September's theater season in New York featured an odd pair of actors in roles that are both loved and loathed by audiences around the world. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George Bush made speeches to the General Assembly of United Nations on the same day (Sept. 19), from diametrically opposing geopolitical viewpoints.

One portrays the other as a bully on the global playground, while the latter denounces the first as a rogue state, belonging to the "axis of evil." Were it not for consequences in the real world, the rhetoric alone would be both alarming and entertaining. But historical grievances outstanding and military maneuvers ongoing at the convergence of their respective zones, together with heightened fears of nuclear weapons proliferation, make these theatrics quite dangerous.

September's theater season in New York featured an odd pair of actors in roles that are both loved and loathed by audiences around the world. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George Bush made speeches to the General Assembly of United Nations on the same day (Sept. 19), from diametrically opposing geopolitical viewpoints.

One portrays the other as a bully on the global playground, while the latter denounces the first as a rogue state, belonging to the "axis of evil." Were it not for consequences in the real world, the rhetoric alone would be both alarming and entertaining. But historical grievances outstanding and military maneuvers ongoing at the convergence of their respective zones, together with heightened fears of nuclear weapons proliferation, make these theatrics quite dangerous.

Worse yet, they're not talking (to each other). As U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns told the BBC, "It's the most unusual relationship we have with any country in the world." Even as one of the persons directly responsible to formulate U.S. policy on Iran, he has "never met an Iranian government official" in his 25 years as a career diplomat. The ties were ruptured during the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis with the U.S. embassy in Tehran. And so the high-wire drama of statecraft with threats of sanctions and war is reduced to whether two presidents will bump into each other in the hallways at the U.N.

How might we work to improve the cultural understanding, overcoming the fear and ignorance that largely characterize this difficult relationship? From what I observed in several recent encounters in Iran and New York, I would suggest that inter-faith dialogue has a potential to bridge the immense divide.

A delegation including representatives of the Mennonite, Quaker, Episcopal, Catholic, and Methodist churches as well as representatives of the National Council of Churches and other groups, met with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran February 24.

The group discussed a variety of topics including the role of religion in transforming conflict, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a report by the Mennonite Central Committee.

In early September 2006 I participated in a theology conference in Tehran hosted by the Bright Future Institute (based in Qom, Iran's sacred city). Its theme: the Mahdism Doctrine, a messianic expectation especially within Shi'ite Islamic circles that hopes for a righteous ruler to return and establish justice, re-ordering human affairs according to God's will. Along with a handful of Christian and other scholars, I pondered the impact that this hope might have on policies and relationships beyond national borders.

Most of the 4,000 participants were Muslims and belong to the Shi'a strand, a minority in most parts of the Islamic world (except for Iran and Iraq). The figure of the Mahdi in Shi'a Islam is identified as the Twelfth Imam in succession after the Prophet Muhammad, understood as being hidden but not dead for the past eleven centuries. He is expected to return after a lengthy period of injustice and immorality to establish justice and restore righteousness on earth. Although not all Muslims share this identification and hope, especially in majority Sunni branches, the doctrine is gaining substantial attention in Iran today. Allusions to the precedents in Christian teaching are frequent, and in some versions the return of Christ and the Mahdi figure are linked.

When President Ahmadinejad arrived at the conference and took the stage, he brought the earnest intensity of a lay preacher to his topic. He is the first president since 1981 not elected from the ranks of clerics, but he exhibited the fervor of conviction as he tackled the religious themes of the conference. "The whole movement of the world is toward justice, religion, and piety," he declared, inviting all people to "come to the right path, the way of the prophets."

Touching lightly on political themes, he observed that Marxism had been thrown "into the garbage bin of history," and now "the day of empires is finished." He denounced "people who put their hands on the bomb and want to talk." He pronounced "superiority complex" as the "source of all wars," including those who "claim to represent the whole world." Further, "we oppose this arrogant spirit that is robbing the world," he declared.

"Leaders in the world today lack knowledge of God," he lamented; "they are in bondage to lust." But when "the Imam of our times" sees injustice and discrimination, he is in sorrow, the president reminded his audience. "All of humanity is rapidly understanding that all hopes and dreams" come to fruition "through the rule of the perfect Man" (i.e., the Mahdi).

The conference underlined the theocratic nature of the political system bequeathed by Ayatollah Khomeini. Since the early 1980s, top Muslim clergy have been ruling Iran as an Islamic republic, appointing leading candidates, supervising elections, and actively approving or disapproving new legislation. The president is not in charge of many dimensions of the country's political and strategic structures. The president does not directly control the military or the security forces.

