Egypt & Tunisia Vs. Iran & Libya

This piece was originally published on Enduring America:

The time of uprsing could be measured in a few weeks, or days, or even hours.

Just a few days before January 14th, most Americans didn’t know Tunis from hummus, and suddenly the government fell, Ben Ali stepped down. A few weeks later, U.S. President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address on a Tuesday. He didn’t mention the word “Egypt.” On Friday of that same week, every American eye was glued to a TV set to witness the final hours of President Mubarak’s 30 year reign. It happens that fast, and the whole world changes. And, as we all know, it changed solely because a group of dedicated and peaceful protesters joined together, used technology to spread their voices, and brought down dictatorships.

Well, that was almost two weeks ago now. We’re already impatient for the next government to fall. It will be Libya, or Bahrain, or Iran, or maybe Yemen. It should happen any day now, right?

Actually, many of the assumptions I have listed thus far are completely, or partially, inaccurate. For instance, a common misconception about Tunisia is that the revolution happened overnight. However, the spark for the protests that eventually toppled Ben Ali occured on December 17, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor, lit himself on fire after having his merchandise confiscated by a municipal officer. Even this, however, was not the beginning of the discontent, as it took years of economic and social oppression to drive Bouazizi to this point, and others to the point where they would take to the streets after this event. However, even if we want to count December 17th the first day of the revolution, it still took a whole month for Ben Ali to step down.

In Egypt, websites like Enduring America had been following the political degradation for at least a year.  There were serious signs of trouble for Egypt long before the main stream media followed the story. Rigged elections, persecution of political dissent, and an increasingly vocal opposition had been festering, slowly eating away at Mubarak’s credibility. President Obama was probably short sighted for not speaking about Egypt in his State of the Union address because, to many who follow the Middle East on a daily basis, it was already clear that the wave of pro-democracy protests was growing, and it would be difficult to stop.

Perhaps the most critical misconception about these first two revolutions is that the protesters in Tunisia and Egypt somehow toppled their dictators. While the protesters in both locations may have been the catalysts for change, they were not the agents of change. In both nations, members of the government and leaders of the military stepped in on behalf of the people on the ground. Even if we accept the popular time-frame for these revolutions, the people did not topple their governments in a few weeks. Instead, dissent from within these governments forced both Ben Ali and Mubarak into a corner. They would have to make a choice, face a bloody civil war and attempt to thwart a coups d’état, or step down. I’m not trying to take credit away from the protesters, or to argue that both Ben Ali and Mubarak were not ruthless dictators, but these relatively bloodless revolutions were won in a short amount of time because members of the establishment stepped up while the dictators stepped down. For all of their ruthlessness, Ben Ali and Mubarak may be judged more kindly than their current approval ratings would suggest, because they knew when to call it quits.

Libya is not Egypt or Tunisia. Gaddafi has no centralized government, has no institutions, and has few rivals inside his own government or military. He calls all the shots. This is why were are seeing a very different pattern in Libya. The protesters are physically taking control of the country, not just a single square, and they are sometimes doing so by force. While initially the protests in Libya were peaceful, once the pro-Gaddafi security forces used deadly force, anti-government protesters have responded in kind. Each man employed by the Libyan state is being forced to pick sides, and many are joining the protests. There is no other way for this to play out than violent revolution, because there is no government, to speak of, besides Gaddafi to hold a gun to the back of the dictator’s head.

So far, it appears that the protesters have the edge. They are claiming more and more territory by the hour, and Gaddafi’s security forces are refusing to fight the protesters, and many are even joining their ranks. It appears as though the world’s most eccentric dictator is about to exit the stage. However, when he leaves, unlike Egypt and Tunisia where there was a preexisting power structure, no one will be in charge, even temporarily.

Iran is also not Tunisia or Egypt, but for different reasons. The identity of the post-1979 pro-regime Iranian is so closely tied to the idea that the current theocratic government is the culmination of the Islamic Revolution. Following orders, cracking down on dissenters, and maintaining loyalty to the Supreme Leader is almost a religious obligation. This is in sharp contrast to Egyptian and Tunisian societies, that were far more permissive despite their repression of political rivals or freedom of expression.

So far, this has been a difficult identity to change. However, for the last 20+ months, more and more of the regime’s support has been eroding, and the cracks are beginning to show. Last week’s defection of Iran’s diplomat to Milan was the latest in a series of high profile defections. Each day we watch as members of the establishment debate how to best handle the opposition movement. Fanatical loyalists to the regime are calling for the death of reformist leaders, while moderate conservatives push back. As the wave of pro-democratic protests continues to crash on the shores of the Islamic Republic of Iran, eventually members of the regime will be faced with the same choice that was given to Mubarak and his government, or Ben Ali and his.

Thus far, the ideology of the Islamic Republic has won out, the Revolutionary Guard and the military have remain loyal, and the world has watched as the police and the basij have beat and arrested the protesters. The strength of the military establishment is unparalleled in the region, and its leaders have been consolidating power for thirty years. Add to this formula the perceived need to defend against the omnipresent enemy of the West, and it becomes apparent that Iran has the military order of an Egypt, but with greater loyalty, and the ferocity of the Libyan regime, but with more political savvy.

The protesters are still showing up, still chanting, still marching,  but as the old adage goes, words do not break bones. Things in Iran are headed to the breaking point, however, when someone is going to hold a gun to someone else’s head, and everyone is going to react. With Mousavi under house arrest, Karroubi under the constant guard of security forces in his own home, Rafsanjani’s power being challenged on the Assembly of Experts, Ahmadinejad’s term expiring, and the revolutionary spirit of 2011 spreading, that breaking point seems imminent.

Egypt and Tunisia had their earthquakes building up for a long time, on perhaps softer ground. It has taken, and will take, much longer for the fault lines to break the foundations of Iran’s government. When it happens, it is likely to go quickly, and like a high magnitude earthquake, the results will be felt far and wide. We’re already feeling the foreshocks, and the hole world is waiting for the big one.