Egypt's Masses-Induced Coup d'Etat

The parallels between Egypt today and Iran in 1979 are chilling, but while Iran's revolution toppled the country's socio-economic order, Egypt's revolt has so far done no such thing.

When the Egyptian army announced its “neutrality” at the very early stages of the recent mass uprisings, it was clear that a different policy was in effect as compared with the 1979 revolution in Iran; the Shah’s army declared neutrality at the very last stage of the revolution and after months of shootings on the streets. I recall Feb. 11 of that year, the fateful day when thousands of people stormed army garrisons all over Tehran and then suddenly, at about 10:30 a.m., the shootings stopped, and to our shock the army’s neutrality was announced on state radio. Later, after the situation was assessed, it came to light that a NATO envoy sent to Iran had told the army chiefs to declare neutrality and to pledge allegiance to Khomeini. The system collapsed that day and the military commanders and top officials of the old regime were executed in short order.

Yet the revolts in Egypt are reminiscent of that Iranian revolution. In both cases, a U.S.-backed dictator for decades ruled with an iron fist over a large, strategically located country, until he was confronted with a massive popular uprising. In both cases, the army had deep and close ties to the U.S. military. Both rulers followed lopsided neo-liberal modernization programs, with widening gaps between the rich and the poor and deep urban/rural divides, as well as rampant corruption. In both cases, in the absence of political freedoms and democracy, the traditional religious forces expanded their turf while the progressive left and liberal secular forces were increasingly marginalised and suppressed.

This said, the revolutionary process in Iran was far more protracted and brutal, lasting over 13 months, with thousands of protesters killed or injured. It also involved mass strikes at factories, universities, and government agencies, leading to the establishment of Showras (councils) that took over all institutions before eventually being eliminated by the Islamic regime. The popular demands were more radical, seeking the total collapse of the Shah’s system, social justice, and national independence from the U.S. and other foreign powers.

One of the reasons for this distinction was the stronger presence of the left in the Iranian revolution. Slavoj Zizek’s misguided comment that “the leftists, Marxists smuggled themselves into” the revolution, of which “Khomeini was the unquestionable leader,” could not be further from the truth. The revolts against the Shah were begun by the left and liberals, artists, and other secular forces, leading to workers and employees’ strikes, before Khomeini and his Islamists “smuggled themselves” into it. Khomeini became the “unquestionable” leader, but this was partly because of the foolish mistakes of the secular forces who became infatuated with his imagined “anti-imperialism” and “anti-authoritarianism.” Because of their fear of the left in a country with extensive borders with the then Soviet Union, the Americans also supported the Islamists, particularly the liberal Islamists such as Bazargan, who formed the provisional government. The hostage-taking at the American Embassy in Tehran by Khomeini’s followers of course dashed their hopes of maintaining their influence in Iran.

In Egypt, the fear of an Islamist takeover has guided American policy. The mere experience with Iran has shaped the policy that has been followed in Egypt: the manner in which anarchy ensued following the total collapse of the system and the speed with which radical Islamists eliminated all other forces and established an obscurantist regime based on Shari’a. An integral part of the policy was to let go of the dictator, but maintain the ancien regime; hence the Egyptian army’s declaration of “neutrality” so early in the protest movement.