Diverts Attention From Domestic Woes : Khomeini’s War on Book Seen as Bid to Unify Iran

WASHINGTON —  The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s campaign against the novel “The Satanic Verses” is increasingly seen as having as much to do with domestic Iranian politics and the ayatollah’s own role in history as about author Salman Rushdie’s allegedly blasphemous writing on Islam, according to European and American experts on Iran.

At a crucial moment in Iran’s 10-year-old revolution, they said, the theocracy needs a rallying point to divert attention from domestic problems, which have grown worse rather than better since the end of the war with Iraq last summer.

In the past, the mullahs have used and in some cases created crises, such as the 1979-81 hostage ordeal at the American Embassy in Tehran, to mobilize public support for the troubled regime, analysts noted.

Also, the aged and ailing Iranian leader has long sought to be the spokesman of the 70-nation “House of Islam,” even though his minority Shiite sect accounts for less than 15% of the Muslim world and is often scorned by the majority Sunni sect.

Picking up on the growing fury among both sects about the novel, Khomeini moved to the forefront of opposition--five months after it was first published in Britain--in part to demonstrate that he and his revolution represent all Muslims, the experts suggested.

“He was genuinely outraged by the book’s description of Islam and the life of the Prophet Mohammed, but he stepped in, in large part, to serve other ends, too,” said one U.S. expert on Iran, who asked to remain anonymous.

Added a State Department analyst: “This is the first time that Iran has been on the cutting edge of the entire Muslim world. That’s what so many in Tehran had dreamed of, especially Khomeini. This has revived their hopes of leading the Islamic world.”

The ruling mullahs’ dreams of assuming the so-called mantle of the prophet were shattered soon after their 1979 revolution by widespread disillusionment with the regime’s domestic problems and its support of extremist activities in other Middle East nations.

Rushdie’s controversial book on Islam, however, has provided an ideal context to try again. “What head of state in a Muslim nation is going to dare speak out against Khomeini on this issue, whatever he thinks?” the State Department official said. “The book is, after all, blasphemous.”

Seeking Legitimacy

Khomeini’s appeal to Muslims worldwide to kill the British author is “a step to reclaim loss legitimacy,” said James Bill, director of International Studies at the College of William and Mary and author of “The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of U.S.-Iranian Relations.”

“Even if they are not in accord with the way he condemned it, all Muslims are in accord that this was a racist and pornographic attack on their authenticity and dignity,” Bill said.

Equally important is mobilization at home. Since Iran’s abrupt agreement to end the war with Iraq last July, “there has been a great deal of frustration and a sense of loss as a result of the unsatisfactory ending of the war,” said Shaul Bakhash, Iranian-born author of “The Reign of the Ayatollahs . “

“People were questioning the wisdom of continuing the war for so long and even the wisdom of having continued the hostage crisis for so long,” he said. “There was beginning to be questioning of the very pillars of Iran’s ideology, and he thought this process had gone too far.”

Just as the hostage crisis renewed internal support for the revolution at a time when it was losing steam by focusing attention on the West’s meddling, stirring up passions about another challenge, this one also emanating in the West, eases “the sense of malaise” that has permeated Iran in recent months, he added.

The book flap also is helping turn the tide in domestic politics, which may have been another reason for pushing the issue. Indeed, there is a growing feeling among Iran analysts that the idea of condemning Rushdie may not have originated with Khomeini but rather with hard-line elements in the government opposed to the recent relaxation in Iran’s foreign policy, its economy and reconstruction.

“All we can do from this distance is guess,” a Bush Administration official said. “But the guessing is that certain people got to him and told him that this was an issue that had to be picked up on. Then events in Pakistan provoked events.”

Five Muslims were killed in demonstrations at the U.S. cultural center in Islamabad, Pakistan, against the book. Another was killed in an anti-Rushdie demonstration in India. “When six Muslims die protesting Western insults of Islam, you have to come out and say something if you claim to be the conscience of the Muslim world,” said a U.S. Iran expert.

But the obvious repercussions suited the agenda of the hard-line element.

Since the cease-fire with Iraq, President Ali Khamenei, Speaker of Parliament Hashemi Rafsanjani and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati have pushed a thaw in Iran’s relations with the West and the use of foreign aid and technology in reconstruction, while preventing nationalization of trade.

Like the move to end the war, these measures are viewed by hard-liners as betrayals of the revolution. They favor perpetuating the distance between Iran and the outside world and tight control over the economy.

The pragmatic bloc has “suffered a severe setback” because of the international furor over Khomeini’s bounty on Rushdie, Bakhash said. “It means that several months or even years of work by the Foreign Ministry and Rafsanjani is very much wasted. They must now go back to square one.”

There are signs that not all the leadership fully endorsed Khomeini’s declaration. A State Department analyst pointed out that Khamenei appealed to Iranians to protest Rushdie’s presence and the book’s publication in Britain by ostracizing the British presence in Iran--and not going to the British Embassy. That is in contrast to government exhortations during the hostage affair at the American mission. Iran analysts said that they believe Khamenei was actually trying to prevent violence.

Several European and American analysts predicted that the book incident could well have major repercussions, in turn, on the Iranian power struggle. Said a U.S. specialist: “It’s too early to judge how long-lasting the effects of this will be, but it is clear that the impact inside Iran itself may be the most divisive of all.”