Sanctions can hinder Iran’s nuclear effort, says Israeli scholar

By Austin Greenberg
of The Chronicle staff

“Nothing succeeds like suppress,” said David Menashri, Ph.D., in explaining how the Islamic regime in Iran has survived nearly three decades.

Last week, Iran celebrated the 29th anniversary (Feb. 11) of the revolution that replaced the pro-United States Shah with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who turned Iran into a theocratic state called the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The day after the anniversary, Menashri, an Iranian-born Israeli professor at Tel Aviv University and expert on Iranian studies, spoke at the Harry and Rose Samson Family Jewish Community Center on “What every American Jew needs to know about Iran.”

The event, which drew an audience of about 70, was sponsored by the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Menashri said he does not know how long it will be until Iran produces a nuclear weapon, but he said there are measures than can slow the process.

“Sanctions work,” said Menashri, referring to the U.S.’s preferred method of dealing with Iran. The recent National Intelligence Estimate agreed, but that same document made it easier for Iran to proceed with its uranium enrichment program, he said.

Even though the NIE was interpreted as dismissive of the Iranian nuclear threat, there is no doubt that Iran possessed chemical weapons in the past because the government used them on its Kurdish minority, he said.

Other potential solutions to Iran’s nuclear ambitions may come from Europe, which should be more active in the process, said Menashri.
With new European leaders Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Gordon Brown of Great Britain and Angela Merkel of Germany, there is an opportunity to increase pressure on Iran, he added.

The other potential solution can come from inside Iran, but, he said, that will take a long time.

“There are two trains which have left the terminal in Tehran,” Menashri stated. “One carries a message of nuclear weapon[s] and the other carries the message of regime change or policy change.

“Unfortunately, the train with nuclear weapon[s] is the express one and the train with social change is a local one and is driving much slower than the other one.”

Three questions

The Iranian revolution had two goals, according to Menashri: to stay in power and to use an Islamic ideology to solve the problems facing the Iranian people.

The first goal has been accomplished, but the second has not, he said. “If you go to the streets of Tehran and conduct [a] survey … the vast majority of the Iranians will tell you” that realities have fallen far short of “the expectations of 29 years ago.”

Three main questions must be answered to understand Iran, said Menashri. The first is: To what degree is the revolution there Islamic?

If you use a western, Christian definition of religion, which separates religion from the state, the revolution was much greater than a religious movement, he said.

By contrast, Islam and Judaism encompass not only religion, they define all aspects of life: economic, social, political, “even what we eat is somehow dictated by faith,” Menashri said.

The revolution in Iran, therefore, was much more than a purely ideological religious movement, said Menashri, who lived in Iran during the last two years of the Shah’s rule.

“I saw people joining Khomeini from the Communist Party, liberal intellectuals, the most prominent university professors; they wished to struggle and change the reality of life. They succeeded in toppling the Shah, but the revolution has been intercepted by a group of radical clerics that influenced the character of the Islamic Republic since then,” he said.

Menashri stated that if his interpretation is correct, the success of the revolution should not be measured by how Islamic Iran is, but to what degree it has solved the problems facing the nation. Thus far, the revolution has not been successful, he said.

The second question Menashri posed was: To what degree is the ideology of this regime Islamic?

The variation of Islam that Khomeini brought to Iran was a marginal sect not supported by any of the other seven grand ayatollahs of Iran at that time. By bringing this sect to power, Khomeini radicalized Islam, said Menashri.

“We are witnessing a revolution in Islam, rather than an Islamic revolution,” he said.

The third question Menashri addressed is: To what degree is the policy of the Islamic regime faithful to the ideology with which it came to power?

What happened to the Iranian revolution has happened in every other ideological or political movement once it made the transition from opposition group to power, said Menashri.

The leaders of the revolution learned that “with authority comes responsibility, and there [are] limit[s] to what you can do,” Menashri continued, “and often enough you retreat from your dogmatic principles in favor of pragmatic considerations.”

That Iran is not governed entirely by religious ideology is a positive accomplishment, Menashri said. It might surprise people to hear an Israeli scholar say good things about Iran, he said, but he mentioned several aspects of Iranian culture that are favorable.

Iranian women’s organizations are the most active in the Middle East and 60 percent of the students in Iran are female, he said. Student organizations in Iran may also be the most active in the Middle East, and Iran has the best cinema industry in the region, he said.

The government did shut down 100 liberal newspapers, and jailed the author of a book that accused the Iranian revolution of fascism. But that book was published in Tehran, and in what other Middle Eastern country would one find 100 liberal newspapers in the first place, Menashri said.

‘Radical of all radicals’

Menashri called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the “radical of all radicals.” It is troubling to hear Ahmadinejad call for Israel’s destruction, but Israel is a small matter for the Iranian president, Menashri said.

More important to him, he said, is his opposition to western civilization. Ahmadinejad sees Iran as a counterweight to America and the west and believes he has been assigned by God to usher in the period of the 12th Imam (roughly the Shi’ite Muslim messiah).

The most disturbing aspect of Ahmadinejad, according to Menashri, is his denial of the Holocaust. Knowledge of the Holocaust in Iran is minimal, said Menashri.

To help rectify this, the Center of Iranian Studies (which Menashri used to chair) at Tel Aviv University is translating a book of Holocaust articles into Persian and is planning on sending them free to university professors throughout Iran.

Menashri reminded the audience that the president of Iran is not a major force. Real authority rests with the clerics and the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni.

Menashri listed four major assets that help the clerics stay in power: their claim of a direct line to and the support of G-d, an army, the determination to fight for their power (unlike the Shah, who just left the country), and no real opposition.

Menashri cited Ahmadinejad as another asset of Khameni, because next to him the ayatollah looks like a moderate, which may improve his reputation with other world leaders.

In reality, there is little difference between them; Ahmadinejad is simply louder, said Menashri.