Is Barack Obama destined to be the next Jimmy Carter?

In 1979, ‘students’ flooded the streets in Iran to protest the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While the Shah was not perfect, he was a valuable ally of the West’s. Moreover, he lifted Iran into the 20th century. However, the Iranian people were unsatisfied with the tactics of the Shah’s police state, and they demanded ‘change.’

Carrying out the greatest blunder in American foreign policy history, President Carter refused to stop the Iranian revolution. Instead of saving a strategic ally, Jimmy Carter let the Shah fall. Because of Jimmy Carter’s ineptitude, today Iran is ruled by radical Muslims and is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

The lesson of Iran is pertinent to the current unrest in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization who’s stated goal is: “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house,” is following the same playbook the radicals did in Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and other Western leaders appear to have learned nothing from the miserable failures of the Carter regime.

In her 1979 essay, Dictatorships & Double Standards, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick explained the United States’ unfortunate habit of letting allies fall:

The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The “Marxist” presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. support for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid “elsewhere.” Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that “lacks the support of its own people.” The absence of an opposition party is deplored and civil-rights violations are reviewed. Liberal columnists question the morality of continuing aid to a “rightist dictatorship” and provide assurances concerning the essential moderation of some insurgent leaders who “hope” for some sign that the U.S. will remember its own revolutionary origins. Requests for help from the beleaguered autocrat go unheeded, and the argument is increasingly voiced that ties should be established with rebel leaders “before it is too late.” The President, delaying U.S. aid, appoints a special emissary who confirms the deterioration of the government position and its diminished capacity to control the situation and recommends various measures for “strengthening” and “liberalizing” the regime, all of which involve diluting its power.

The emissary’s recommendations are presented in the context of a growing clamor for American disengagement on grounds that continued involvement confirms our status as an agent of imperialism, racism, and reaction; is inconsistent with support for human rights; alienates us from the “forces of democracy”; and threatens to put the U.S. once more on the side of history’s “losers.” This chorus is supplemented daily by interviews with returning missionaries and “reasonable” rebels.

As the situation worsens, the President assures the world that the U.S. desires only that the “people choose their own form of government”; he blocks delivery of all arms to the government and undertakes negotiations to establish a “broadly based” coalition headed by a “moderate” critic of the regime who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a “political” settlement to the conflict. Should the incumbent autocrat prove resistant to American demands that he step aside, he will be readily overwhelmed by the military strength of his opponents, whose patrons will have continued to provide sophisticated arms and advisers at the same time the U.S. cuts off military sales. Should the incumbent be so demoralized as to agree to yield power, he will be replaced by a “moderate” of American selection. Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership. By then, military commanders, no longer bound by loyalty to the chief of state, will depose the faltering “moderate” in favor of a fanatic of their own choosing.

In either case, the U.S. will have been led by its own misunderstanding of the situation to assist actively in deposing an erstwhile friend and ally and installing a government hostile to American interests and policies in the world. At best we will have lost access to friendly territory. At worst the Soviets will have gained a new base. And everywhere our friends will have noted that the U.S. cannot be counted on in times of difficulty and our enemies will have observed that American support provides no security against the forward march of history.

Besides the influence of the Soviet Union, Kirkpatrick’s analysis reads like it could have been written today. Letting allies, even unsavory ones, fall is doubly harmful to the United States. First, there is the fall of an ally, and the rise of an enemy. Second, every time the united States allows an ally to be overthrown, America’s other allies witness the United Sates’ lack of resolve.

Make no mistake, a revolution in Egypt will not end well. There are no moderates in the Muslim Brotherhood. On CNN, Protesters in Alexandria explained their motives:

Woman #1 sets the stage for Woman #2:

“All the people hate him. He’s supporting Israel! Israel is our enemy. We don’t like him…Israel and America supported him. We hate them all!”

Woman #1 then explains that they will accomplish the removal of Mubarak by “revolution.”

Then the guy that follows them takes it up a notch by explaining that when the people in Egypt are finally free they will be able to “destroy Israel.”

In 1979 President Carter’s UN representative, Andrew Young, said that in time, Ayatollah Khomeini would be viewed as “some kind of saint.” The Carter administration’s motto was “we can work with Khomeini.” That has not exactly worked out the way the Carterites thought it would.

The UK Telegraph reported this week that the United States has been actively supporting Egyptian ‘activists’ since President Obama has come to power. While president Obama’s democratic intentions are honorable, the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak at this time would be calamitous.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday recommended as a go-between to negotiate a transfer of power, fits Kirkpatrick’s description of a moderate critic of the regime perfectly. ElBaradei’s elevation will set up a transfer of power to the worst elements in Egypt.

While some of the protesters in the streets in Cairo may be pro-democracy advocates, tired of being unemployed in a police state, should the Mubarak regime be toppled, the pro-democracy dupes will be enslaved in a radical Muslim tyranny, far more brutal than the darkest days of the Mubarak reign.

In the coming days President Mubarak will do all he can to remain in power. President Obama will have to make a decision: will he support an imperfect ally, or allow the devil we know to fall? Whatever Obama’s plan of action is, it will have far reaching consequences; forty years ago Iran was a resolute ally.