I think Iranian dissidents are implicitly comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Nicolae Ceauşescu. Indeed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime does have strong overtones of the kind of politics that that Romanian despot indulged in.

As a wave of Romanian protests erupted in December 1989, Ceauşescu went on a state visit to Iran. Among the chants found in the streets of Bucharest was “Death to the Dictator”. Given that the dictator in question happened to in Iran at the time, this situation would have affected Iranians more strongly than other people back in 1989. This was only a few months after the death of Ruhollah Khomeini. Ruhollah Khomeini ruled according to his own cult of personality, acting as if he were truly the living gate to the will of God. Although acting as if one were God’s living manifestation is an understandable mistake of a mystic, and “Ruhollah” principal contribution to religious scholarship is his tract on mysticism, this mistake is a particularly damning one, for it is the depth of hubris to believe that one is God, especially when it gets to the point where one cannot tell the difference between one’s own whims and God’s will.

Ptolemaic Pharaonism is very, very dangerous. Yet, it has a deep allure at the very heart of monarchist sentiment. Joseph Stalin’s cult of Lenin was merely an imitation of what Ptolemy I did to Alexander’s body. The Quran unequivocally condemns Pharaonism, yet most Islamic states have historically been Pharaonic in nature. Although oriental despotism may presently fly the flag of Islam, I strongly suspect that the allure of oriental despotism is far more intense in Middle Eastern society than any loyalty to Islam. If most Muslims had to choose between Islam and oriental despotism, I think they would choose the latter at the expense of the former.

If Islam is the enemy, the Iranian government is one’s best ally, for that government’s tyranny has effectively undermined Islam’s hold upon Iranian youth.