By J. Randolph Evans – Column No. 1054 ( 2/4/11)

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Unfortunately, that appears inevitably true as the world watches the unraveling of order in Egypt.  So far, President Barack Obama has done little better than President Jimmy Carter did over thirty years ago.  If the pattern repeats, the security of the United States will be irreparably harmed in so many ways that it will take decades to fully recover.

Interestingly enough, the revolution in Iran (and Egypt) started in January.  Demonstrations and protests started in the streets of Iran in January 1978.  At the time, Iran was ruled by a monarch known as the shahanshah (or the “Shah” in the West).  His name was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  While it was a monarchy, Iran was an ally of the United States and he was friendly towards the West.  This combination made for an inherent contradiction of sorts for U. S. Presidents.

Support for American security interests meant support for its allies, including the Shah.  Support for American ideals such as democracy and free elections did not.  Of course, these are the real world challenges of foreign policy where things do not always fit nicely into one box or the other.

Eventually, the protests in Iran paralyzed its economy with rolling strikes and demonstrations.  Political chaos followed.  Unguided chaos works to the advantage of despots, eager for power, and willing to fight.  Throughout history, vocal, violent, and ruthless minorities have emerged from revolutions to create authoritarian regimes far worse than those they replaced.

Iran was no different.  It is notable that it was not the masses that joined the revolution in Iran to overthrow the Shah.  Instead, it was a coalition of nationalists, Marxists, and Islamic traditionalists that ushered in the return of a theocratic dictatorial regime of the post-revolution Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  Subsequently, on November 4, 1979, a small group of Iranian students stormed the U. S. Embassy and held 52 people hostage for 444 days.

In the span of two short years, the United States went from having a reliable ally in the Middle East under the Shah’s leadership to being shackled by a handful of radical insurgents intent on humiliating the most powerful country in the world.  Today, Iran is led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – a man some believe was among the students who stormed the U. S. Embassy and held the American hostages.  He has declared that the Holocaust was a myth, and has called for Israel to be eliminated from the pages of time.

This is all history, and an illustration of what happens when the President fails to lead in a time of international crisis and change.

So fast forward until today.  On January 25, 2011, widespread demonstrations and protests began in the streets of Egypt.  At the time, Egypt was ruled by President Muhammed Hosni Sayyid Mubarak who has ruled Egypt since October 14, 1981.  He has been a reliable ally of the United States and is friendly toward the West.  His 29 year rule has presented an inherent contradiction of sorts for U.S. Presidents.

Support for American security interests has meant support for its allies including President Mubarak.  Support for American ideals such as democracy and free elections have not.  (Basically, under the Egyptian constitution, no one could run against President Mubarak in elections in 1987, 1993, and 1999.  Instead, he was re-elected by majority votes in a referendum election with no opposition.)

As history repeats itself, the question now is whether the President would do any better this time around.  So far, the answer is no.

With blinding speed, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw one of the United States’ most reliable allies under the proverbial bus.  As a consequence, on February 1, 2011, President Mubarak announced that he would not be a candidate in the Presidential election in September 2011.

Of course, this has appeased no one.  The demonstrations and protests continue as Egypt teeters on the brink of total chaos.  But it is chaos that Marxists, nationalists, and extremists want.  After all, throughout history, vocal, violent, and often ruthless minorities have emerged from revolutions to create authoritarian regimes far worse than those they replaced.

For the White House (adamant that it could chew gum and walk at the same time), the crisis in Egypt has been an overly simplistic binary choice between supporting a longtime ally and supporting the will of the people.  Of course, there were better options.

Yet, for this White House, massive street protests by less than five percent of the Egyptian people were enough to want President Mubarak to step down as a candidate for reelection in September.  Wonder whether that could work here in the U. S. for 2012?