Parallelism and Islamic Iran

Tolstoy, Bonaparte, and Islamic Iran

2005-12-21T10:01:00.000-08:00

Leo Tolstoy's classic novel "War and Peace" begins at a social gathering in Russia in 1805 where the topic of discussion is the nature of Napoleon Bonaparte. "Chere Annette" speaks of Napoleon as the "Anti-Christ" scouraging Europe. The Russian Emperor Alexander, she argues, must save Russia from the "hydra of revolution," Bonaparte.

Also at the party are Prince Andrey and the illegitimate son of Count Buzohov, Pierre. Both Pierre and Andrey disagree with Annette's characterization of Bonaparte and regard him as a hero. As the story moves forward, however, and the war moves on, both Andrey and Buzohov come to regard Napoleon as the Anti-Christ. At one point, during Napoleon's invasion of Russia, Pierre contemplates assassinating Napoleon, only to end up a prisoner of the French.

Throughout the novel, Tolstoy returns again and again to the central theme of Napoleon as Anti-Christ. Tolstoy' use of this theme reflects the propaganda of the time which sought to rally opposition against Bonaparte and the French by portraying him as an Anti-Christ. Why is this important? Because, the same type of propaganda was used during World War II against Hitler and the Germans and thus constitutes a parallel. This can be seen in the use of the Prophecies of Nostradamus, which supposedly predicted the rise of a German Anti-Christ. Nevertheless, there were many (both elites and peasants) who bought into this view of Bonaparte, something Tolstoy reveals in his novel. Some of these people were members of the elite who feared the so-called 'hydra of revolution' which threatened the exiting world order, and thus their positions of privelege.

Today, in America and elsewhere we see a similar phenomena. Today, the 'hydra' is Islamic fundamentalism as exemplified by the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran and its leader Ahmadinejad. Islamic fundamentalism is the force which threatenes to topple the old order governments of the Middle East. Among Christian apocolyptics, theories about the Anti-Christ abound and Ahmadinejad, after his Holocaust comments, is sure to become a target of these theories. Likewise, the administation has not hesitated to jump on the apocolyptic band wagon by labeling their enemies as "evil-doers." Whether this is serious or just propaganda remains to be seen, but in the end it constitutes a parallel.

What appears to be in the works is a hegemonic conflict between the two religious revolutions of our times, Apocolyptic Christianity versus Fundamentalist Islam.

Hegemony and Anti-Hegemony

2005-12-18T16:59:00.000-08:00

One cannot discuss current events in the Middle East without the topic of "hegemony" entering the picture. While there is some diagreement among scholars as to which wars are actual hegemonic wars, parallelism postulates that there are at least four wars which fit the label "hegemonic war." These are World War II, the Napoleonic Wars, the Mongolian Wars, and Alexander the Great's War against Persia.

In each of these wars, a hegemon and an anti-hegemonic challenger can be determined. In Alexander's War, Persia was the hegemon and Macedonia was the challenger. In Genghis Khan's War, Khwarizm Persia was the hegemon and Mongolia was the challenger. In the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain was the hegemon and France was the challenger. In World War II, Britain was the hegemon and Germany was the challenger. Why is this important? It is simple, because change in the world order is determined by who wins the hegemonic war. Parallelism postulates that hegemonic war has increasingly become a struggle between paternalism and fraternalism.

To understand this phenomena, lets take a closer look. In the cases of Alexander and Genghis, both hegemon and challenger were paternalistic so no matter who won the war, paternalism reigned supreme. But in the two later cases, the hegemon was partially or wholly fraternal and the challengers were paternalistic. Thus the winning side determined which force was stronger in the international system. When Britain triumphed in the Napoleonic Wars and in World War II, it meant a boost for fraternalism, and thus frateralism became the dominant force in the international system.

Today the battle for hegemony persists. Those advocating paternalism dream of a return to the good old days of a paternalistic world order, whereas those of a fraternal orientation continue to resist the revival of the old paternal/dictatorial ideal. Today, fraternalism is dominant, but it is assailed from without and within. We have seen this in nations like Iran which seemed to be on the verge of fraternal democracy only to turn in an instance towards right-wing paternalism. Today, fraternalism rules but for how long?

