The deciding factor in tipping the scales in favor of the mullahs was when the shah's army decided not to intervene. That was the silver bullet that ended up killing whatever democracy was left in Iran to begin with.

Part of the problem was that few people had the ability to project the dangers represented by Khomeini and his ilk. French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing was one of the few people to realize the danger represented by the ayatollah, who at the time was preaching from a modest house in the French town of Neufle le Chateau, a few hours outside Paris. The French president warned the shah, but to no avail. The imperial ruler of Iran was unable to believe that an old ailing cleric, sitting in a village house in the French countryside posed any real danger to his throne. History, of course, told us how wrong he was.

Much has happened in those 29 years, alas, much of it has not been very good. The Iranian revolution proved to be ruthless to those standing in its way. Hundreds were sent to their deaths in summary courts chaired by judges only too eager to hand out the death penalty. The preferred mode of execution was hanging on a construction crane.

Now, almost three decades later, observers both in Iran and outside are asking themselves whether the Islamic revolution is still alive.

Visitors returning from Iran all tend to agree on one thing; and that is the unpopularity of the Iranian regime. And despite the blatant anti-Americanism displayed through the media, the Iranian people remain very much pro-American. Many of the country's young, which incidentally make up more than half of the population, dream of eventually living in the United States. This is a particularly important point for U.S. policymakers to understand and not to confuse the Iranian's lack of support for the ruling mullahs with a lack of patriotism.

At this point in the revolution its guardians and stewards need to keep the country in strife or risk losing power. After nearly three decades of trying to export the revolution, the Islamic republic has little to show for its investment.

The West, regretfully, has not fared much better. Washington's policy of shunning Tehran has been about as successful as its strategy regarding Cuba. Fifty years after Castro took Havana, Washington's policy has barely made a dent in the regime. Iran with its oil revenues will be even less affected. If Cuba can hold out 50 years, Iran no doubt could hold out twice as long. Seeing that Washington's tactic of ignoring those it disagrees with has not worked, isn't it high time to seriously consider a new policy?