As I noted in the post, and we agree, this is not yet war. If it were it would be more revolutionary than civil in its nature. I said that because until Friday’s sermon from the Supreme Leader the protests were as you described them; protests to secure rights under the constitution of the Islamic Republic.

The Mousavi statement I included clearly indicates his intention to make change within government, not to change the system of government. I think, however, that protests may be evolving faster than his thinking.

Since Friday, reports indicate that a change has occured. Now protests openly defy the authority of the Supreme Leader which suggests protests are becoming more about regime change than reform.

We also agree that it’s generational in nature, but I also see recent events as exposing a fault line that has existed in the Islamic Republic since its founding. Some, we are told, always have favored more centrist, pragmatic government. Some always have favored more ideological, theocratic hard-line rule.

It seems to me these protests have the potential of forcing a resolution of this fundamental division within the government.

We agree the days of the Islamic Republic are numbered, but we number those days differently. I’m not certain we’ll see it fall soon, but neither would I be surprised if it did. The breach in Eastern Europe’s borders I cited occured in June of 1989. By Novermber of 1989 the Berlin Wall fell. Within two years the Soviet Union was no more. What seemed impossible for 40 years happened within just a few months. I’m open to the possibility that the Islamic Republic that has stood for 30 years could disolve just as quickly.

Which brings me to my second point: what makes this test of wills so compelling and different from Beijing in ‘89 or the Saffron Revolution is those were movements of people against their governments. In ‘09 Iran, there is a split in the governing Islamic elite, and it is with their out-of-sight phone calls, closed-door meetings, and assuredly pointed discussions over countless cups of tea that this war is being fought. And neither side is interested in seeing the regime collapse, but rather warring to best secure their respective interests.

The Islamic Republic will one day fall. The outcome of the current battle of elites will either retard or expedite this inevitability, but it will not result in its immediate destruction.

For these purposes I don’t see how points 1-3 are helpful. All they do is illustrate the controversial nature of the Iraq War policy that I already acknowledged in the post.

Point 4, in my opinion, is patently false. This was first a housing crisis. Subprime mortgages put many people into homes they could not afford, lenders consolidated and sold this bad debt to other banks, which then created new risky investment instruments (mortgage-backed securities) they sold to others. All of this was bad business, but none of it was illegal. What precipitated the current economic crisis was the dramatic spike in gas prices in late 2007 and early 2008. Rising energy costs pushed homeowners already living on the economic edge over it, and stalled economic growth. Even while gas prices fell throughout 2008 the ripples of the earlier spike continued to roil the economic pond. Citing government planning, or spending or tax policy is apportioning too much of the blame in the wrong place.

Your belief that “sensible Americans will continue to support the President even if the economy does get worse” is, I fear, a misplaced one. A volunteer army allowed most Americans some distance from the consequences of war, and yet American patience with it eroded. There is no distance from the economy for anyone when you’re losing a job or a home or you know someone who is. That’s why I think that patience for this administration’s policies will similarly erode unless they are seen to have positive effect in short order.

Again, without discussing the merits of past or present policy, I meant only to address the public’s attitude toward those policies, and the timetables on which they will expect to see results.

1. The (then) President chose to go to war in Iraq. That decision is now seen as a mistake based on faulty premises.

2. The overall execution of the war in Iraq is now seen as having been incompetently handled.

3. The economy tanked while under Republican leadership. It is now seen that many of the excesses that brought the economy down were due to lax supervision of the last administration.

4. Poor economic planning, over the top spending, and tax cuts that substantially benefitted the rich over the middle class are now seen to not only have contributed to the crisis, but also left us in a weaker position from which to deal with the current crisis. Again, this happened during the last administration.

With the staggering dissimilarities between the war in Iraq and the current economic disaster, I believe that sensible Americans will continue to support the President even if the economy does get worse. He’s (rightfully) pointed out, that all of us are at fault in varying degrees…we’ve been living on borrowed money…and apparently borrowed time for quite a while. Time to bite the bullet, and make some painful transitions. In the long run, I think it will make this country stronger, and perhaps, even happier.

Some things I would like to see is the Republicans who brought us this mess give up on the “ideas” that were appropriate for the late 70s, early 80s…come to the table with valid ideas that would help ease the pain that all Americans are feeling (not just the privileged few). I’m afraid they will continue to support people like the bellicose Rush Limbaugh who wants the President to fail because he does not want to see his policies succeed, but apparently doesn’t realize that would most likely doom this country as well. Extraordinary times require extraordinary ideas…how about a few new ones?