Here’s another of my culinary idiosyncrasies: I am against the invasion of the obligatory peppermill, with all its attendant drama. Why must everything except dessert be covered with extra pepper, offered in a reverential ceremony that makes a person who refuses the ritualistic grinding of the piquant black flecks feel almost rude in doing so?
The Iranian Reichstag fire
I was doing some research on the Iranian Revolution last night, and came across this terrible incident, which I’d never heard of before:
On August 19, 1978, in the Cinema Rex fire, the Cinema Rex in Abadan, Iran, was set ablaze, killing over 400 individuals.
The ruling [Shah’s] government of Iran reported that Islamic militants set the fire, while the anti-Shah protesters blamed the intelligence service of the nation, SAVAK for setting the fire. Later it was disclosed that Islamic militants set the Cinema Rex fire.
The Islamists’ motivation seems to have been two-fold: to strike a blow against such modern abominations as the cinema, and to blame the Shah’s forces for the deaths. And it turns out that, although I’d never heard of the event (and my guess would be that most of you have never heard of it either), it was a potent and important motivator in helping to spark the Iranian Revolution of 1979:
The Islamists alleged that SAVAK agents were in pursuit of individuals who ran into the movie theatre locked the doors of the cinema, and a fire was started in the theatre presumably by the fugitives. Unable to escape from the building, everyone inside the cinema died as a result of the conflagration.
However, the truth seems to have been that it was four Islamists who locked the doors and started the fire.
I mention the incident because it illustrates a few things I’ve known for a while but that have become even more apparent lately. One is the depth of misinformation and/or ignorance that we have about so many events, although they could teach us valuable lessons about revolutions and history in general. The details are important, but they are the first to get lost or twisted, if they ever were known at all. Another is the duplicitous extremes to which fanatics will go, and the enormous difficulty of finding the truth.
In the title of this post, I referred to the Reichstag fire of 1933, a seminal event in the history of the Nazi takeover of Germany, exploited by Hitler in order to declare a state of emergency which gave him extraordinary powers. For the almost eighty years since the event, its provenance has been argued almost incessantly:
Historians disagree as to whether Van der Lubbe [a Dutch Communist who was executed for the crime] acted alone or whether the arson was planned and ordered by the Communists or by the Nazis, then dominant in the government themselves, as a false flag operation. The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.
It’s doubtful that we’ll ever know the truth. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Whatever the truth may be, it is undoubtedly correct that the Nazis were poised to take full advantage of the turmoil that ensued in Germany in the wake of the Reichstag fire, and that they wasted no time in doing so. Unfortunately, tyrannical fanatics are often well-organized, much more so than their righteous opponents, and far more willing to do whatever it takes to ascend to power and make sure they stay there.
[NOTE: Here’s more about SAVAK and truth.]
So, does this mean…
…that if a few million people came to the Mall in DC protesting the Obama administration and demanding his resignation, he’d say “the people have spoken” and pack his bags and go home to Chicago?
Obama told him to go?
Jake Tapper reports that it was pressure from Obama that caused Mubarak to give up and leave.
I have no idea whether that’s true or not. My guess is that it’s not the real reason, and that the real reason was that the army decided the civil unrest was growing too threatening and told Mubarak to skedaddle or else.
But I can tell you this: if Egypt turns out badly, Obama will deny any role. And if it turns out well, he will take the credit.
Happy Anniversary, says Iran: it’s Islamic Revolution Victory Day
Hey, did you know that today is the 32nd anniversary of the victory of the Khomeini forces in Iran? It is celebrated there as the national holiday “Islamic Revolution Victory Day,” Iran’s un-Fourth-of-July.
If you follow the timeline of the revolution in Iran, you will see the following sequence of cascading events: huge demonstrations in late December of 1978, the Shah appoints Bakhtiar PM on January 3 of 1979, the Shah flees the country on January 16, Khomeini returns February 1 and re-appoints Bakhtiar on February 4, Khomeini tells his followers on February 10 to ignore a Bakhtiar-imposed curfew and pandemonium follows, and on February 11 the regime collapses and Bakhtiar flees.
One very large difference between Egypt and Iran is that Iran had a ready-made charismatic figure in Khomeini, who was ruthless in his drive to power. Egypt seems to lack a similar figure—so far.
[Hat tip: commenter “sergey.”]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s another anniversary from the history of Iran, one that’s not celebrated by anybody: on November 5, 1978, the Shah went on TV and promised “not to repeat past mistakes and to make amends saying, ‘I heard the voice of your revolution… As Shah of Iran as well as an Iranian citizen, I cannot but approve your revolution.'” Something like yesterday’s address by Mubarak, wasn’t it? And just about as effective.]
Mubarak really steps down this time
It seems that Mubarak really has stepped down this time.
Suleiman came on TV and made the announcement and the crowd went wild. Now the army is in charge of the transition.
I say “now the army is in charge,” but they have actually been in charge the whole time. IMHO they were allowing Mubarak to try to stay in power and allowed him to make that speech yesterday—but when they saw the results, which seemed potentially incendiary, they insisted he leave.
And so he did, putting them in power officially rather than just behind the scenes. This has happened before, most notably in 1952 in the infancy of the Egyptian republic when a group of officers removed King Farouk, an act that ended with the presidency of Nasser. In order to do that, the fledgling Eygptian constitution was abandoned and a new one written. But there was one huge difference: that was a coup, not a popular uprising.
