Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Revolutionary Choices

Are the mass protests toppling regimes across the Middle East closer in spirit to 1979 Iran or 1989 Eastern Europe? Paul Berman, Elliott Abrams, Bruce Riedel, Andrew Tabler, and Brian Katulis consider the region’s future.

Print Email
Children climbing on an army tank during a protest last week in Benghazi, Libya. (John Moore/Getty Images)
Related Content

Obama in the Mideast

Part 1 of 2: Elliott Abrams, Robert Malley, Dore Gold, and Andrew Exum consider the president’s policies in the region.

Obama in the Mideast

Part 2 of 2: Ramin Ahmadi, Lokman Slim, Martin Kramer, and Jacob Weisberg consider the president’s policies in the region.

Are the historic events we are witnessing in the Middle East closer in spirit to those of Iran in 1979 or Eastern Europe in 1989? That is, will the toppling of autocratic but often pro-Western regimes across the region by a wave of popular protest pave the way for repressive Islamist dictatorships, like the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini that replaced the Shah of Iran, or will it bring about a vibrant new democratic order that will create hope and opportunity for the Arabs? We asked five distinguished contributors with unique perspectives on the region to respond.

‘The Roulette Wheel’
Paul Berman
is the author of The Flight of the Intellectuals:

The cries in the street appear right now to be uniformly denouncing corruption and autocracy—a fact that means nothing at all, given that every revolution in the history of the world has been conducted in the name of hatred for corruption and autocracy. Still, no one is shouting, “Islam is the solution!” Nor is anyone calling, so far, for some other imaginative kind of regime different from a conventional democracy. Nor do the principal crowds in the street appear to be the manipulated dupes of a hidden revolutionary organization. The many thrilling cries for democracy and freedom that we hear seem to be, on the contrary, genuinely spontaneous and mass. A conclusion, therefore: We are witnessing an enormous event whose most obvious surface element right now is a resemblance to 1989.

Some other surface elements are less reassuring. The liberal factions and parties and intellectuals of the region appear to be standing on institutionally flimsy foundations. Worse, their liberalism itself appears sometimes to be shaky. And there is the big problem beneath the surface. The Muslim Brotherhood, in its various branches and offshoots, appears to be magnificently disciplined, well-organized, sure of itself, and ideologically sturdy. The Brotherhood, in circumstances like these, merely needs to act with caution and an eye on the ultimate goal, and then it will stand in an excellent position to inherit the various revolutions as time goes by—to inherit the revolutions either in full or, more likely, in some kind of power-sharing arrangement with national armies and other groups.

As for the Brotherhood’s ultimate goal, this, of course, is 1979 exactly—an Islamist dictatorship (which will call itself a “democracy”), naturally with adaptations suited to different countries and circumstances, and whose goal will be regional (and more than regional), not just local. You have only to cock a keen ear to the Brotherhood’s oratory to recognize that, ideologically speaking, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved not one whit.

This exhilarating moment of ours is therefore also a terrifying moment. And it would be foolish to hazard even the slightest prediction—foolish even to toy with a phrase like “more likely,” though I have just toyed with the phrase. The history of every revolution that has ever taken place tells us that at moments like this the role of hitherto-unknown leaders and of unforeseeable events is going to be vast and that leaders and events will point in every possible direction. Some countries will fare rather well, others will plunge into catastrophe—and the roulette wheel is spinning at this very moment.

Elliott Abrams
, a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush Administration:

The 1989 revolutions benefited from several positive factors, such as prior years of democracy (Czechoslovakia and the Baltic states are a good example) and the model of the European Union. In the Middle East history is not so kind, nor does the Arab League offer much to admire. So, one can be at least dubious about whether vibrant democracies are assured in every case. I worry about a kind of populism developing, as the demands of the people for economic improvement will likely outstretch what new governments can deliver (except perhaps in Libya, with its oil wealth and small population). It would not be surprising to see politicians doing what came so easily in Latin America, appealing to lowest common denominators, inveighing against the rich, and pursuing policies guaranteed to produce more poverty.

