Q&A with author Tom Gabbay discussion

Something big is happening in Iran. Whatever the outcome of the current turmoil, it is a turning point in the country's history and could have an enormous impact on all of us.

I'm not an expert on Iran by any means, but while researching my novel, The Tehran Conviction, I came to understand the country's recent history, and thus the politics of a place that we in the West sometime see as unreasonable and irrational. The CIA-sponsored overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1953 still haunts the country. They were a fledgling democracy at the time, trying to achieve independence from the outside world. They trusted the United States because America had gone through the same process. They, too, had made a Declaration of Independence from Britain. But that trust was betrayed. The oil was too important and the Soviet Union too close to take chances with democracy in what was seen as an unstable country.

Shah Reza Pahlavi was installed and the absolute power he held for 26 years was very often abused. When, in 1979, the people had had enough, there was turmoil in the streets much like we're seeing today. But the democratic forces in the country had been weakened from years of oppression, so the Fundamentalist clergy prevailed in the power struggle that took place when the Shah fled. The Islamic Revolution was born.

Now, 30 years after that revolution, and 56 years after the coup, it seems to me that Iran has a chance at moving beyond the backward-looking philosophy of its religious leaders. If that's true, it could be a "game changer" in the Middle East and beyond.

This video provides a sense of what is happening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3er0fl...

There may be a fork in this road, but it has several possible new directions, not just two. Will the current religious despots resort to a Tianaman response and brutally crush the growing dissent, leaving Ahmadinezhad in place? It depends. The religious leaders have backed off their endorsement of the election, but that is likely only a time-buying maneuver intended to cool off the heated populace.

Thomas Friedman has written extensively about the growth of a democratic urge in Iran, noting that unlike other anti-government bubblings-up in the area, today's pro-democracy movement does not see the U.S. as, necessarily, a culprit, since we have not been a supporter of their corrupt leaders, unlike the situation in most other Middle East countries. But we most do our best to stay out of this conflict. Too much of a tilt would give the mullahs ammo to paint all protesters as American agents.

Will the Supreme Leader allow Mousavi to gain a foothold? If so, so what? Mousavi is a supporter of the existing rule-by-mullah under a burka of democracy. We could safely look forward to more of the same from Iran going forward, a mullah-mafia tolerating a veneer of democracy but continuing with their regional power politics. Robert Baer has an outstanding book out recently, The Devil We Know, that addresses the growing impact of Iran in the region. Do Iran's national ambitions surpass their form of government? Would a real, democratically elected government eschew development of nukes or bigger, more accurate missiles?

What if the election is thrown out as corrupt? That would threaten the actual structure of governance, because an admission that the election was dishonest is a direct slap in the face to the ruling mullahs. Don't make them mad. You wouldn't like them when they're mad. Bloodshed would be sure to follow. I have not seen any reporting that would indicate a drive towards de-Islamization, which is not to say that it might not be there. Maybe I just missed it. So ultimately it may not make much difference who occupies the office of president. As long as the power-greedy mullahs rule, the presidency is an afterthought.

Tactically, which short-term outcome would be better for the West? Would an Iran in chaos reduce the quantity of support it gives to its clients in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza? Would an Iran in chaos be more or less likely to develop disturbing weaponry, nuclear weapons and accurate missiles? Would it be better for the West to have a steady, predictable Iran, even one that does not share our values, or a cauldron of discontent that might actually threaten religious rule? As we learned when Westerners were taken hostage lo these many years ago, it is not possible to negotiate unless there is actually someone in charge.

Scary times indeed.

Will wrote: "There may be a fork in this road, but it has several possible new directions, not just two. Will the current religious despots resort to a Tianaman response and brutally crush the growing dissent, ..."

You make some excellent points. Scary times, indeed, but like all crises, full of opportunity. We may be witnessing the beginning of the end of Islamic fundamentalist rule in Iran, where it all began.

Tom wrote: "Will wrote: "There may be a fork in this road, but it has several possible new directions, not just two. Will the current religious despots resort to a Tianaman response and brutally crush the grow..."

One can only hope, particularly for the women of Iran.

Is this Q&A open to queries re The Lisbon Crossing?

Will wrote: "Is this Q&A open to queries re The Lisbon Crossing?"

Sure. It's open to pretty much anything.

I quite enjoyed the characters in TLC. It was like watching the Warner Brothers ensemble from the 1940s, the Maltese Falcon et al. Was that an inspiration for your characters? If not, what was?

Will wrote: "I quite enjoyed the characters in TLC. It was like watching the Warner Brothers ensemble from the 1940s, the Maltese Falcon et al. Was that an inspiration for your characters? If not, what was?"

In fact, that was exactly where I started with this book. What if one of the most beloved films of all time was based on an incident in Jack Teller's life? And what was the real story, before Hollywood got its hands on it? If you look at the last couple of paragraphs in the book it drops a clue about that. Hint: Julius Epstein was a real screenwriter.