For now, I think Mubarak’s resignation is the best result possible under the circumstances, as long as the army maintains order. I emphasize the words “for now,” because I continue to be very concerned about what will happen next, and especially the outcome of elections. Even if the people in Tahrir Square actually represent a true democracy movement, five and a half months is not exactly an ideal amount of time to build a democratic political system where none existed before. And will forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood be the beneficiaries?
We’ve heard about the Arab street for years. Who would have thought that its most potentially cataclysmic eruption would be against its own governments? The reverberations are spreading around the entire region, and I am certain that heads of state in places such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan are staying up nights figuring out what to do in their countries to avoid a similar fate.
I asked who would have thought it—but I suppose I could say “neocons,” or perhaps “George Bush, that’s who.” But that does not mean that something good will come from this. We simply do not know the end result, and anyone who says that he or she does is just blowing hot air.
[ADDENDUM: I just watched a clip of Suleiman delivering the announcement. He looked like a person officiating at his own funeral.]
Mubarak’s dialogue
Here is the full text of Mubarak’s speech in translation.
There’s a lot in there about “dialogue,” or some Egyptian term that’s translated as dialogue. He sounds like a Democrat already!
And this part seems to be a slap in the face of President Obama:
And I tell you here, as a head of state, I do not find any embarrassment at all in listening to the youth of my country, and to satisfying their demands. But the embarrassment would only lie in the fact — and I would never permit — is that I would listen to any sort of intervention that would come from outside, from the outside world, whatever the source is, whatever the intention behind them are.
[ADDENDUM: John Bradley, who wrote a book predicting the Egyptian revolution, was just interviewed briefly on Fox about Mubarak’s speech and said: “Tomorrow is the first day of the real revolution.”]
Obama was warned about Egypt
Obama can’t say they didn’t warn him.
Mubarak offers to take half a step down
Mubarak says that the reports of his resignation are greatly exaggerated.
You may note that when I wrote earlier today about the predictions that he’d be leaving, I hedged a bit by saying, “That’s the report, anyway.” My skepticism came not from any special prescience I have about events in Egypt, nor from any particular insight into Mubarak’s mind, but simply from my distrust in the MSM.
I happened to be in my car when Mubarak’s speech began, so I was able to listen to most of it (in translation, of course). It became apparent from the first couple of sentences that it wasn’t really a good-bye. My immediate impressions are that: elections will be held in September or before, Mubarak has every intention of playing a large behind-the-scenes role in the transition, and the army will continue to have enormous clout and is willing to be quite aggressive if it need be (if demonstrations threaten to get out of hand, for example). But if things get really hot and heavy, the army might decide to force Mubarak out and not give him the option he took today.
As far as the outcome of the long-term jockeying for position goes, your guess may be as good as mine (or as good as that of our seemingly clueless Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper). But for what it’s worth, my guess is that the army stands a good chance of holding things down long enough to allow elections in September, that those elections will be at least marginally more open and free than in the past (not the world’s highest standard), and that Mubarak/Suleiman may even appear to ease up on the emergency measures that have been in place for Mubarak’s entire 30-year rule and have so angered the people.
If the Muslim Brotherhood is allowed to campaign for office, the outcome of the elections will probably find that group holding a plurality but not a majority in Egypt’s Parliament. This will make them a force with which to be reckoned. Hey, while I’m making predictions, I’ll go so far as to say what percentage of the seats in Parliament I think the Muslim Brotherhood could capture: one-third.
Why one-third? Because I’ve noticed, in many places and many times, that’s often approximately the percentage that seems willing and eager to support more extreme positions. In a multi-party parliamentary system, a one-third win can sometimes lead to coalitions being formed and, in the end, to absolute power.
Mubarak to step down
That’s the report, anyway. He’s about to give a speech some time today to announce his resignation, and according to the Fox article I just linked, the Egyptian Higher Council of the Armed Forces will take over.
Other sources, including the NY Times, report it more likely that his VP, Suleiman, will be the temporary successor until elections can occur in September of 2011.
The army has long been the most powerful group in Egypt. All the country’s leaders since independence and the 1952 removal of King Farouk have come from its ranks. Whoever does take power temporarily and officially, the military will have a huge say.
What of the Egyptian constitution? It dictates that Mubarak’s successor would ordinarily be the speaker of the house, not Suleiman the VP, and that elections must occur within 60 days.
If one is concerned about following the constitution, there is no foundation for a military takeover, which would occur “outside the constitutional framework:”
So they will have to define the format under which they are taking power.”
The source [for this story] did not know how long the military would reign nor what mechanism or timetable would be put in place to end the military’s administration of power, but said that “when (the transfer of power from Mubarak) does happen, they will presumably indicate the direction of the country.”
The source drew parallels with the Army coup of 1952, and the removal of King Faroukh, noting that it took six months before the monarchy was dissolved and the modern republic formed.
The source said this marks “a moment of grave magnitude for the national security of Egypt.”
Indeed.
It reminds me of the period when a lobster sheds its hard outer shell, and it takes some weeks for it to grow another. Till then, the highly vulnerable lobster must slink off and hide in order to protect itself. Egypt has no such luxury, and the predators it must fend off originate mostly from within. Will the end result be more liberty, or less?
[ADDENDUM: I will be busy and away from the computer until some time this evening. Till then, use this thread to talk about developments, which I assume will be coming fast and furious.]
A feel-good story…
Rep. Chris Lee resigns
Well, two out of three ain’t bad (hint: scroll down for photo).
Also rather dumb. What married member of Congress would, in this day and age, send shirtless pictures to an unknown woman on Craigslist and use his real name?