Jon Stewart, Ahmadinejad, Hitler, and Genghis

2005-12-17T18:37:00.000-08:00

Recenty on the Daily Show, comedian Jon Stewart noted the proliferation of Hitler analogies. The point of the bit seemed to me (a fan) was that everyone (from left, center, and believe it or not the right) were comparing their enemies to Hitler. I understood his point, that is the absurdity of labeling all of the people one doesn't like as the arch-boogey man, Hitler. In the past, it seems that the world was simpler, Hitler was the boogey-man of the left, Stalin was the boogey-man of the right, and to centrists they were twin evils. But when it comes to the War on Terrorism, these lines have been blurred. We have rightists attacking right-wing fundamentalists as Islamic Fascists and democratic leftists defending Hitler worshipers.

The reality is that we need to get real when it comes to these poor excuses for debate. "Fascists" are authoritarian/paternalistic rightists and "Communists" are authoritarian/paternalistic leftists. Centrists, on the other hand, are usually democrats. Well, what does this have to do with Ahmadinejad, Hitler , or Genghis Khan. It is simple, all three are radical rightists who despise compromise, and debate, and thus democracy. On the other hand, Stalin was an authoritarian leftist who hated democracy. So lets at least get our analogies right.

Recently Iranian President Ahmadinejad has shown his true colors by making comments sympathetic to Hitler and other well known right-wing authoritarian types, so to label him an Islamic fascist is not so far fetched. And the democratic left needs to accept this fact. But what is really going on here?

What alot people do not understand about figures like Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great is that they are/were not hegemonic world leaders, but rather anti-hegemonic leaders opposed to the existing world order. The hegemonic leaders they opposed are/were in order: Bush, Churchill, Pitt, Shah Muhammad, and Darius. Bush, Churchill, and maybe Pitt led democracies, but Shah Muhammad and Darius were dictators.

Where am I going with all this you might wonder? Well, its simple; some people always identify with the underdog, and some always identify with the overlord. French pychoanalyst Jacques Lacan has referred to this phenomona as that of "Master/Slave." Unfortunately, reality is much more complicated than this simple dichotomy. The reality is that world politics is the world of the lesser of two evils, and politicians will be politicians, and it is not always clear who is in the right.

Parallelism postulates that the current conflict in the Mid-East and in the world is a conflict between paternalism and fraternalism, and that the battle for world hegemony will determine which force (paternalism or fraternalism) is more powerful. For more information consult "Parallelism a handbook of social analysis" (2002).

Ahmadinejad, Israel and Prussia

2005-12-14T15:07:00.000-08:00

Recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad lauched a series of verbal attacks on the state of Israel, even going so far as to declare the Holocaust to be a "Myth." He suggested that a Jewish state should be established in Europe, the US, or Canada. While these kinds of statements are reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis, and thus may be classifed as a parallel, there is another dynamic at work here as well.

Much of Ahmadinejad's anger towards Israel has to do with the fact that Israel has become the Middle East's most powerful military state. As a result, Israel is one of Iran's main obstacles to the establishment of regional hegemony. The situation was similar in Europe around 1799. French leaders sought to make France the predominate military and political power on the continent. In this regard, Prussia was France's main military rival in northern and central Europe. Prussia had emerged as a major military power after the Seven Years War; a war in which it had defeated the combined powers of France, Austria, and Russia by aligning itself with Europe's hegemon, Britain. During the early French revolutionary wars, Prussia, with the support of Britain, had even invaded France. The French revolutionaries responded by fomenting rebellion among the Poles in Prussia.

Today Israel, having won its versions of the Seven Years War, the Wars of '56, '67, and '73 (with the help of the would-be hegemon, the US), is in a similar position. Its main military rival in the region is Iran. Iran has taken a hard stance against Israel, and has sought to foment rebellion in the West Bank and Gaza, much like France fomented rebellion amongst the Poles.

In the cases of France and Prussia, the battle for dominance ultimately led to war in 1806...a war incidentally that Prussia lost to Napoleonic France.

Pan Arabism, Khomeinism, and Mecca

2005-12-12T15:12:00.000-08:00

A number of scholars have argued that one of the causes for the 1980 Iran-Iraq War was the rivalry between the pan-Arabism and Khomeinist Fundamentalism. While this was certainly a factor, other causes are present as well.

Parallelism suggests that one of the main reasons for the Iraqi invasion of Iran was because the popular revolution there threatened the neighboring Arab dictatorships and Gulf monarchies. Saddam, not unlike the Austrian Emperor and Prussian King in 1790, was led to believe that a military attack on the revolutionary state would lead to its political collapse, and potentially to a restoration of the old order.

