Using Salman Rushdie's Name to Oppose the Iranian Nuclear Deal
Rushdie’s name has been invoked in the name of free speech, of course, but also, curiously, the JCPOA.
Image via Wikimedia Commons
As Salman Rushdie recovers, his name is being invoked by all manner of right-wing players to thwart a revived Iran nuclear deal. The horrific attack on the author is being used by conservatives and neoconservatives as a reason to scrap the deal altogether, the consequences to global security be damned. And while the particulars of the deal are quite complex to get into, all sides pretty much agree that Iran is very close to "breakout time,” where the ancient country has enough fissile material needed to produce a nuclear weapon. The question is how to deal with this problem, with diplomacy or, as the right would have it, extreme hawkishness.
Briefly, about the Iran nuclear deal — the Obama administration negotiated the deal and it went into effect in 2016. By 2018, President Trump had withdrawn from the deal (surprise!), enforcing a maximum pressure policy on Iran. In 2019, Iran was complying again, this time with its remaining parties, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, according to the IAEA. And here we are now, perhaps on the verge of a revamped JCPOA, 2.0.
Delaying the breakout time of an Iranian nuclear weapon under a revamped JCPOA would make the world a less volatile place. It would reduce, somewhat, the boiling tensions in the Middle East, and provide the diplomatic fundament for further negotiations on a plethora of issues — including the freedom of speech of literary authors. The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, it should be noted, have had no formal diplomatic relationship since April 1980, after the seizure of the American embassy. JCPOA, 2.0 would be a string beginning. The alternative is, quite frankly, bleak.
"The place we're at now where Iran could produce enough material for a bomb within days to weeks is a very dangerous place to be. And extending that timeline under revived deal is a much better place to be," Eric Brewer, a senior director at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, told CNN.com. "A six month breakout timeline in my view is sufficient. That will provide enough time for the international community to detect any attempts by Iran to break out and the time to try and resolve it diplomatically before having to look at the potential of a military option."
A little history — The original fatwa on Rushdie’s life was issued in 1989, by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini for $3 million. Rushdie went into hiding for nearly a decade as a result. Many people — only some connected with the publishing of the book — were hurt and killed during the dark years that the fatwa was in effect. Unsurprisingly, the Ayatollah never read The Satanic Verses, according to Robin Wright of The New Yorker. Religious zealots generally are not big on reading.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini via Wikimedia Commons
In the intervening years, the various Iranian governments have taken different lines on the fatwa. One curious example, reformist Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami, in 1998, tried to resolve once and for all the fatwa against Rushdie. Khomeini’s fatwa seemed to be all but over during that time; a relic of a forgotten age. “After nine years of living in secret locations,” The Wilson Center’s website notes of the aftermath of Khatami’s negotiations with the West, “Rushdie began to appear in public with little or no visible security.”
The pendulum swings. After the attack in western New York, the present Iranian government denied involvement, but justified the attack. "Salman Rushdie exposed himself to popular anger and fury through insulting the sacredness of Islam and crossing the red lines of over 1.5 billion Muslims and also red lines of followers of all divine religions," Nasser Kanaani, the spokesman of Iran's Foreign Ministry said in remarks two days after the attack. Further complicating things, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, who is working to salvage the JCPOA, called Iran “despicable” for gloating. To be sure, Blinken and Kanaani’s are each delivering incendiary rhetoric intended for domestic audiences. None of this is jaw-jawing is helping advance the JCPOA or making the world a more stable place.
Jamal Khashoggi via Wikimedia Commons
The Jamal Khashoggi murder is different by several orders of magnitude. It involves the slaughter of an American Permanent resident and journalist, a cover up and ultimately impunity for the decision makers in the crime. US intelligence agencies concluded that in 2018, Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) authorized the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. No such conclusions at such high levels have been made about the present Iranian regime and the attempt on Salman Rushdie’s life. Assassins armed with bone saws were sent to procure the Washington Post Global Opinions columnist; the 24-year old New Jersey man that allegedly stabbed Rushdie appears to have acted alone. A little more background on the political killing, via Just Security:
“(Jamal) Khashoggi was a Saudi journalist who moved to the United States after he was prohibited from speaking and writing in Saudi Arabia. In the United States, Khashoggi helped found the organization Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN). He also developed a relationship with plaintiff Hatice Cengiz, a Turkish citizen whom he married in an Islamic ceremony in Istanbul. To confirm the marriage civilly in Turkey, Khashoggi needed a certificate from Saudi Arabia, which he tried unsuccessfully to get from the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. MBS allegedly instructed embassy employees there, including his brother the ambassador, to entrap Khashoggi by representing that he could obtain the required certificate only in Istanbul and by assuring him that it would be safe to do so. Khashoggi went to the Istanbul consulate to obtain the certificate and was murdered by Saudi security agents, allegedly upon the orders of MBS.”
What came next? In January 2019, in what can only be properly construed as a kangaroo court, 11 unnamed individuals were put on trial at the Riyadh Criminal Court in connection with Jamal Khashoggi's slaying. By December of that year, five were sentenced to death, three were sentenced to prison for a total of 24 years and three were found innocent. Following the verdict, Saudi Arabia's deputy public prosecutor Shalaan al-Shalaan concluded that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was not premeditated.
The farce, unfortunately, does not end there.
In September 2020, the Riyadh Criminal Court commuted the death sentences handed to five of the defendants to a maximum of 20 years in prison. Two of the three others were given sentences of seven years and one other ten years. In a Twitter post, Khashoggi’s Turkish fiancée Hatice Cengiz dismissed the proceedings as a "complete mockery of Justice."
The body of Jamal Khashoggi has never been recovered.
Mohammed bin Salman via Wikimedia Commons
“If you raged against our relationship with the Saudis because of Khashoggi but support a U.S. nuclear deal with Iran despite the attack on Salman Rushdie,” tweeted Abe Greenwald, Executive Editor of Commentary, “you have no moral core.”
We will not entertain the possibility that Mr. Greenwald’s rhetoric might be a tad overheated. But to say that the present Iranian leadership is as responsible in the attack against Salman Rushdie as MBS is in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is a false equivalent. The two events, as I have argued, are not comparable.
Further, to use this argument to consign the Iranian nuclear deal to the scrap heap of History is utterly wrongheaded.
Predictably, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page has an Op Ed raging against the JCPOA. Other Murdoch media have followed suit. The neocons have always loathed it. Republican Presidential hopefuls, not far behind the right wing media, are clamoring to be the most hawkish at destroying the possibility of any Iran nuclear deal.
Salman Rushdie’s stabbing at the Chautauqua Institution was met with shock and outrage throughout the West. Libertarian, Neoconservative, Progressive — nearly every political ideology — appears to have a strong opinion about the attack and what it means for the West and for freedom of religion in general. And that is entirely fair. Rushdie’s attack should encourage strong debate about freedom of religion and speech in the West and abroad. But Rushdie’s stabbing should not be blithely tossed into the time-sensitive JCPOA, 2.0, which has taken years to craft and which could delay breakout time of an Iranian nuclear weapon that could threated our allies in the Middle East and global security.
Because once Tehran gets the bomb, that genie will not go back gently into the bottle without a fight.