Obama mentions Khamenei “nuclear fatwa”
The Iranian regime’s sudden focus on a seventh-century Shia imam may be the strongest indicator yet that Tehran is serious about negotiating on its nuclear programme. Imam Hassan, grandchild of the Prophet Mohammed and the second of 12 Shia imams, is famous for negotiating a peace treaty with those opposed to the principle that only descendants of the prophet could rule over Muslims. In Shia texts, his actions are defended as a compromise for the greater good of the religion, rather than a defeat.
When Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s top decision maker, called last week for “heroic flexibility” in talks over the nuclear programme, he was echoing the title of a religious text about Imam Hassan that he translated decades ago: Imam Hassan’s Peace: the Most Glorious Heroic Flexibility in History. The comment boosted hopes in Iran and the west of a possible nuclear deal, even though the ayatollah added that any flexibility was simply a tactic, presumably to deal with a difficult period and head off more economic sanctions or the possible threat of military confrontation with Israel or the US.
**
I’d particularly welcome a post or comment from Selfscholar responding to Pres. Obama’s remarks today, and informed commentary on the Selfscholar site from those with appropriate skills to set it in religious, political, and scholarly context — as well as the usual fine interplay of views in the ZP comments section.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
joey:
September 24th, 2013 at 10:41 pm
The sanctions worked.
He got lucky on syria (tba), and made the right call on Iran, say what you want about some of his other calls, but those two there have the makings of two not inconsiderable triumphs of the non proliferation treaty.
They do like there history in Iran, good to see there drawing on useful lessons.
selfscholar:
September 25th, 2013 at 4:14 am
Haha, thank you for the shout out, Zenpundit. Your blog gave me some referrals, so I decided to check it out again.
.
Unfortunately, I have nothing substantial to add about the remarks at UNGA today. The prospect of the US administration using Khamenei’s fatwa as a “feeler” to gauge the “goodwill” of the Iranians and test their “sincerity” and “authenticity” is not a new notion. This has been voiced by former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, and some influential members in the US policy community. Simply, the mention of it today, I would say, is just giving a little bit of deference to Khamenei, to see if the Iranians will come to the table with anything substantial. Frankly, I would not read too much into it beyond being an attempt to “recognize” something the Iranians have communicated with sincerity. Often, even if you just acknowledge the Iranians and communicate an attempt to “understand” them, this can create great diplomatic openings and new feelings. I see this mention today as being similar, as nuclear negotiations perhaps draw closer.
.
Thanks again.
selfscholar:
September 25th, 2013 at 4:17 am
Sorry, I should have said Charles, not “Zenpundit.” And, if you want my commentary, you can always contact me via my blog! Lol.
Charles Cameron:
September 25th, 2013 at 5:47 am
Appreciated!
.
I see HC quoted from the Telegraph thus:
Given that there is discussion of whether a text of the fatwa even exists, and that Clinton herself is being paraphrased here, that statement reads to me as though a more accurate reading of her intent might have been “Clinton revealed that she has been studying [the question of] Khamenei’s fatwa…” — not necessarily admitting its existence or veracity.
.
Obama’s words today, “the supreme leader has issued a fatwah”, appear to me to take the Ayatollah’s many assertions to that effect as sufficient to accept the existence of such a fatwa for purposes of diplomacy. Regardless of whether or not it can actually be, or has been, found, it is now “stipulated” at the highest diplomatic level, if I’m reading things aright.
.
That seems significant to me, for the reasons of “giving a little bit of deference” that you suggest…
.
Thanks again!
Cheryl Rofer:
September 26th, 2013 at 2:04 am
I think it was important that President Obama mentioned the fatwa. When you negotiate, you need to acknowledge the other side’s thinking/offers/priorities – what’s important to them. Earlier this year, there was quite a bit about the fatwa coming out of Iran. And the way President Obama offered it was very much like what Iran was talking about.
.
As I said in the second of the links that Charles so kindly provided, the Iranian proposal was to “register” the fatwa in some way with an international body. There is no way to do this, but perhaps the Iranians can be persuaded to bend to the lesser beings who operate by words on paper in the form of treaties to incorporate the fatwa into an agreement to allow IAEA inspections to a degree that shows they are indeed following their religious edicts.
.
More tomorrow morning at Nuclear Diner.
Charles Cameron:
September 26th, 2013 at 2:22 am
Looking forward to it!
Cheryl Rofer:
September 26th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
Here’s the link.
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 3:02 pm
As you know, Charles, that fatwa does not exist. No one has even seen it, in print or online. It’s a (propaganda?) myth. And Obama’s IC team should be smart enough to figure that out. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6291.htm
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
And as you know (but some of your readers may not), I wrote about this issue over two years ago: http://www.inegma.com/reports/Special_Report12/Special%20Report%2012.pdf
Charles Cameron:
September 26th, 2013 at 4:16 pm
Hi Tim:
.