The Gulf states like those in Italy in 1789-1790 feared the new religious order rising in the revolutionary state (France). In 1789, the new religion was Deism (the worship of the Supreme Being) and the status quo was Catholicism as represented by the Pope in Rome. In 1979, the new religious revolution was Khomeinist Fundamentalism, and the status quo was Sunnism/Wahabism in Mecca.

In the end, the outcome was the same. The revolutionary states (France and Iran) were not defeated, and lived on to fight another day.

Oswald Mosley, the British Fascisti, and the USA

2005-12-01T18:57:00.000-08:00

Oswald Mosley is best known as the founder of the British Union of Fascists. He was a sympathizer to the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. Indeed it was after meeting Mussolini in Italy in 1932 that he founded the BUF. Today, Mosley is portrayed as a right-wing fringe element, but what is often forgotten is that he was once a highly influential politician with ties to both the Conservative and Labour parties. In 1918, he was a member of parliament and a conservative. By 1929, he was part of the leftist Labour Party with close ties to Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald.

These ties, however, never stopped him from forming the New Party in 1931 or of creating the BUF in 1932.

Clearly, Mosley had an authoritarian streak, and seeing the political success of militarists in Germany and Italy, he sought to promote a similar regime in Britain. In order to accomplish this task he formed coalitions with other organizations like the British Fascisti, the National Fascists, and the Imperial Fascists. These groups together sought to bring an end to democracy in Britain and to expand the Empire.

The question is, what does this have to do with the United States today? Following the parallelistic model, 1932=about 2004-05, Germany's parallel is Iran, Italy's parallel is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and Britain's parallel is the US. The question is: does the US have an Oswald Mosley; some radical conservative, who plays both sides of the fence, who admires the monarchies of Arabia, desires an end to the mullah regime in Tehran, and favors the creation of right-wing dictatorships in Iran and America? You tell me.....

In the end, we know what became of Mosely. In 1936, just before the outbreak of war between Britain and Germany there was a crackdown on the BUF. In 1940, shortly after the outbreak of war, Mosely was arrested and his movement shut down. While he was released from prison in 1943 by fellow conservative Winston Churchill, he never again played a prominent role in British politics. In the end, democracy was preserved and Mosely's dreams of greater Empire were lost.

Lawyers, Technocrats, and Military Men

2005-11-26T17:38:00.000-08:00

The Iranian Revolution is a misunderstood thing. The media and critics of Islamic Iran like to focus on the religious elements of the revolution and refer to Iran as a theocracy. What is lost in this discussion is the fact that this revolution, just like European revolutions, was led by lawyers, jurists, and technocrats. In France, the majority of the revolutionary leaders were disgruntled lawyers and patrons technicians (technocrats). The same is true of the German revolution of 1918. In this regard Iran is no different. What is often left out of media analysis of Iran is that mullahs in Iran are trained as Islamic lawyers and jurists. These jurists were allied to a number of technocratic factions (eg. Islamic Society of Engineers).

What then is the difference between revolutions in Europe and the one in Iran? Well, some might argue that the lawyers in France were secular, but this isn't entirely accurate. In fact, many Jacobins were theophilantropists (followers of the cult of the Supreme Being), and lest we forget, many of the German revolutionaries were Christian in orientation (eg., the Catholic Center Party). So the main difference is that the lawyers in Iran are Muslim, or better said officially part of the clergy. Still, if one is looking for parallels, it can be said that these three revolutions were led by the same types of figures, lawyers and technocrats.

In the cases of France and Germany, the reign of the lawyers and the technocrats was short-lived. The revolutionary lawyer regimes soon were replaced by regimes led by military and ex-military men (Napoleon, Hitler). It appears the same thing is now occurring in Iran. Former Revolutionary Guardsman President Ahmadinejad is currently purging the regime of lawyers (mullahs) and technocrats. Is a military takeover in the works?

Oedipus and Hegemonic War

2005-10-13T15:34:00.000-07:00

We can' t talk about parallelism and hegemonic war without bringing in a little psychoanalysis. There is, to be sure, an Oedipal dynamic to hegemonic relations and war. In the minds of the challenger state's leaders, there has been a tendency to regard the hegemonic state as a kind of primal father. In some instances this comparison might be valid; not all hegemons in the international system are benevolent. But the reality is that some are more benevolent than others. Democratic hegemons like the US and Britain are probably more benevelont than some of the more paternalistic hegemons of the past. Nevertheless, challengers perceive the hegemon as a malevolent authority and thus seek to rebel against it.

