Fahreed Zakaria is a smart political analyst, who doesn't just yap to hear himself talk like most of the political bloviators on CNN. I get the feeling he actually knows - and understands - history!
He gives his take this morning at CNN.com on whether or not the Islamic Republic can sustain itself:
CNN: As you've seen the situation in Iran develop over the last week, what are your thoughts?
Fareed Zakaria: One of the first things that strikes me is we are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy.
Unlike almost all other news coverage, Zakaria explains in clear and precise terms how the foundation of the ruling regime has been all but destroyed:
Zakaria: .... I mean that this is the end of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian regime.
The regime's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, laid out his special interpretation of political Islam in a series of lectures in 1970. In this interpretation of Shia Islam, Islamic jurists had divinely ordained powers to rule as guardians of the society, supreme arbiters not only on matters of morality but politics as well. When Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran, this idea was at its heart. Last week, that ideology suffered a fatal wound.
CNN: How so?
Zakaria: When the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "divine assessment," he was indicating it was divinely sanctioned. But no one bought it. He was forced to accept the need for an inquiry into the election. The Guardian Council, Iran's supreme constitutional body, met with the candidates and promised to investigate and perhaps recount some votes. Khamenei has subsequently hardened his position but that is now irrelevant. Something very important has been laid bare in Iran today --- legitimacy does not flow from divine authority but from popular support.
And how is Obama handling Iran policy?
CNN: What should the United States do?
Zakaria: I would say continue what we have been doing. By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that they are battling an aggressive America bent on attacking Iran. In his inaugural address, his New Year greetings, and his Cairo speech, there is a consistent effort to convey respect and friendship for Iranians. That is why Khamenei reacted so angrily to the New Year greeting. It undermined the image of the Great Satan that he routinely paints in his sermons. In his Friday sermon, Khamenei said that the United States, Israel, and especially the United Kingdom were behind the street protests, an accusation that will surely sound ridiculous to most Iranians....
CNN: But shouldn't the U.S. be more vocal in support for the Iranian protesters?
Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.
Why can't we get this kind of clear-headed analysis out of anyone else on the political scene?
I think another ideology is currently suffering a fatal blow - Bush's "bring it on" loud-mouth cowboy diplomacy brand of foreign policy. By using information, facts, analysis and smarts, Obama inserted just the right lever in the just right place to clear the way for what hopefully will result in historic positive change for the region. All Bush's policy succeed at causing was historic death and destruction. Legitimacy does not flow from shock-and-awe but from respect and understanding.