If there is a (written, signed) fatwa, then as far as I know the Iranian authorities haven’t produced it, but Khamenei has often claimed to have made such a ruling, and according to Selfscholar’s reading, most forcefully in a speech in 2010 in which he said:
As I suggested above, I think HC was likely referring to studying the topic rather than a specific document, and that “Obama’s words today … appear to me to take the Ayatollah’s many assertions to that effect as sufficient to accept the existence of such a fatwa for purposes of diplomacy. Regardless of whether or not it can actually be, or has been, found, it is now ‘stipulated’ at the highest diplomatic level, if I’m reading things aright.”
.
If my reading is correct, the administration is avoiding argument over the existence of the fatwa by stipulating it, thus opening the possibility, as Cheryl suggests, of the incorporation of some such language declaring nuclear weaponry haram into a future obligation — as Cheryl puts it, “an agreement to allow IAEA inspections to a degree that shows they are indeed following their religious edicts”.
Charles Cameron:
September 26th, 2013 at 4:24 pm
I should add that while the materials on theological arguments in Selfscholar’s Radioactive Fatwas: The Growing Islamist Legitimization of Nuclear Weapons are largely from Al Azhar and other Sunni sources, the historical overview Go, Learn About Atoms: Iranian Discourse on Nuclear Weapons, 1962-Present contains the following paragraph describing Iranian clerics:
Cheryl Rofer:
September 26th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Despite the questions about the formal existence of such a fatwa, as Charles notes, this kind of statement seems to have been made more than once by the Supreme Leader. And recent statements are consistent with them.
.
So, for rhetorical purposes at least, it’s gracious of President Obama to refer to the fatwa without splitting hairs. And perhaps his acceptance of it as a basis for moving forward may smoke out a copy or a more definitive statement. And if it doesn’t, well, that tells us something too.
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
I would submit that Obama’s “graciousness,” until such a time as this alleged fatwa’s text is produced, amounts to at best grasping at straws and at worst to delusion.
.
And I’m not sure I want the foreign policy of the US conducted on the basis of “graciousness”–especially when it pertains to as brutal and Machiavellian a regime as rules in Tehran.
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Ms. Rofer: your “splitting hairs” line just sunk in. Do you really think that the question of whether this fatwa actually exists is “splitting hairs?” I think it’s a whole lot more than that.
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 5:47 pm
I will bet anyone on this blog that Iran has nuclear weapons deployed by 2015. Anyone care to take me up on the wager?
Charles Cameron:
September 26th, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Hi, Tim:
.
I think Obama has moved past “the question of whether this fatwa actually exists” to the question “assuming it does, will you live up to it in a way we can verify?” I don’t know how that will play out, but I see it as a diplomatic and rhetorical move rather than as a factual answer to the question of the fatwa’s existence..
.
As to your bet — I wouldn’t bet on either outcome myself, I think there are way too many factors involved.
.
My question for you would be this:
.
Back during the Ahmadinejad years, you wrote (and I have quoted you), words to the effect that actually detonating nuclear weapons (as opposed to using them to make forceful threats) would serve no useful purpose. At the time, that means that a nuclear wasteland would be a poor welcome mat to roll out for the “soon coming” Mahdi. Do you still feel that Iranian possession of nukes would be mainly or entirely a matter of threat and prestige?
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Charles: then Obama is a bigger fool than I thought, if he relies on a nonexistent theological document.
Yes, I still think the IRI wants nukes for regime security and regional clout–not to use on Israel or anyone else.
Timothy Furnish:
September 26th, 2013 at 8:54 pm
And at the risk of being pedantic: “WashPo” needs to find someone who knows how to properly transliterate Arabic terms; fatwa ends in a “broken alif,” not a ta marbuta, and so is correctly rendered “fatwa,” NOT “fatwah.”
Cheryl Rofer:
September 26th, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Tim: Graciousness is an essential part of diplomacy, even when you’re sticking the knife in. So Obama is pleasant and lays the basis for making that fatwa (whether it exists or not) explicit and in writing. Or, if the Iranians don’t want to back that up, then there is basis for continuing the sanctions.
.
One of the tenets of international strategy is to seize the high ground. One seizes the high ground of public opinion by being gracious.
.
And yes, it is splitting hairs to argue whether the fatwa exists in writing or has been properly vetted if you’re using it as a lever to get a firm commitment. Arguing the legalistic details is just silly, unless all you want is a fight.
Timothy Furnish:
September 27th, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Cheryl,
In case you’d not noticed, Obama’s gracious, anti-Bush, “charm offensive” in the world, and particularly in the Islamic world, has resulted in even more antagonism and scorn for the US than when W was in office. As a historian, I think the examples in history of graciousness being of much use in diplomacy are few and far between, at best.
Charles Cameron:
September 27th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
A tip of the hat to Cheryl Rofer, who just pointed out that Obama has now made a second reference to the fatwa, this time discussing a phone call he had with Rouhani. Here’s the relevant para from the transcript:
Cheryl Rofer:
September 27th, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Tim, I think you’ve missed out on a lot of history! And perhaps you need to read some of today’s news stories published after that telephone call.
.
Now that President Obama has mentioned the fatwa in the conversation with Rouhani and then mentioned it again in his public statement, it’s clear that this is a part of the negotiation strategy. And I think it’s a good one, insisting that the other party live up to their highest sentiments.