Still, there are reasons for optimism. There are models of Muslim democracies in Asia. No one in the Arab world admires the Persian model of velayat-i-faqih, or clerical rule, nor do they admire the dictatorship that has been established in Iran today. In the years since 1989, there is an even stronger global consensus around democracy and human rights. While the Chinese model may be invoked, it seems entirely irrelevant in the Arab cases. One ingredient that must not be left out is the United States, for our voice is still heard in the region, and we can push and pull to get better outcomes than might otherwise occur. Here I am not so optimistic, however: The Barack Obama Administration does not seem ready, willing, or able to do that kind of pushing and pulling successfully.

‘Egypt’s Path’
Bruce Riedel
, a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East policy at the Brookings Institution, served in the CIA for 30 years. He is the author of Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad:

An earthquake has shaken Arab politics this winter like never before. Dictators are toppling in the face of home-grown revolutions. The winter of Arab discontent may give rise to a spring of democracy or a reversion to new autocracies. Some fear a repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution, but there are fundamental differences between Iran then and the Arab revolutions now, especially the most important one in Egypt. Egypt is the centerpiece of the Arab world in terms of demography, culture, and history. The jasmine revolution in Tunis inspired Egyptians; Egyptians are inspiring the rest of the region.

The Iranian revolution was dominated from the start by Ayatollah Khomeni and a coterie of like-minded mullahs, especially Ayatollah Beheshti. They controlled the message and the marches. Secular, liberal, and leftist voices tried to gain traction but were always secondary players to Khomeni, who also had a revolutionary idea, the concept of a Shia supreme leader for a new Iran, that left no space for dissent. In the CIA’s task force monitoring the revolution we concluded in the fall of 1978 that Khomeni was the revolution. His triumphal return from Paris in early 1979 set the stage for the coup de grace and the collapse of the army.

No such charismatic figure has emerged in Egypt. So far the revolution has not had a single leader or dominant party. The Sunni clerical establishment in Egypt has not sought such a role, nor has the Muslim Brotherhood to date sought to monopolize the process of change. This could of course change. Revolutions tend to produce Bonapartes, leaders who grab the mantle of power and take charge. But so far that is not the case in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, or Libya. In Egypt the process of change has now been channeled into a dialogue between the broad-based opposition and the army.

The Egyptian army is another big difference. In Iran the military collapsed as did SAVAK, the secret police. In Egypt the army is still a power broker and widely respected. It will have a cautionary voice in determining Egypt’s future.

Egypt and the other Arab revolutions need not be a repeat of 1979, nor are they likely to look like Eastern Europe in 1989. They will each forge their own unique new political orders. As it has for centuries, Egypt’s path will be the one that sets the standard.

‘Foreign Policy Models’
Andrew J. Tabler
is a Next Generation fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute:

Recent events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are closer to the spirit of 1989 than to the Iranian revolution in 1979. Protesters have poured into the streets because of the way they were governed, not because of their countries’ foreign policies. As globalization and the Internet have penetrated Arab countries dominated by authoritarian regimes, this has opened up new spaces where people can talk about their aspirations and organize to achieve them. It has also undermined the fear-factor deterrent that regimes use to keep people down.

To help ensure that the uprisings of 2011 do not turn out like 1979, where one authoritarian regime is replaced by another, the United States needs to work with our allies on the ground to help these countries build more liberal systems that respect human rights, rule of law, and ensure that one party or group cannot dominate the political system. This will be hard work, and it will be difficult for the United States to affect specific outcomes that serve our interests. But we don’t have a choice—the old “realist” or “stability” foreign policy models built during the Cold War, when we separated our relations with countries from their domestic politics, is no longer sufficient. On a country-specific basis, we need to bring human rights, rule of law, and democracy issues into the mix if we truly want to bring stability to our allies in the region. A greater emphasis on these issues could, if directed properly, undermine U.S. adversaries throughout the region.

A particular challenge will be Washington’s approach to Syria, which the United States is currently trying to bring to the negotiating table with Israel. To facilitate those talks, Washington has kept human rights pretty low on the list of issues with Damascus. Recently, the regime sentenced a blogger to five years in prison for allegedly working with the CIA—a charge the U.S. government vehemently denies. The best way to show Damascus that human rights matters to Washington is to move it up the list of issues and explain that the United States has every interest in facilitating peace between Israel and Syria, not just Israel and the Assad regime.

