In Tahrir Square, among the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians anticipating President Hosni Mubarak's resignation, the feeling came over me: Egypt is another Iran.
I don't mean in the sense that Egypt's revolution will bring a radical, Islamist regime into power. That will not happen, despite the fears of diehard Mubarak loyalists, some Western commentators who know little about Egypt and Egyptians, and Islamophobes everywhere. The resounding message of this revolution, which nobody can hijack now, is clear: Freedom for Egyptians.
The Iran parallel that came to mind relates to the former ruler, not to the former ruled. The person of Mubarak, as with the deposed Shah of Iran, has been the focal point of frustration and anger. As with the Shah, the mass protests forced Mubarak to make hasty concessions in the desperate hope of clinging to power. And, in an echo of the Shah's last departure for a supposed holiday in Egypt, Mubarak's reported exit to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh Friday will come to be seen as the final crumbling of an autocrat's reign.
It's hard to exaggerate the excitement on the streets of Cairo after news organizations first reported the likelihood that Mubarak was leaving office. The target of the protesters is the whole regime, but Mubarak's ouster was the key, symbolic demand. Many arriving after twilight Thursday, people streamed into Tahrir Square anticipating a joyous celebration of Mubarak's downfall. As if Egypt had won the soccer World Cup, carloads of Cairenes tooted horns and waved flags as they raced to the center of the city. In Tahrir, people handed out sweets in a traditional celebratory gesture. At first there was stunned disbelief when Mubarak came on the air and announced that he in fact intended to complete his term of office. Then there was anger, with the crowds chanting, "Leave! Leave! Leave!"
Finally, Friday afternoon, he did leave. No sooner was Mubarak reported to have arrived in Sharm el-Sheikh, a resort on the Red Sea, a statement was read on Egyptian state television: Mubarak has resigned the presidency and handed over power to the Egyptian military command. Finally, the explosion of joy occurred. The throngs chanted: "Egypt! Freedom!"
As with the Shah, Mubarak's long goodbye will haunt him and his family for the rest of his days. His stubborn refusal to quickly grasp the clear and profound meaning of the revolt against his suffocating 30-year rule led to 18 long days of unrest, untold economic destruction and -- worst of all -- an estimated 300 innocent deaths. Many of the posters in Tahrir proclaimed a desire for freedom. Some that demanded Mubarak's ouster did so with typical Egyptian humor, calling him by his comical nickname, La Vache Qui Rit, or "the smiling cow." Yet others, more ominously for Mubarak, called for accountability. Scores of posters contained portraits of young Egyptians slaughtered during the uprising. One showed Mubarak with bloody fangs. Others demanded investigations into funds that protesters believe Mubarak siphoned from the state's coffers. "How did you get $70 billion?" asked one typical sign. "Leave the poorest people on earth, you richest man on earth!"
Maybe nothing could have saved Mubarak, although there seemed a possibility at the start that more sincere and tangible concessions could have enabled him to negotiate with the opposition in the formation of a new political order. But as a cautious military man who became too comfortable with the trappings of power, he refused to share Egypt with other Egyptians, right to the end. For a few years, it seemed that he might bend somewhat to the winds of political reform that blew through the Middle East. But as he approached his re-election to a sixth term as president in 2011, he reasserted absolute control. Rigged parliamentary elections in November and December brooked no dissent, allowing his ruling party to capture more than 90 percent of the seats. Mubarak's explanation: no one else was fit to rule Egypt, and he would remain leader until his last breath.
Nothing illustrated Mubarak's folly as the efforts to groom his son, Gamal, as his eventual successor. Egyptians had become accustomed to Mubarak's photo appearing daily on the front page of state-owned newspapers, and that of his wife Suzanne, somewhere too. But the gradual ascension of Gamal, an arrogant and aloof figure with no discernible expertise or political touch, left Egyptians seething. "Decades of Mubarak, and now we're going to have 20 or 30 more years of Gamal?" Salah, an Egyptian friend, constantly griped to me. "Mafeesh fayda," he would add in dejection -- "Nothing good will come." So few were surprised when a mob torched the building housing the ruling party, where Gamal held a senior position, or when the regime made him an early sacrifice by having him publicly resign his leadership role. But Mubarak himself insisted on staying in power. Without him, he told Egyptians, there would be "chaos."
With a new democratic government obliged to call the former regime to account, it's unlikely that Mubarak and his family will enjoy a pleasant sojourn in Sharm el-Sheikh, any more than the Shah had a respite when he left Iran. If Mubarak sails across the Red Sea to a refuge in Saudi Arabia, he may be able to join deposed Tunisian President Zine El-Abdine Ben Ali there. Together, they could form an ex-dictator's club, whose membership may grow larger still.
Scott MacLeod, Time's Middle East correspondent from 1995 to 2010, is managing editor of the Cairo Review of Global Affairs and a professor at the American University in Cairo.
