A Letter from Catherine Thomasson, M.D.
Qom, Religion, and Politics
March 12, 2007
Dear friends:
Understanding religion and its role in Iran’s political structure helps provide an accurate view of the heart of Iran. To understand these issues firsthand, we went by bus through beautiful desert countryside to the city of Qom, one of two religious centers in Iran. This city of 600,000 hosts 160,000 primarily religious students. Here many more women wear the full black chador than in other places we visited, and many men wear a turban to indicate their status in their studies.
Clerics study for two ten-year segments. Their second ten-year course of study includes the production of a dissertation that must be accepted by seven ayatollahs. Studies include philosophy (including western philosophy), ancient and modern languages, the law, and many other subjects. Those achieving ayatollah status often develop teaching and followings. It is acceptable for Iranians to write or ask for visits with a particular ayatollah that they support for information and direction. With four or more additional years of study and writing, some of the ayatollahs become “grand” ayatollahs. The current Supreme Leader, Khamenei, is at the level of an ayatollah.
We had two official meetings in Qom: the first with the son of the founder of the Great Library of Ayatollah Al-Uzma Mar’ashi Najafi. This library has a huge collection of handwritten manuscripts, primarily of the Koran but also the Bible and the Torah displayed together. Dr. Mar’ashi was very gracious and reported a number of international connections between his library and others, including the U.S. Library of Congress. Like many Iranians, he has family members in the United States, and he visits relatively frequently — unlike non-related Iranians or Americans for whom gaining visas from either government is difficult or impossible. Hence, there are few visitors between our countries, leading to a grave knowledge and understanding gap.
Another formal meeting held in Qom was with two clerics and two professors who spoke English. We asked questions not only about religion but also about the approach to Israel. They felt the [recent] Holocaust Conference was a big mistake. They felt that there were invitations sent out, but only one faction came. They categorically deny that any Iranians believe the Holocaust did not occur. They and others felt that the president was denounced in their media for holding the conference.
It was explained to us that there are seven or eight major interpretations of the Koran and Islamic teaching in Iran. This is very important in Iran, where the political system is directed by clerics. There are differing views about the use of violence or the promotion of peace. Another major dividing issue is the willingness to open to the United States. Nearly all Iranians know the United States was a strong supporter of the Shah in the '80s, despite the incredible human and civil rights abuses of the Shah’s government and secret police. Even though the constitution rests ultimate control on the shoulders of the Supreme Leader (previously Ayatollah Khomeini until his death in 1991), there is a series of checks and balances.
The concept of a Supreme Leader is an extension of a Shiite belief that spiritual leaders are needed for guidance on events that may not be adequately covered by the Koran. In the case of Iran, the Supreme Leader (or Velayat-e Faqih) sets the foreign policy and controls the military and judiciary, not the president. For example, Ayatollah Khamenei has stated that Israel should be recognized if they accept a two-state solution and has publicly admonished President Ahmadinejad on issues of foreign affairs.
The Supreme Leader is himself chosen by the Assembly of Experts. This body of 86 clerics is directly elected regionally to an eight-year term. However, only people approved by the Council of Guardians of the Constitution may run (a six-member body appointed by the Supreme Leader). Currently, the Assembly of Experts is controlled by a faction that is also strongly opposed to President Ahmadinejad.
The president manages issues within the country and is its spokesperson. President Ahmadinejad was a little-known candidate but won a surprise victory as he promised populist support against high inflation and unemployment. He is viewed by Iranians as a common, devout man, but because he has not delivered economically and has spoken out with rash statements, his ratings are very low from the citizenry, though they support him standing up to the United States (many of his statements play to that support).
The government also has a parliament called Majles, which is elected every four years. Many reformist candidates were not allowed to run in the last election in an attempt to remove vestiges of former President Khatemi’s reformist plans, resulting in a boycott of the election by the reformists. As a result, the conservatives have a very large majority.
We asked similar questions of students and faculty of the North American Studies Institute of the University of Tehran. These students and faculty spoke excellent English and many have hopes of Foreign Service. They view their government as very young and needing time to develop more democracy. They also viewed the selection process for elections to be necessary, and denied much in the way of manipulation, as they view the government from the right political spectrum and fully support it.
In addition, in response to questions about the nuclear issue, almost everyone with whom we spoke did not feel that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons. Several reported that there is a fatwa (religious edict) opposing the development or use of nuclear weapons. All quoted that Iran has not threatened any country in 200 years and is one of the highest in taking in refugees. They stated that Iran put on the table in 1974 and again in 2003 the potential for a nuclear-free Middle East, which hasn’t been addressed by the United States or other countries. On the other hand, all have been thoroughly convinced that they need nuclear power and were not sufficiently swayed by arguments from me regarding cost, security, and health effects of nuclear energy with better returns on wind and geothermal power or increasing economies of solar power.
Our delegation was told innumerable times that military threat by the United States only results in additional success for the hard-liners and for repression within the country. In addition, there is much the U.S. needs to bargain for: support for Iraqi stability, Afghani stability, intelligence on terrorist groups (not insurgents), and a nuclear-free Middle East. The Iranian government and intelligence services were very cooperative with the U.S. before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which is never discussed in our press. In addition, change of the regime can only come from within. Just as in the U.S., when immediately after 9/11, our government was able to suspend civil rights and launch a war, so too in Iran, the hard-liners power is consolidated when confronted with threats of war from the U.S. They will allow less opposition from civil society — against the repression of women and for more economic opportunity, civil rights, and the freedom of the press — with continued threats.
I urge you all to contact your elected officials and work in concert with Physicians for Social Responsibility to call for direct diplomatic talks with Iran without pre-conditions, as advocated by the Iraq Study Group report. Urge a positive vote to require the president to return to Congress for any military action as a curb to rash actions by the administration. Iranians want peaceful coexistence and they deserve dialogue, and the world needs peace!
