“We don’t know”

Having been in transit here to NY over the weekend, yours truly has been mostly off the web and not near any TV, so is only now getting caught up.  The latest “revolution” our media has latched onto is, of course, in Iran.  That being so, we are getting the predictable wall-to-wall babblings of too many who mostly have no idea what they are talking about.

Because the inner workings of the regime are a mystery.  Nonetheless, we get the endless pontificating.  And ideological posturing.

Some may think [Carter administration former speechwriter Chris Matthews of MSNBC] that all Iran’s troubles are rooted in U.S policy of the 1950s.  [And conveniently not of 1977-1981, of course.]  Others may want to think [Joe Scarborough of MSNBC] that the president’s “Cairo speech” has inspired the youth of Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, and led the regime to having decided to fix this vote.  And still others may believe [Mike Barnicle of some Boston newspaper and MSNBC] that “the neo-cons” want to stir up “a wider war in the Middle East.”  [An incredibly serious charge to be tossed out there: thus this blog would like a list of names of such "neo-cons" from Mr Barnicle, please.]

Stepping back from the likes of such, one must recall two fundamental  facts. 1) Given that the Islamic Republic’s raison d’état effectively is essentially to oppose the U.S., there is nothing to be gained from a U.S. president jumping in to “cheerleader” the protesters; the regime will merely use that support to try to secure “waverers” who might otherwise be tempted to join them, and above all use that backing as the main pretext for crushing the protests.  2) Also the 3o year old regime likely has a strength not to be underestimated; Eastern Europe of  1989 created something of a misleading precedent: houses of cards are not nearly as prevalent as many appear to think they are.

With the regime’s track record, what is likely coming is not to be looked forward to.  Regimes built on coercion, and unexpectedly finding themselves facing angry, non-state sanctioned crowds in the streets, traditionally respond with brutality.  “Absolute power” is never challenged without consequences.

The key is usually this: at the moment of crackdown, do those ordered to do the brutalizing on behalf of the regime opt to throw in with the other side instead?  If so, you get Eastern Europe, 1989.  If they don’t, you get China, 1989.  Or, more recently, Burma.

What will happen? We don’t know — those three little words making up an expression that too few in media today appear willing to utter.  After all, if you do, you can’t blather on for two hours on MSNBC.

[Posted 9:45 AM, NY time.]