Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a kind of an experiment. We can watch Egypt unfold here on a day to day basis, and compare events there with their historical counterparts. (Hopefully, we will have the discipline to stick to that aspect, and not drift off into politically-weighted mud-slinging and ad-hominems.)
For starters, here's a very concise Wikipedia summary of what happened in Iran right after the Shah was deposed:
After strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country and its economy, the Shah fled the country in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran. The Pahlavi Dynasty collapsed ten days later, on 11 February, when Iran's military declared itself "neutral" . . .. Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on 1 April 1979, when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.
How is Egypt doing so far, either avoiding Iran's pitfalls or moving toward their successes. Or those of any other country that evolved from the point at which Egypt finds itself.
How is Egypt doing so far, either avoiding Iran's pitfalls or moving toward their successes. Or those of any other country that evolved from the point at which Egypt finds itself.
First of all, once you move beyond the tactics used by the opposition I suspect that there are very few similarities between Iran and Egypt, historically, politically, or culturally. For one thing, Iran is a major center of Islamic philosophy centered around the ancient and holy city of Qom. The Ayatollah Khomeini was a leading Islamic scholar who lived, studied and taught at the seminaries in Qom and it was there that he developed numerous theories regarding the state, Islam and the supremacy of the clergy. A similar city, or religious figure simply doesn't exist in Egypt.
Since the 1952 revolution, the Egyptian government has been successful at co-opting and in the process marginalizing the senior Muslim Clerics, who are appointed by the state. And, unlike Iran, Egypt has been has had far greater exposure to Western culture through its tourist industry, as opposed to having western influence and culture forced upon it by the Shah one of the main complaints put forth by Khomeini the Iranian revolutionaries.
Frankly, while Egypt is indeed a Muslim country, from what I am reading and hearing the attachment to Islam is not as deeply understood or upheld by the average Egyptian as is in Iran.
But as I stated before, this is pure supposition on my part.
One can only hope the politics forum nuts don't migrate here, because that is a very active subject there and of course it will then boil down to "obama's fault" or "Bush's fault". Politics guys - STAY OVER THERE (points to that sub forum of the strange lunatics and tin foil hat wearers called "politics and contraversies").
That completed. Let me say I pretty much agree with the above. So what's the difference - Iran and Egypt? I spent a couple weeks in Egypt a couple months ago, and just a chance random re-scheduling of my vacation hours kept me from being in the middle of the mess of last week and prior. I talked to many Egyptians, they are religious (Islam comes first) but it doesn't take over their whole lives. The ones I talked to DO NOT like the muslim brotherhood. Why? Because they have killed tourists, and that destroys there way of making a living. Now, this is from a biased local group, involved in the fields of tourism (guides, drivers, etc). But, 20% of the Egyptian economy is based on tourism! Are they going to turn there back on a major component of their economy? Another difference from Iran - coptics. It a definite part of Egypt. Coptic Christians are like 10% of the population. They are too much ingrained into Egyptian society. Also, Egyptians, for lack of a better description, just like their fun too much. They take Islamic faith much more seriously compared to a western religion, but nothing compared to the more devot followers in Iran.
That being said, I am hoping this turns out well. Egypt has problems that go beyond Mubarek. Overpopulation and lack of resources primarily. You have 80 million people in a 5 mile wide strip along the nile, and that means problems beyond leadership and government. You also have a culture of baksheesh/bribary, it's ingrained into the people. So what happens when the people of Egypt can't blame Mubarek for their problems anymore. Who gets blamed everywhere in the world? The US! of course (as if we are responsible for the population explosion).
So lets see what happens. Unfortunetly, I see, at best, Mubarek simply being replaced by another corrupt leader or series of leaders in coups every few years, and the economic situation for the average Egyptian not changing much. At worse, radical islamic elements can take over. But that is unlikely.
One other point. Everyone knew Egypt was at a boiling point with Mubarek. You could practically feel it in the streets even when I was there. And there were police/army everywhere. Literally every block. But everyone was waiting for the old man to die. My guides talked about it: "when Mubarek dies, we do not know what will happen". They looked scared when they talked about this. Not that they liked Mubarek, they just didn't know what would happen. This happening while he was still alive caught me by suprise. Wait and see what happens, I don't think anyone knows. The press, our government, and the people themselves. No one knows.
I hear what you are saying about Iran and the Islamic fundamentalism. But I was in Iran during the regime of the Shah, for a few days, and my general impression was that Iran wasn't particularly fundamentalist. There seemed little difference between Iran and Turkey, in terms of the westernization of lifestyle.
I was in Egypt for a couple weeks, about a year later, and yes, there was a huge difference between Iran and Egypt, but the difference didn't seem to be one that could be quantified in religious terms. Egypt, frankly, seemed uncivilized compared to Iran. A dignity was lacking in Egypt, that was so vivid in Iran.
It is true that there was a Khomeini waiting in exile to sweep into Iran, and Egypt has no counterpart, but if this issue had been raised in the 70s, I don't think I would have seen Iran any more "ready" for fundamentalism than Egypt. Nevertheless, that's the way the cards fell.
If there is a tangible fear in Egypt of an abusive secular regime, it wouldn't really take much of a fundamentalist push to make that alternative seem viable by contrast. After all, Sayed Qutb was Egyptian, and sometimes, like Sandino, a movement can be led posthumously.
Interesting thread and I like the real experiences both jtur88 and Dd714 brought into the discussion. My one and only take on this is that the one key difference is that Egypt occupies an immensely important strategic asset, the Suez Canal. While the Shah's Iran was a key U.S. ally and possessed oil reserves, Iran's geographic location contained nothing of immense global importance. I think the "west" will do everything it can to ensure the transition to a secular friendly government. Whether that government is a military dictatorship or a representative democracy will not matter.
....It is true that there was a Khomeini waiting in exile to sweep into Iran, and Egypt has no counterpart, ....
From today's International Herald Tribune:
"Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Sunni cleric who is banned from the United States and Britain for supporting violence against Israel and American forces in Iraq, delivered his first public sermon here in 50 years on Friday, emerging as a powerful voice in the struggle to shape what kind of Egyptian state emerges...."
Interesting thread and I like the real experiences both jtur88 and Dd714 brought into the discussion. My one and only take on this is that the one key difference is that Egypt occupies an immensely important strategic asset, the Suez Canal. While the Shah's Iran was a key U.S. ally and possessed oil reserves, Iran's geographic location contained nothing of immense global importance. I think the "west" will do everything it can to ensure the transition to a secular friendly government. Whether that government is a military dictatorship or a representative democracy will not matter.
Well, Iran is in a position to control the Strait of Hormuz, the only way in and out of the Persian Gulf. I think a few times in the past, they did limit or block access to the Gulf for a time. It doesn't have the clout of Suez, but the Suez Canal was closed for eight years, during Israeli conflicts, and the world got along without it.
Some forget recent Egyptian history. Specifically 1952 when a group of young military officers lead by a Col. Gamel Abdul Nasser lead a rebellion against a western backed King Farouk II. This gave us the modern Egyptian Arab Republic. If the military wins is there a new Nasser in the wings?
Some forget recent Egyptian history. Specifically 1952 when a group of young military officers lead by a Col. Gamel Abdul Nasser lead a rebellion against a western backed King Farouk II. This gave us the modern Egyptian Arab Republic. If the military wins is there a new Nasser in the wings?
It began, however, with a two-year period of jockeying for power between Naguib and Nasser....so Egypt watchers are probably again watching for signs of cliques emerging in the armed forces.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