‘Too Soon to Tell’
Brian Katulis
is a senior fellow for national security at the Center for American Progress:

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future,” said Niels Bohr, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who was part of the Manhattan Project. Popular-uprising shock waves emanating from the pent-up frustrations about a broken political and economic order continue to reverberate throughout the Middle East, and it is far too early to predict how events will evolve in any particular country, let alone come up with a reasonable forecast for what the region might look like in a few years.

The Middle East is at the start of what is likely to be a long and probably messy period of transition—and it could take the rest of this decade before any clarity truly emerges. As fast-moving as the day-to-day events are, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that some fundamentals remain the same in most countries in the region—the military regime that ruled Egypt since 1952 still rules today, and the region’s problems of widespread poverty, cronyism, and corruption will likely remain for years to come, even if serious democratic political reform moves forward in some countries. At this early stage, the question of whether serious political reform toward democracy is in the cards remains quite uncertain, even in places like Egypt and Tunisia, where leaders were ousted.

In 2004, I argued that the power elites in Middle East countries included economic elites who benefited from a corrupt and opaque status quo that authoritarian governments helped preserve using their internal security services. Slicing through the old order that has controlled the security, politics, and economies of these countries and restructuring the distribution of power will take more than street protests—and the process will take a long time.

What the uprisings have done thus far is remind regular people in the region that their actions can lead to some change. I have argued that in the global arena these days, power (defined as the ability to get things done and achieve certain goals by applying resources) is more “open source” than in the past—there are fewer barriers to entry, and elite institutions have less of an ability to maintain their monopoly.

That’s the case in the Middle East now—and what we’re seeing under way is the beginning of a protracted negotiation over how power is distributed within these societies. Some of these negotiations will take place peacefully in debates over constitutional reforms, as we see in Egypt; some of these power negotiations will devolve into vicious and deadly battles in the streets, as we see in Libya.

And while it’s tempting for any Middle East observer to apply to the region the frameworks for analysis that dominate the policy discussions in America—whether about the uprisings’ impact on Islamism, Iran’s role in the region, or peace with Israel—the more realistic yet unsatisfying answer is that it is too soon to tell. Many countries in the Middle East are going to see their focus turn sharply inward as they deal with the crushing demographic, economic, and social problems that sparked most of these protests. How this leads to a reordering within each country or more broadly in the region it is far too soon to tell.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

JackieFour says:

How wonderful if the people in revolt are seeking true democracy for all. But one must remember that the revolution in Iran where young people long for an end to the Ayatollah’s regid influence are not our friends. They hate the US and our allies. They don’t want to be our friends, they just want to live more freely. In the middle east, people want jobs and food. Not our friendship or influence.

I wonder why none of the commentators take China in 1989 seriously. Abrams mentions it only to reject it out of hand and for no apparent reason. Of course, it failed in China but was connected in spirit with all the rebellions that shook Eastern Europe, and Gorbachev himself visited Beijing in the middle of the demonstrations.
Think of the model set there: seize hold of a large square (Tahrir/Tian’anmen) and hold it while the international press comes in and beams out the news via a million avenues to the entire world. The example may not work, but if these five guys are any indication, 1979 Iran and 1989 Eastern Europe aren’t any better.

After reading all opinions of Paul Berman, Elliott Abrams, Bruce Riedel,Brian Katulis, Andrew J. Tabler I am as puzzled as I was before reading this article. Scholarly know-how is useless to predict although all contributors make references to the past.

I am just amazed that Arabs are viewed now as a progressive society, able to rebel and top dictators bottom up and not in high level coup d’etat where citizens follow like sheep. Everyone says is too beautiful to be true, other dictators will emerge from the chaos.

Most important for us Jews is the realization of the Arab countries that the destruction of Israel is NOT the solution to the problems. Just do a poll in Libya and ask: Do you prefer the destruction of Israel or removal of Qadaffi?

