It looks like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is in trouble.

Tonight, as I type this blog entry, the news networks have been riveted for most of the day on the rioting in the streets of Cairo.

It's still too early to say what the ultimate outcome will be; however, I'm having flashbacks to early 1978, when the Islamic hordes were demonstrating against the Shah of Iran. It was on the news almost every evening.

I remember it vividly for a couple of reasons. First, we were living in Illinois and the winter of 1977-78 had been one of the coldest on record. One night in January, we recorded a low of 40 degrees below zero. Sure, that was "just the wind chill," but don't let that innocuous-sounding term fool you—it was bitterly COLD.

The second thing that made that winter memorable was that my wife, Marcia, was pregnant with our first child, Elizabeth (who, as it turned out, was born in March of that year).

Here we are in January of 2011—and it was in January of 1978 that fighting began in earnest in the streets of Tehran. Yes, there had been demonstrations before that; however, January of that year was when people started getting hurt and the world was beginning to understand that it was witnessing a true revolution. A year later, in January of 1979, the Shah, who had been a stalwart ally of the United States, fled the country.

That was in 1978-79. A US-backed dictator in the Middle East was replaced by the Islamic Republic of Iran, ruled by anti-US Jihadist imams.

Are you beginning to see why I'm having flashbacks?

Mubarak, a US-backed dictator in the Middle East, may be on his way out. It might take awhile (the Shah managed to hang on for a year), but the outcome may be nonetheless assured—depending on what happens over the next week or so.

You can bet that Mubarak and his advisors are poring over the history books tonight to see what they can learn from the Shah's mistakes during that fateful period in 1978-79.

Some people wonder how Islamic fundamentalism manages to gain a foothold like this, especially in underdeveloped and impoverished areas of the world. At least in part, it's because of the way the imams view the role of government. To them, it is the government's responsibility to provide the basic needs of its citizens—food, shelter, and employment. In places like Egypt, where the unemployment rate in some areas approaches 40% and annual per capita income is under $3,000, it's a welcome message. The Wikipedia article on "Iran" says:

The political system of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] is based on the 1979 Constitution. Accordingly, it is the duty of the Islamic government to furnish all citizens with equal and appropriate opportunities, to provide them with work, and to satisfy their essential needs, so that the course of their progress may be assured.

The poor masses are told that Allah, the Islamic deity, loves them and cares about them. If he was in charge, he would give them what they need. Powerful stuff, and understandably so. 

By way of contrast, Western culture places more emphasis on rewarding hard work and on individual initiative. To us, the role of government is not to take care of its citizens, but rather to empower its citizens to take care of themselves. The US Constitution, for instance, doesn't guarantee the right to happiness, but rather the right to pursue happiness (big difference).

In other words, if you want it—go out and get it. Your government will make sure you have just as much opportunity as the next guy—but you've got to get out there and do it for yourself. That's the deal. It's a different way of looking at things.

I realize that the parallel between Iran and Egypt isn't perfect. Iran under the Shah was hardly impoverished or underdeveloped, so economics was not a major factor in the 1979 revolution. (Scholars continue debating its cause even today.) But still, it's a fact that the Islamic message resonates today with many distressed and downtrodden people (like the Egyptian people and the Palestinians in the Middle East and like Black people in the US during the tumultuous 1960s).

What's going to happen in Egypt? We'll know before too much longer.

In the meantime, the Bible reminds us that the LORD God of heaven and earth is still in charge of the affairs of men:

"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth" (Isa. 37:16).

If Egypt ends up being ruled by an Iran-like, anti-Israel government, it will be one more nudge farther down the road to Armageddon. And to that I say, "Even so, come, HaAdon Yeshua!" (Rev. 22:20).

Egypt has been a source of stability in the region because of its détente with Israel since 1978, although many experts argue that Jimmy Carter (and subsequent administrations) have paid dearly for that détente with roughly $2 billion a year in foreign aid to Cairo.

In any case, a militant Islamic regime in Egypt would dramatically alter the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and make it a much more dangerous and unstable place.

Here's what the New York Times is saying tonight about the situation in Egypt: click here

This just in—the US government has frozen all economic assistance to Egypt pending the outcome of these events. According to some reports, the Obama Administration doesn't want large amounts of US cash to fall into the hands of Islamic radicals if the Mubarak government is toppled.

More tomorrow, so stay tuned ...