Daniel Pipes says that the Iranian mullahcracy, and eventually Islamism itself, is doomed.

By virtue of getting more or less what they wanted in 1979 (i.e. no Shah), the Iranian population realized it had control over and responsibility over its destiny. This development, unknown among Arabic-speaking populations, has led to something quite profound and wondrous: a maturation of the Iranian body politic. It has looked at its choices and thumpingly comes down in favour of democracy and a cautious foreign policy.

The contrast between the maturity of Iranian politics and the puerile quality of Arab politics could hardly be greater. Yes, both are dominated by tyrannical regimes, but Iranians can see their way out of the darkness. It is conceivable that before too long, the apparently disastrous Iranian revolution of 1978-79 will be looked back on as the inadvertent start of something wholesome and necessary.

Apologies for the shameless plug. I wrote a very similar essay way back in February, "Iran and the 'Axis of Evil'":

http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/000014.html#000014

I disagree with Pipe's assertion that the islamic republic is quite willing to "kill as many Iranians as it takes" to stay in power. If they were, it would've been a simple thing to depose Khatemi, call another election, and make sure they got who they wanted. They *seem* to be trying to play by the rules.

I'm not sure if it'll work though. Their constitution, like ours, started out with a fatal flaw that may yet pull down the whole thing. Ours was recognition of slavery and lack of a clear denial of cessesion (sp?). Theirs is the investiture of power to an unelected board of elitists.

Hopefully they'll be able to figure a way out of it that doesn't require a meltdown into civil war.

If you knew how breathtakingly ill-informed your 'analysis' "http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/000014.html#000014" is, you'd be embarrased to plug it.

"Where cats, science fiction, and anger get together"

Indeed.