The Attack on Salman Rushdie and Its Importance for Us as Iranians

The news of the attack against the Indian-born, naturalized British citizen and writer Ahmed Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses,” will certainly meet with different reactions around the world. Rushdie was attacked last Saturday, Aug. 12, at 11 a.m., during a speech at the Chautauqua Institution in western New York by a 24-year-old man from New Jersey named Hadi Matar, who witnesses said was dressed in black. In the hours after the attack and with the assailant in custody, New York police disclosed that Matar is a supporter of Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

There are a few natural responses to consider regarding this attack. First, this incident is very important for the Islamic Republic of Iran and for Iranians generally. In 1989, following the publication of “The Satanic Verses,” the founder of the Islamic Republic issued a fatwa declaring Rushdie an apostate, granting permission to murder him and establishing a reward for his murder. Since that proclamation, there has been a continuous uproar around the world over the fatwa.

The world’s attention with regard to this attack will undoubtedly be directed toward Iran. If the Islamic Republic condemns the attack,* it will be openly going against the will of the founder of the Islamic Republic; if it supports the attack, it may have to face the negative reaction and backlash of international organizations.

For context, in 1989, the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq had just ended with the Islamic Republic’s acceptance of Security Council Resolution 598, and Iran was still dealing with the aftershock of the war’s conclusion. “The Satanic Verses” was published a few months afterward. The first protests against the book came from Muslims in India, Rushdie’s homeland, and later from Pakistan. Protests also occurred in several Arab countries, and the Islamic Republic faced accusations that it failed to oppose the book seriously enough. A few days later the fatwa against Rushdie’s apostasy was issued. From that point until he left for the U.S., Rushdie was under the protection of the British police. British taxpayers bore the enormous cost of that security, which elicited protest in the U.K. At the same time, many supporters of the Islamic Republic awaited the news that Rushdie had been killed.

Since last week’s attack on Rushdie, there have been different and somewhat conflicting analyses, with some observers even linking the attack to those who oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal), people who perhaps hoped to derail negotiations on the eve of a new agreement. But the attack on Rushdie must be assessed with patience and skepticism, as shown by the fact that only a few days before it occurred, we learned that someone in the U.S. had planned to assassinate John Bolton, one of the Islamic Republic’s strongest opponents during his time as national security advisor to Donald Trump. Rushdie, a figure who was already in the palm of the hand of the West but who costs them millions each year for protection without offering anything in return, and who had already been threatened, was attacked just a few days after the news of the Bolton assassination plan. In any event, as mentioned above, a full analysis and commentary on this incident will require additional information over the coming weeks.

*Editor’s Note: The Iranian government claimed no responsibility for the attack, but placed the blame for the attack solely on Rushdie.