Challengers, even when they are paternalistic, think of themselves as the "Hero Son" battling against an evil or unjust authority. This can be seen in the kinds of rhetoric used by challengers in the international system. Macedonians for example referred to the Persians as barbarians. Today, leaders in challenger states like Iran refer to the US as the Great Satan.

Hegemonic powers have reciprocated by referring to challengers as rebellious sons. Today challenger states are referred to as evil-doers. The demonization of the other by both parties leads to conflict and, many times, hegemonic war. The challenger state enlists other states, much in the same way the hero-son creates a bachelor band, and they rise up to overcome the hegemon, much in the same way the primal father was overcome in theory.

War and Change in World Politics

2005-10-11T16:10:00.000-07:00

Branislav Slantchev, in his review of Robert Gilpin's book "War and Change in World Politics" writes, "Hegemonic powers arrange the {international} system to their advantage, however due to diminishing returns, rising costs, diffusion of power to rivals, and decline in polity, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the status quo. If a challenger is not accommodated, a hegemonic war ensues and the system is rearranged by the victor."

The truth of this statement should be evident. While one may question whether or not is it is good or bad to have a hegemon in the world system, what is clear is that at certain historical junctures, hegemons and challengers exist. In 336 BC, Persia was the world hegemon, and Macedonia was the challenger state. A hegemonic war ensued and Macedonia was victorious. The Macedonians and the Greeks thus set about rearranging the world order to their suiting. In 1213, in Asia, Kwarizim Persia was the hegemon and a fledgling Mongolian state was the challenger. When war came, the challenger Mongolia won and rearranged the entire system. In 1815 in Europe, Britain was the hegemonic state and France was the challenger. In this instance, the hegemon Britain triumphed and it rearranged the world system to its suiting. In 1939, the hegemon was Britain and the challenger state was Germany. Britain won and the challenger was defeated. But in this instance, something different occured. A state allied to the hegemon became the new hegemon. That hegemon was the United States.

Today, the US is clearly the hegemon of the world system. Still there are a number of potential challenger states. The ones that immediately come to mind are China and Russia. But there is another state which seems to be seeking the mantle of challenger and that is Iran. Now at the current moment in time, Iran is not a very strong challenger. Its bark appears to be much worse than its bite. But lest we forget, most challenger states emerged out of nowhere to become contenders. They accomplished this task by forming regional alliances with other minor challengers in the international system. Up to this point in time Iran has not done a great job of forming strategic alliances with other contenders to the throne like China or Russia. Nevertheless, this situation could change. The current regime in Iran seems bent on gaining challenger status to presumably gain greater advantage in the region and the world. The question is: will it be accomodated or will war ensue?

Attempts to accomodate challenger states have often failed. Many scholars and talking heads warn of the problem of "appeasement" politics. The question is: is accomodation a form of appeasement, or is appeasement a form of accomodation that is too little too late?

The Allies, Versaille, and Islamic Iran

2005-09-24T16:30:00.000-07:00

In the early inter-war years (1918-1934) the Allied powers in Europe (mainly Britain, France, and Italy) took a hardline against Germany and sought to enforce the Treaty of Versaille. Despite some failed attempts to encourage reparation payments by Germany (eg., the Dawes Plan) the Allies did their level best to keep Germany weak, both militarily and economically. This is largely because the Allies feared German expansionism. British politicians, in particular, saw Germany as a potential rival for hegemony in Europe and abroad. Germany tried to circumvent the attempts by the Allies to keep her down economically and politically by changing strategy. Increasingly, Germany forged closer and closer economic relationships between other states in Central Europe, namely Austria, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria. The Weimar state even worked closely with the USSR in order to rebuild its mighty military machine. Hitler believed that Germany's best allies would be England and Italy, but with Britain taking such a hard stance against Germany, this was not possible. As a result, he made an attempt to reestablish the relationship that Germany had with Italy prior to World War I. In this way, he could counterbalance the relationship between France and England, and thus come to dominate Central Europe (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland), as well as dominate the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, and maybe even Greece).

