this story? If so, click here to make a $5 or more donation: https://peaceeconomyproject.org/wordpress/sample-page/contribute/
