This morning at the 3 West Club in New York City, Senator Marco Rubio gave a speech and answered questions on American foreign policy. He focused on Cuba and Iran, and the discussion turned mostly on specific policy actions the Senator might take if he does win the White House next year.
But at the beginning of his prepared statement, Rubio spoke in grand terms, pronouncing a flat characterization of Iranian leaders as religious visionaries with a global ambition. They imagine the entire world under Islamic rule, he asserted, and they believe it will happen only after “a cataclysmic showdown with the West.”
That conclusion is worth pausing over. Assessments of religious fervor in Iran mark a dividing line in the United States. People who take it seriously are disposed to regard the deal as dangerous—as Rubio put it, a “string of concessions to a sworn enemy of the United States.” If Iranians really believe it, why are we bothering?
People who don’t take it seriously regard the deal otherwise. They see religious aims as flexible, because religious convictions generally run less deep among them.
It’s a neoliberal premise: if you work with people, talk with them, and, most importantly, do commerce with them, their adversarial religious scruples will diminish. If we can get more Iranians to listen to U.S. music and buy U.S. goods, the image of The Great Satan will fade.
It’s not that liberal supporters of the Iranian plan ignore or dismiss Iran’s religious thinking and doing, then. It’s that they find religious conviction no different than political allegiance and consumer taste. Alter the circumstances that people inhabit, and anything can change.
Religious believers of any kind aren’t so sure. They see faith surviving through worldly changes, and they feel their own faith as a rock. When they hear a powerful Iranian cleric speaking politics, they sense the religious certainty underneath it.
Secularists hear the politics just as well, but they don’t count the religion as its ground. For them, religion is politics, and politics can always be adjusted.
Mark Bauerlein is senior editor of First Things.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…