Rochelle Furstenberg says:

In line with what Miha Aharonowitz has said, it is amazing to note that in spite of the Obama administration’s claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and particularly Israel’s intransigence is at the core of middle east problems and Arab alienation from the west,almost none of the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya have related to this. Perhaps to the contrary, it’s the Israeli model of democracy, and its concomitant economic vitality that is providing some of the yeast for these revolutions. If only the Arabs seeking a new order would be willing to admit to it!
Rochelle Furstenberg

George One says:

I am convinced that some form of dictatorship will take over in most of the current Arab revolutions. The spontaneous revolt will be channeled by the well organised religious Parties and in the end will be enemies of Israel. The Turkish model which some people advocate is no better as we all know the Islamists in power in Turkey are Israel’s enemies too.

B”H AdarII 24‏‎, 5771 You may wish to read my earnest efforts to portray the vision towards a secure freedom at I dare suggest the fundamental of survival in The Arabian patriarchal society demands the overthrow of the anarchists who have taken control over Islamic resources that will be expended to strengthen the Islamic conquest of the Occident as it has Mesopotamia, Europe and Asia. I demand the Israelis throw the ignoramuses’ from within their midst’s, the big baboon first to exit. The children of the Zionists are uncultured and serious lack all academic skills, so obviously the overthrow must begin in the educational network. Secondly, the malicious tycoons must be dismantled from control over the taste of tomatoes and the profitability of watermelon without seeds of many shapes and color. We should rip off the lampposts and tear up the streets, install electric systems from the sun without the bankers and city halls passing out financial gains for architects, appraisers, interest loans and taxes on the installation that is less complicated than the solar water units are – know thy enemy and hit hard, hit fast and run like hell. The land should be farmed to keep process within range of the local residents within every communal setting – no more ghettoization for the heavy profits of the capitalists here or there then and now anyhow. The absurdity of the bureaucratic process is specialized to frustrate us and make us think we can do nothing but each one of us can start petitioning the city officials to make solar electricity available to all the city dwellers under their jurisdiction. Start up with city hall and see it change before your very eyes. We should have crews trained to install, nay; produce the solar panels they’ll install at equal profit and equal education to the collective of individuals operating such business schemes. How can we remain ignorant to the right to a free source of clean energy, we’ve been duped. Halve the cost

VirginiaMary says:

Andrew J. Tabler’s coment: ” As globalization and the Internet have penetrated Arab countries dominated by authoritarian regimes, this has opened up new spaces where people can talk about their aspirations and organize to achieve them. It has also undermined the fear-factor deterrent that regimes use to keep people down.”

Is our most valuable asset in LISTENING TO THE VOICES in Egypt and the Middle East. We no longer have to stand facing a “boob tube” of noise coming at them & us. l The world can now speak face to face or text to text.
Either way interpersonal dialogue can give correction for the purpose of connection and allow these voices to give us their ideas on how they see & want to build their world.
To study the past can show us what changes to make for the present.

engineer_sci says:

The point by Virginia Mary is very well taken. Coming into a Syfian expatriate website was to hear about a very different internal Syria — one that is now coming to fore in their revolt — that sees their government, and not Israel as the real enemy. If we can link with such on one-to-one, and small groups, perhaps we can have a positive influence on the situation — a light into their new window. Indeed, it is the clutter on the window of communication — whether a totalitarian media’s black out & propaganda, or the distorting, chocking noise of trivia & sound bytes of the “democratic” media — that is the true enemy of understanding between people.

Appreciate writing educational content. I’m amazed together with your power to create convincing material. you have provided me personally lots of thought-provoking views to think about.

I’ve said that least 3810440 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

appreciate the effort you put into getting us this information. Was searching on google and found your post randomly.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Revolutionary Choices

Are the mass protests toppling regimes across the Middle East closer in spirit to 1979 Iran or 1989 Eastern Europe? Paul Berman, Elliott Abrams, Bruce Riedel, Andrew Tabler, and Brian Katulis consider the region’s future.

More on Tablet:

Cruelty & Perversity: Postprandial Reflections on the PEN Protesters

By Paul Berman — The grim satire of the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ controversy, in context