Tehran 1979 or Berlin 1989?

The core issue in Egypt can be boiled down to this: are we witnessing Tehran 1979 or Berlin 1989? Is this a broad uprising against dictatorship whose goal of democratic freedom will be usurped by organized Islamists, as in the Iranian revolution? Or is this the end of the Arab Jurassic Park where, from Yemen to Tunisia, aging despots have ruled, and the start of a democratic flowering as world-changing as the collapse of the Soviet empire? If it’s the latter, as I believe, it’s critical to get this right; and doing so will involve a still inexperienced U.S. president, Barack Obama, mustering all the diplomatic craft America showed in uniting Europe in 1989 — as well as borrowing from 1947 in the form of a Marshall Plan to back dawning Egyptian and Arab democracy. It will also involve Israel summoning some fraction of the courage Anwar el-Sadat showed in his visit to Jerusalem in 1977 — the courage to set aside the security mantra that sees in every democratic opponent of Hosni Mubarak a potential jihadist, and to reach out to the modernizing forces in the Arab world who know the sterility of war.
Before I get to that, let’s set out the two positions in a heated debate. Israel and its conservative supporters have embraced the Iran analogy. They see menace above all in the Egyptian awakening. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put it this way: “Our concern is that when there are rapid changes, without all aspects of a modern democracy in place, what will happen — and it has happened already in Iran — will be the rise of an oppressive regime of radical Islam. Such a regime will crush human rights and will not allow democracy or freedom, and will constitute a threat to peace.” Arab intellectuals have taken an opposing view best expressed by Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut: “We are witnessing an epic, historic moment of the birth of concepts that have long been denied to ordinary Arabs: the right to define ourselves and our governments, to assert our national values, to shape our governance systems.”
The United States — Iraq-sobered, Gaza-burned — has tried the “orderly transition” middle path. It has made clear Mubarak must go, but probably not right now. Hillary Clinton’s nuanced iteration of Netanyahu went like this: “Revolutions have overthrown dictators in the name of democracy, only to see the process hijacked by new autocrats.” In other words: we’d like to see an Arab 1989 but we’ve been hurt too often not to glimpse Iran 1979. That last date is seared into U.S. diplomatic memory. America clung to the shah for too long and lost Iran. That left Egypt as the alternative Muslim cornerstone of U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. No wonder American concern at “losing” Egypt runs high. Outside Iran and Egypt, the two great nation states of the Middle East, there are no more than “tribes with flags.”
A quick aside on Iran is in order. There’s been a preposterous debate in Tehran between a regime seeking vindication in the Egyptian uprising and the opposition Green movement whose courage in 2009 was an important precursor to Tunis and Cairo. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, declared of Egypt: “We are happy wherever Muslim people clench their fists against the enemies of their religion.” Oh, please! The truth lies with Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, who drew a straight line between Mubarak and Khamenei — men who order that “pens are broken and dissidents are imprisoned.” As Yousry Nasrallah, an Egyptian movie director, put it to me: “There is nothing inspiring to Egyptians about an Iranian revolution that puts filmmakers in jail, crushes the opposition and tortures people — not even for the Muslim Brotherhood!” No, this Egyptian uprising is about the very individual rights Tehran flouted in 2009 and Western-backed Arab security states have denied: the right to vote, to the rule of law, to freedom of expression. Almost every conversation I’ve had on the streets of Cairo this past week returns to these themes. Israel should welcome this awakening. It is the denial of such rights by Arab despots that has given Iranian populist rhetoric such resonance on the Arab street. Nothing will shrink Iranian sway faster than Arab democracy.
There’s a second reason for Israel to find hope in Tahrir Square: it is precisely individuals who feel their existence has no meaning — the heart of the Arab condition — who are most prone to subsume their identity in the all-resolving jihadist death wish. Rich Gulf states have talked the talk on Israeli-Palestinian peace but never walked the walk. Now Obama, if he embraces 1989 over 1979, as he must, should twist the arms of Gulf allies. He should ensure Egyptian democracy delivers by preparing an oil-money-funded Marshall Plan for a democratic Arab world.
As for Netanyahu, he should emulate Sadat and head for Cairo to embrace Egypt’s democratically-elected next president. We’re not there yet, but this is a moment to think big and show courage. It’s not only the Arab world’s 1989; it’s Obama’s.