Is this another Iranian revolution?

Gary Sick's CHOICE, here

"..... But there is one very big difference. Thirty years ago, Iran had a charismatic cleric named Ayatollah Khomeini who had a refined sense of strategy and a willingness to risk everything for the cause he represented. On the other side was Mohammed Reza Shah, who had been on the throne for some 37 years and who commanded one of the most powerful military and security regimes in the world. On the surface it appeared to be an uneven battle – guns against turbans – but the ruler with the guns wavered and the turbans grew in size and confidence until the old order collapsed.

Today the nominal leader of the opposition forces is a reformed radical, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is notably lacking in personal charisma. On the other side is the constitutional Leader, Ayatollah Khamene`i, who is widely perceived as a cautious political animal... who compensates for his own lack of charisma by manipulation of the political system and the institutions most loyal to him ..., including the Revolutionary Guards.

Neither of these men seems to be fully in control of their own forces, let alone the situation....

I deliberately did not mention president-elect Ahmadinejad. After celebrating his “victory,” he went off to a largely symbolic meeting in Moscow. He seems to be out of the decision loop and more of a passive player than a major actor in these events.

So who is calling the shots?  Mousavi seems to be running along after the crowd, not leading it. But that is probably all that is required to keep the protest in motion.

On the other side, the very little evidence we have suggests that the important decisions are being made by the ultra-conservative leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, whose political role has ballooned over the past decade, perhaps in cooperation with their extremist counterparts in the clergy. They are utterly ruthless and ideologically fueled.

New York Times columnist Nick Kristoff reminded us several days ago... at the end of the day, as I saw at Tiananmen 20 years ago, when Might and Right do battle, it’s often prudent to bet on Might, at least in the short run.

The regime seems to have miscalculated badly. They seemed to believe that a sudden coup – the announcement of dramatic election results followed by a show of force – would intimidate and silence the opposition and consolidate their control. That is perhaps more understandable if the decisions were being made by military leaders who tend to see the battle in Manichaean terms, rather than politicians such as Khamene`i  who are accustomed to seeing shades of gray. In any event, it backfired and they now have a much larger crisis on their hands than if they had simply arranged for Ahmadinejad to win by a slim margin (which was at least believable).

All parties are now in uncharted territory. A significant portion of the Iranian population seems to have concluded that their social contract with the rulers – accepting Islamic rule in return for a respectful regard for the opinion of the governed, an Islamic Republic – is no longer valid. They do not trust their rulers....  For the military, the obvious answer is more repression. So it would appear to be a moment to bet on Might.

There is another lesson as Iran’s leaders contemplate a Tiananmen moment. When the Tiananmen crackdown occurred almost exactly twenty years ago, one of the leaders of China at the time was Zhao Ziyang, General Secretary of the Communist Party. He was later fired and placed under house arrest. His smuggled memoirs have just appeared, revealing the depth of disagreements within the leadership about how to proceed...."