As we look to the amazing scenes coming out of Iran the minds of many go back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and speculation as to whether history is repeating itself. Certainly almost every major event of today and tomorrow can be compared to an event from the past, but I am growing increasingly convinced we are looking not thirty years into the past but only twenty.
For those who remember the events of 1979 in Iran or 1989 in Tiananmen Square the events in Tehran are strikingly similar. In each case we saw (or are seeing) protests arise in the capital city of a dictatorship, in each case the protests called for greater freedom and democratic government.
In the case of 1989 those protests were, in time, brutally repressed by the military forces and to this day the dictatorship remains in power. By contrast in 1979 the protests led to the collapse of an authoritarian regime (and sadly the establishment of the current regime in Tehran). The question naturally arises, what was the difference between these two events ?
I am hardly a geopolitical expert and I am not going to try and claim I can explain every single reason for the two events having different outcomes. But looking at the the past events (1979 and 1989) I do see one key difference and I am increasingly concerned that 2009 is a repeat of the latter.
In 1979 Iran the protests in Tehran (and other major cities) were to some degree in reaction to similar tension and hostility towards the regime from the rural areas of the country. For many years the masses outside the big cities had been hostile to the western oriented nature of the rule of the Shah.
By contrast the cities were divided between those who suffered under the government and those who benefited from it. Only after years of abuse and corruption did the majority of the urban dwellers finally give up on the regime. This eventual shift in the major cities was the key to the collapse of the Shah and his rule, as the military refused to support him any longer and he was forced to flee.
In 1989 on the other hand the protests began and ended in the cities (or really the one city of Bejing). The people in the rural areas had little interest in political affairs and were largely supportive of the government. When the government decided to put down the protests they did so with military forces from rural areas who had no problem with crushing the spoiled elites in the big cities.
Looking to the protests in Iran today, it does seem that most of the activity is in the capital and perhaps some of the other larger cities (though I have mostly seem images from Tehran). There does not seem to be a similar uprising in any of the rural areas. Certainly one could expect that some support for the protests would come from those areas that are most supportive of Mousawi but I do not see them moving to the neccessary level of support.
If my fears are correct then it is only a matter of time before the protests are put down. Certainly the government of Iran would like to see the protests end with as little violence as possible, but in the end they will do what is needed to keep themselves in power. Assuming, as was the case in China, that the military sticks with the government then they will be able to achieve this goal.
While this will of course cause problems for them in the international community they can see that China emerged from it’s own diplomatic deep freeze and they expect they would eventually emerge as well.