If we follow the model laid out in Parallelism, we see that similar things are happening in the world today. For years the United States and its main allies in the region, Israel and Saudia Arabia, have taken a hard public stance against Iran. This is because both states fear the rise of Iranian regional hegemony. Iran remains isolated economically and is relatively weak militarily when compared to the "Allies" (US and Israel). As a result, Iran has incresingly turned to other non-hegemonic states as trade partners. These include among them China, N. Korea, India, Pakistan, as well as African and Latin American states. Like Germany, Iran has even turned to its former rival Russia in the hopes of building up economic and military strength.

Parallelism postulates that the goal of Islamic Iran's new masters, the neo-cons, is the same as Hitler's in the inter-war years: to build economic self-sufficiency, to construct a powerful military, to counterbalance the strong relationship between the US and Israel, to dominate central Asia (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir), and to have strong interdependent relationships with Eastern and Southern Asia (China, India, Bangladesh, and maybe even other states in Indo-China like Vietnam and Indonesia). In order to accomplish this task, however, Iran has to get US forces out of Iraq and to forge closer ties with Saudia Arabia and the Gulf states. In other words, don't be surprised if the new administration in Tehran seeks to forge closer ties to Arab states, Pakistan, and China with the intent of counterbalancing US hegemony in the region.

Bonapartism and Islamic Iran

2005-09-23T17:07:00.000-07:00

Many observers of Islamic Iran have been predicting the rise of Bonapartism in Iran. The recent election of former revolutionary guardsman Ahmadinejad to the presidency seems to have confirmed this fear. Parallelism too has postulated the rise of Bonapartism. While it would be foolish to say that the future is written stone, if we follow Harold Lasswell and his developmental contruct, we can make some tenative forecasts about the future of Islamic Iran.

In order to determine the way in which Iran is trending, it is important to engage in a survey of past events. In the case of Revolutionary France, the Bonapartist takeover of power was well orchestrated. The Bonapartist faction made a number of critical strategic moves designed to gain power. First, it established a right-wing authoritarian faction in parliament, with Napoleon's older brother Joseph becoming a leading member of the upper house of parliament, known as the House of Ancients, and Napoleon's younger brother Lucien becoming not only a member of parliament but the speaker of the lower house, the Council of Five Hundred. They then managed to get Sieyes elected to the Directory, the executive body of government.

In the end only one obstacle remained to the creation of a Bonapartist regime, lead director Barras. Napoleon, after his return from Egypt, organized a strong faction in the army and worked to separate director Barras from the military machine which kept him in power.

It seems that the Abadgaran faction in Iran has followed a similar path. Largely backed by the revolutionary guards, they established a strong faction in parliament, and got their "Lucien", Haddad Adell, elected as speaker. The faction established strong ties to members of Iran's defacto upper house of parliament, The Council of Guardians, and managed to get their candidate elected to the presidency.

The only question that remains is: Is Ahmadinejad "Napoleon" or "Sieyes?" This question remains unanswered, but what is clear is that Faqih Ali Khamenei is now Iran's "Barras."

Axis of Evil, Axis of Nothing, or Pre-Axis

2005-09-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

For students of parallelism, the fact that the current administration uses the term "Axis" when describing Islamic Iran seems odd. From a theoretical perspective, Iran is in the closing phases of Thermidor, and is on the verge of becoming a dictatorship. What this means is that the current regime in Tehran is a parallel of Weimar Germany and the First French Republic, not Nazi Germany or Bonapartist France. And as students of history know, the Axis alliance was created well after the Nazis had gained control of the state. In other words, the Bush adminstration has declared the establishment of an Axis alliance before it has been actually created.

Now many observers of the War On Terror have noted that the "Axis of Evil" is largely illusional. This is probably true since the links between the various members is weak at best. This is particularly true of the link between Iran and Saddam's former regime. This does not mean that in the future a true Axis will not be created. In fact, parallelism suggests that this is a real possibility, but this Axis would be one between member states like Iran, the Arab world and China (with Russia as a temporal ally). So it seems that the use of the term to describe rogue states is misguided. In fact, this Axis alliance of Evil is in fact an alliance of nothing, or at best a pre-Axis.

On the subject of the Axis of Evil, reference to parallelism here is of relevance. What parallelism says is that the conflict between the United States and its allies, and Islamic Iran is similar to the conflict between England and France during the Thermidorian period of that revolution (1799), or similar to the conflict between England and the allies, and Weimar Germany around 1932. The Versailles Treaty which restricted Germany's military and forced reparation payments has its parallel in the current struggle over the development of weapons of mass destruction. England's fear of France as a rising military power in 1799 is paralleled by the US's fear of Iran's growing military and nuclear ambitions.