Deepak Chopra: On the Prophet's Birthday: Old Guards, New Guards and Rear Guards
"On t Arab side first and most prominent traitor to Palestinians is their President Abbas and his gang, who hijacked and abused Fatah movement for their own political and financial gains. Since his appointment as Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas had shown inclinations towards American and Israeli policies even when they were harmful to his people. He exhibited opposition to Palestinian resistance groups, which became more prominent after being elected as President through help of Israel and US. He described Palestinian resistance, especially that of Hamas, as harmful , and had clamped down on them. Through his chief of security, Mohammad Dahlan, Abbas tried to crippledemocratically elected Hamas government and sabotage its work, which led to Hamas' purging Gaza Strip. Abbas dissolved Hamas government and appointed a new one severing Gaza Strip from West Bank. He refused to negotiate with Hamas government negotiated instead with Israel hoping for downfall of Hamas. When Hamas survived and gained more popularity Abbas recently accused Hamas of harboring Al-Qaeda elements giving Israel an open invitation and a justification to attack Gaza to get rid of Hamas."
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/10/13/abbas-the-betraying-president/
Stop clapping. Stop screaming. Open your mind. Listen.
Mike
Comparison of the Shah to Mubarak is extraordinarily shallow, to say the least.
A superb analysis of the life and forces affecting the Shah can be found in
Abbas Milani's* very recent definitive biography "Shah" (ISBN-13: 978-1403971937).
Of particular interest is the undercurrent of Iran's nascent nuclear ambitions
initiated by the Shah's concern over Saddam Hussain's WMD program, and
which laid the foundation for today's Iran nuclear issues.
________
*NPR/KQED Commonwealth Club program is today featuring an interview with Milani:
"The program's speaker is Abbas Milani, director of Iranian Studies at Stanford, co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution and author of "The Shah." The life of Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlevi, the last Shah of Iran, continues to resonate today. Milani will look at the monarch who shaped Iran's modern age and with it the contemporary politics of the Middle East. He'll discuss the complex and sweeping road that he says has brought the US and Iran to where they are today.
KQED Public Radio -- Sat, Feb 12, 2011 -- 2:00am"
This fascinating and authoritative interview will be archived, and can later be traced
by web searching KQED homepage/archive/Commonwealth Club/Feb 12, 2011.
.
But even in his book, Mr. Milani could not cover the Shah's deep love for anything Iranian or Iran. He even concedes that the Shah's biggest fault, like his father, was to push Iran too quickly to modernize and not bring the muslim clerics along with him.
Many mistakes were made by the Shah but he cannot be accused of stealing or lack of love for his country. These facts renders the comparison made by the author rather flimsy.
Another observation I have made is that in these days, is that many of these so-called bloggers/pundits are making comparisons about a 1979 event with 2011 standards and world understanding. Many things have changed and we simply don't have the same social and political beliefs of 30 plus years ago.
Iranian authorities on Wednesday warned against any attempt by the opposition movement to hold the rally, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. It was unclear whether people will take to the streets, anyway.
"We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will confront them with force," Revolutionary Guard Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani told IRNA.
A year and a half after the Iranian regime brutally suppressed the so-called Green Movement, a new test of its openness to reform and patience may come Monday.
The government -- which Friday said the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt "joyfully" coincided with the anniversary of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution -- has rounded up activists after Iran's two leading opposition figures called for a rally Monday in support of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.From all appearances, the regime is not about to loosen its grip.
Once in 1951, when he was replaced with the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mossadegh. Then again in 1979, after he was reinstallled by the US in 1953.
What countries have done the past 100 years, and ours included, is being looked at and reviewed by the whole world. For thousands of years there has been societies that have gone too far, and they are not the same today. We are a blessed nation, and by that it means we are lucky to have Freedom.
I think we had too many "compare and contrast" questions in school.
What does an Arab overthrow of a dictator have to do with Persian overthrow 30 years earlier?
BP was originally Anglo-Iranian oil company. When Iranians elected a democratic leader who said that the people owned the oil fields (the Brits had stolen them), BP got Churchill to go to Eisenhower and tell him Iran was going Communist. Together Brit SS and CIA overthrew leader, but in Shah in 1953 and BP got to keep the fields.
Britain ran the Middle East, not the US, though we became more involved after WWII.
Wanna bet?
Give it two years at most, it WILL become an extremist islamic country, sharia enforced law and all...guaranteed.
Particularly since it will be both hard and essential to explicitly make the government and Law secular in the coming reform of the constitution.
Two things stand out for me in your insightful column. Mubarak, a military man had gotten too comfortable with the trappings of power. This could cross over to the financial crisis and represent the big cheeses at the big banks. I think this will eventually prove their downfall, as it has their various reputations.
My favorite though is your suggesting that he can join, with the deposed head of the Tunisian government, to constitute a "deposed dictators club". How delicious!