Few Americans would imagine a parallel between politics in the U.S. and politics in Iran. Yet the dynamic that shaped Iran's turbulent and unpredictable revolution is strikingly similar to the dynamic driving the Republican Revolution in the United States. PNS associate editor William O. Beeman is an anthropologist at Brown University who lived and worked in Iran for close to a decade.

Americans who watched in horror and fascination as Iran's revolution unfolded in the late 1970s never dreamt such an event could happen in the United States. But the current Republican Revolution bears an increasingly eerie resemblance to the Iranian Revolution -- minus the overt bloodshed.

The upheaval that drove Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi from his nation and transformed Iran was, above all, a moral revolution. A coalition of religious and political opposition leaders convinced the Iranian public that the government itself was the greatest enemy of the people. They portrayed the Shah's regime as overly liberal, paternalistic and out-of-touch with the common citizen.

Similarly, the Republican Revolution is a coalition of formerly out-of-power politicians and religious leaders who have successfully characterized the government as the enemy -- too liberal, paternalistic and out-of-touch.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led Iran's revolution largely by keeping it from splitting apart into small warring splinter groups. Before the ouster of the Shah, he did this by promising a utopian future, free of the corrupt governmental forces of the past. Achieving his status by acclaimation rather than election, he embodied the revolution for his supporters -- his picture was seen in every public expression of revolutionary sentiment.

America's Khomeini is House Speaker Newt Gingrich whose power also rests largely on his ability to mobilize and hold together coalition forces and financial resources. Like Khomeini, Gingrich is a visionary holding forth a paradise-like future for the American people. For those who oppose the Republican Revolution, Gingrich is its primary symbol. When anti-Revolutionary protestors take to the streets, Gingrich's name or picture are on nearly every sign.

The Shah of Iran, who began his rule in the 1940s, presided over a government whose main revenue source -- oil -- was beyond public control. While the Shah's schemes for improving and modernizing Iranian society succeeded to some degree, social conditions worsened as did oppression and corruption -- reflecting a powerful coalition between the central government, the military and industry.

The American equivalent of the Shah is not so much Bill Clinton as the Democratic Party. Like the shah, the Democrats began their governmental control in the 1940s and, have more or less dominated it ever since. During that period government grew larger, more powerful and more out of touch with the public. While many conditions improved, social life deteriorated.

The Iranian Revolution promised real reform and looked as if it would succeed during its first six months -- an unprecedented "Spring" of Iranian freedom and harmony. But when radical elements began to threaten the movement's ideals, Khomeini faced a crucial choice -- either continue to consolidate the revolution or risk losing it altogether in factional disputes. He chose to consolidate by outflanking his most extreme critics -- when the American Embassy was seized in November 1979, Khomeini quickly embraced it.

In this way he "saved" the Revolution but lost any chance to achieve significant social reform. Moderate leaders "retired" or left the country. Executions of former government officials and enemies of the Revolution were carried out and continue today. Social freedoms have diminished, especially for women and minorities. The regime's commitment to free-market economic processes has increased the disparity between rich and poor. For most Iranians economic conditions have not improved, and many feel nostalgic for the Shah's era.

The same dynamic is occurring with the Republican Revolution. In the heady days following the 1994 election, many Americans anticipated real change to correct what they viewed as the excesses of governmental control in the past. But as the freshmen Republicans in the House of Representatives have become increasingly radicalized and strident, Gingrich has been forced to try to outflank the most extreme elements by adopting their more radical position. As a result, moderates in government are leaving in large numbers. The Republican Revolution will not result in the execution of people, but the equivalent is the "execution" of government programs and departments. The Republican economic processes likewise promise greater economic disparities.

The great difference between Iran and the United States is the American election process and the judicial system, which curbs the excesses of both the legislative and executive branches. However, elections in the U.S. work both for and against moderation in government. Given the low voter turnout, any revolutionary group, if their fervor is strong enough, can capture an election by turning out their supporters in significant numbers. Republican revolutionaries are counting on this fact to bring their movement to fruition. All they need to consolidate power is to capture a veto-proof majority in the Senate and House -- a supermajority who will allow them to outflank the judicial branch by changing laws -- even Constitutional laws -- to fit their agenda.

Iran's Revolution is for all intents finished, and rueful Iranians are living with the results of their actions. The denoument of America's Republican Revolution will not be known until after November elections. It remains to be seen whether the Revolution will succeed and, if it does, whether Americans will welcome or regret the consequences.