So if you want to really understand the current conflict between the US and Iran, follow the model laid out in of "Parallelism: A Handbook of Social Analysis, and study the relationships between England and France in 1799, and England and Germany in 1932.

Star Wars, Bush, Sean Penn and the Axis of Evil

2005-09-12T16:34:00.000-07:00

In a recent interview, George Lucas, the creator of the Star Wars epics, noted that there were parallels between his movie(s) and recent events in the Middle East. He noted some similarities between events in Iraq and elsewhere. It is interesting to note that no mention was made of political developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As fans of the Star Wars movies know, the Old Republic is replaced by an Evil Empire. Even the most uneducated viewer of these films can see the obvious similarities between the political events in the film and those of pre-war Germany. The soldiers of the Empire are called Storm Troopers, an obvious reference to Nazism, the colors of the Empire are black and red, just like Nazism, and the helmet worn by Vader is reminiscent of German soldiers. There are other similar references, but the picture is clear, the Sith is some kind of intergalactic Nazism.

The question then that naturally arises is, what does this have to do with Iraq? The answer is very little. In fact, it appears that there are few parallels between Iraq and Star Wars. If anything Iraq is following an opposite path; it is transitioning from a left-wing Arab socialist dictatorship into an imposed democracy.

But this doesn't mean there are no parallels between Star Wars and the Middle East. If one were to look more closely one would see a more salient parallel, namely Iran. Iran is currently a weak or pseudo-Islamic democracy. Internally it is torn between reformists who want the Republic to become more democratic, and the forces of reaction and revision who want to establish an Islamic right-wing dictatorship. This closely parallels pre-war Germany and thus the Star Wars films.

Apparently, these similarities have not gone unnoticed by those in the US administration seeking to draw on support via common cultural images. It is largely for these reasons that the Bush administration has labeled Iran as the ring-leader of the "Axis of Evil." Just as Reagan used Star Wars imagery against the Soviet Union (eg., the Evil Empire), so has the current administration seen a parallel between the tale in Star Wars and internal political development in Iran, and has sought to drum up support for the War on Terror by referring to Nazism and the Sith. It is interesting to note that the parallels between Star Wars and internal events in Iran were not lost on actor-activist Sean Penn in his recent visit to Iran to observe the 2005 presidential election. In his articles he often referred to his contacts with high ranking Iranian officials as the "Sith."

Enough said. If Iran is truly following a similar path as pre-war Germany, then it can be said it also parallels the Star Wars films by default. The recent election of the rightist former Revolutionary Guard Ahmadinejad to the presidency has placed the Republic in danger, opened the door to Fascism, and severely damaged the hopes for further democratization. In light of these political developments don't be surprised to hear more and more references to Iran as the "Evil Empire."

Parallelism and the Islamic Republic of Iran

2005-09-03T18:13:00.000-07:00

In 1999, in a dissertation entitled "Democratic Transitions and the Weber/Freud Connection, The Cases of France, Germany, and Iran," I predicted the defeat of the reform movement in Iran and the rise of the radical Islamic right. This prediction was followed by a number of published articles (Thermidor in the Islamic Republic of Iran, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 1999; The Freud/Weber Connection: The Case of Islamic Iran, 2003) and the ground breaking book "Parallelism: A Handbook of Social Analysis, The Study of Revolution and Hegemonic War" (2002). Since this time Iran has seen the takeover of the political system by right-wing reactionaries known as Abadgaran and the election of the rightist Ahmadinejad to the presidency.

This prediction was based on my theory of Parallelism which argues that historical processes repeat themselves over time in regularized and predictable patterns. Iran is currently following the same pattern as other popular revolutions, most notably the French Revolution of 1789 and the German Revolution of 1918. In the two aforementioned cases the revolutionary government was usurped by radical right-wing forces (Bonapartism, Nazism). In both cases this takeover of power was accompanied by the militarization of politics. It would seem Iran is following a similar path, something evidenced by the Revolutionary Guards recent interest in politics. In the 2005 presidential election, four of the candidates were former Revolutionary Guardsmen (Ahmadinejad, Qalibaf, Rezai, Larijani), all from the rightist faction. Likewise, Ahmadinejad's new cabinet is likely to be dominated by former military men.

From these accounts it appears that Iran is following the historical pattern and thus headed for dictatorship.