In fact, the highest power in the land is the "Supreme Authority," currently Ayatollah Khamenei. He is appointed by clergy, from within their own ranks, and has veto or other active power over all branches of the government. Legislature and judiciary answer more directly to him than to the president. This ayatollah is much less visible than the public politicians. Yet politicians come and go, while imams and ayatollahs exert a pervasive influence throughout their lifetime.

In a question and answer session for foreign guests of the conference arranged in the late evening at the president's official workplace in downtown Tehran, Ahmadinejad reiterated the same key themes: righteousness must characterize true rulers, and justice must mark the affairs of nations. He reportedly lives in austerity, driving an ancient Peugeot, and has avoided the corruption that enriched the cronies and relatives of his predecessors. Religious values go far to explain his passion for dignity, respect, and a more decent share of the earth's bounty for the masses of those currently living in poverty.

Later in the same month, while in New York for United Nations events, President Ahmadinejad requested a session with this nation's religious leaders. Assembled on short notice September 20 by the Mennonite Central Committee, some 40 Christian leaders (and several Muslims) had more than an hour to engage with the president using questions framed by leaders from diverse groups including Catholics, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Quakers, Sojourners, and the Fellowship of Reconciliation. While ready to give credence to the value of framing geopolitical issues theologically, the Christian representatives also voiced strong reservations about Ahmadinejad's widely cited views on Israel and the Holocaust.

It was the nuclear issue that brought out some answers that mainstream journalists mostly missed. As in his May 9 letter addressed to President Bush, President Ahmadinejad voiced the hope for justice in international relations, drew on his own intentions for righteous rule, and called on people of faith to make common cause in overcoming violence and injustice. He clearly acknowledged that Iran is pursuing nuclear development, but insisted that this program is only for peaceful energy purposes and entirely within the parameters of the Non-proliferation Treaty, of which Iran is a signatory. He flatly denied that his government is seeking to build nuclear weapons, declaring that the "Supreme Authority" in the Islamic Republic of Iran has determined that the production and use of nuclear weapons is fundamentally opposed to the Islamic faith.

I heard Christian participants in this event say they had been primed to expect to encounter a lunatic. Afterward, they reflected instead on having met a man who spoke knowledgably within a theological framework and who meaningfully (at least on some levels) addressed issues of justice and moral righteousness.

What might this dialogue based in theological approaches suggest for future steps in deepening mutual understanding?

What if we took the Iranian president seriously when he says he does not want or need nuclear weapons? What if we regard it as even more weighty that he quotes his Supreme Authority as ruling theologically against the legitimacy of nuclear weapons? What does it mean when he invites open inspections with teams of scientists and religious experts working together to verify the assurances of peaceful purpose and intentions in nuclear activities?

If Ronald Reagan could get from "evil empire" to "trust but verify" with the Soviets, these are not outlandish hopes. Such former rogue nations as apartheid South Africa and Gaddafi's Libya have foresworn nuclear weapons ambitions. If the U.S. and U.N. really aim to reduce tensions, reduce the spread of nuclear weaponry, and limit the threats of international and regional bullying, then some appropriate haggling and negotiating with the Islamic Republic of Iran may be well worth the effort. To avert another messy war with unintended consequences and inevitable civilian deaths, perhaps a fresh round of reductions in our own U.S. nuclear stockpiles would be worth putting onto the table. The point is to make tough agreements, make them worth something both at the symbolic and the tangible levels, but make the agreements, make them work, and make them stick. To do so will require more than a readjustment of rhetoric.

For a brief while in 2003, the U.S. sought and received active Iranian cooperation on forming the new government of Afghanistan. Now former Secretary of State James Baker's commission (the Iraq Study Group) has recommend that the top U.S. priority for stabilizing Iraq against its ever-increasing sectarian violence be achieved through cooperation from interested states in the region, including the Islamic Republic of Iran and from Syria.

There are now numerous reasons to reconsider the ridicule and disrespect that have been marking the U.S. approach to dealing with Iran. My own Mennonite faith community, in a small-scale but persistent manner, has been addressing this difficult gulf with bridging efforts for more than a decade. Our students have gone to Iran and studied theology in Islamic seminaries; Muslim students have come to North America in exchange and pursued topics in theology and peace building. Patience and respect have opened significant channels for communication during tough times. Perhaps it's time for the diplomats to follow suit. If we want to crack the code with Iran, we must take the theological dimensions of their way of seeing the world more seriously. Not all dramas need to end in tragedy.

Gerald Shenk is professor of church and society at Eastern Mennonite Seminary in Harrisonburg, Va. Over many years he has traveled and had Christian encounters in eastern Europe with both religious and non-religious persons.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Your Responses (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed