In 1977, President Jimmy Carter, while attending a New Year’s Eve party hosted by the Iranian Shah, famously described Iran as “an island of stability in a turbulent corner of the world.” Just a few months later, religious extremists orchestrated a revolution that culminated in the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, triggering a 444-day hostage crisis. This dramatic shift in Iran’s political climate raised questions about how a nation, once deemed exemplary in conduct, could spiral into chaos. The Carter administration’s failure to anticipate the religious forces driving Iran’s upheaval highlights a deeper issue: the United States’ lack of religious literacy in diplomacy.
The Iranian Hostage Crisis was not just a political failure but an outcome of Washington’s broader negligence in understanding the religious dynamics shaping global affairs. In its post-crisis review, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that U.S. diplomats had little to no interaction with religious leaders in Iran before the revolution. This oversight proved fatal. In dismissing the growing influence of Iran’s Islamic clerics, the U.S. undermined its diplomatic strategy and found itself blindsided by the revolution. As the crisis unraveled, it became clear that diplomatic engagement requires more than just relationships with government elites; it demands an understanding of the religious forces at play in society.
The Iranian Hostage Crisis revealed a broader issue in U.S. foreign policy: a systemic underestimation of religion’s role in international affairs. Former diplomat Eric Patterson, in his book Politics in a Religious World, argues that U.S. diplomacy operates with a “deliberate blindering” to religious factors, resulting in poor policy decisions. This secular bias, deeply ingrained in the U.S. State Department, has led American diplomats to ignore religious dynamics that drive political and social change across the globe.
Religious freedom, Patterson argues, is not just a moral good but a fundamental human right, essential to the functioning of democratic societies. Countries that protect religious freedom tend to uphold other democratic liberties, such as freedom of speech and assembly. Moreover, religious freedom can serve as a defense against authoritarianism. As former diplomat Thomas Farr notes, “tyranny often begins when the government claims the authority to define what is true.” When governments restrict religious expression, they in turn undermine the very freedoms that keep authoritarianism at bay.
Diplomatic engagement requires more than just relationships with government elites; it demands an understanding of the religious forces at play in society.
While U.S. diplomacy has long promoted democracy and human rights abroad, it has often ignored the religious context in which these rights are exercised. This oversight has left American diplomats ill-prepared to engage with religious leaders and movements that shape the political landscape in many parts of the world.
The roots of the U.S. government’s religious illiteracy can be traced to the secularization of its foreign policy. The U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause, intended to prevent government-imposed religion, has been interpreted in modern times as a mandate to keep religion out of public life altogether. This approach, while safeguarding against religious imposition, has led to a secular bias that dismisses the importance of religion in public and international affairs.
The faulty interpretation of the separation of church and state can be traced to the French Revolution, where the principle of laïcité seeks to keep religion out of the public sphere entirely. In contrast, the U.S. model was designed to protect religious expression, not to eliminate its influence from public life. However, over the past half-century, U.S. policy has increasingly marginalized religious voices in both domestic and foreign affairs. This trend has left American diplomats unequipped to optimally engage with deeply religious societies, where faith plays a central role in politics and governance.
Secularization has also influenced the academic field of international relations. In the 1960s, political scientists developed “modernization theory,” which posited that economic development alone could advance U.S. foreign policy objectives in religious cultures. This theory largely ignored the role of religion in shaping political outcomes, leading to diplomatic strategies that were ill-suited for religiously devout societies. As Patterson points out, this secularist bias continues to influence U.S. diplomacy, often to its detriment.
To address these shortcomings, experts like Patterson and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright argue that U.S. diplomats must be trained in religious literacy. Religious literacy, as defined by scholar Stephen Prothero, is “the ability to understand and use the basic building blocks of religious traditions.” It allows diplomats to engage effectively with religious leaders and traditions, recognizing their influence on governance and society.
Religious literacy is not just a tool for preventing crises; it is a means of building relationships and fostering trust in an increasingly religious world.
In practice, this means going beyond the “old diplomacy,” which focuses solely on engaging with government elites, to what Patterson calls “new diplomacy,” which recognizes the influence of non-governmental actors, including religious leaders. In many countries, religious groups wield significant power and shape public opinion. For example, in Muslim-majority countries, religious leaders often have more credibility and influence than secular political elites. Ignoring these actors can lead to missteps, as the U.S. learned in Iran.
Albright has been a vocal advocate for incorporating religious understanding into diplomatic training. She asserts that “no American ambassador should be assigned to a country where religious feelings are strong unless he or she has a deep understanding of the faiths practiced there.” Currently, the U.S. State Department mandates language training for diplomats, but there is little emphasis on religious education. A comprehensive religious literacy program could mirror the language training model, with diplomats undergoing courses tailored to the religious landscape of their assigned countries.
Religious literacy is not just a tool for preventing crises; it is a means of building relationships and fostering trust in an increasingly religious world. Understanding the religious motivations behind political decisions can help U.S. diplomats navigate complex social landscapes, avoid misunderstandings, and promote policies that align with the values of the societies they engage with.
In a world where religion plays an ever-greater role in shaping politics, governance, and social movements, the U.S. must prioritize religious literacy as a key component of its diplomatic strategy. By doing so, it can better protect its interests abroad, prevent future crises, and promote a more stable and democratic international order.
