What lessons does the evolution of Islamic political and legal thought in the case of Iran hold for the United States in the present day? Firstly, America must realize and admit to itself that, nolens volens, it has inherited a colonial legacy in the Arab world. Its actions are perceived through the historical lens of past experiences. America's worldview clashes with the Arabs' and it is important that America understand that its every action will be perceived as reinforcing the neo-colonial structure. Even if formulated with genuinely "good" intentions, America's policies can only have negative effects in a world defined by its opposition to Western intrusion. Current Arab reactions to events in Iraq and elsewhere only prove this point.

Realizing that every further involvement only deepens the chasm in such a reactionary environment, America should break its direct linkages and disengage from the Middle Eastern realm. America should end its military and political cooperation with Arab dictatorships and monarchies. Normal diplomatic or economic relations could be maintained, as long as no support is shown to any party in Arab internal struggles. Potentially emerging popular Islamic governments may very well be, at first, anti-American. However, over the longer term, this should not prevent the flow of oil to the United States; Middle Eastern states will always need to trade their most valuable commodity with the world's greatest consumer. Furthermore, if America ends its support for corrupt governments and colonial Israeli policies, there would be no reason for long term popular animosity towards the U.S. to remain.

The Muslim world must find, on its own, a native and natural system of government which will allow it to express its civilizational spirit. The effort to reengineer societies of the Middle East so as to reflect Western ideals is but a baneful and deadly delusion. Too defined by its opposition to the West, the Muslim world will never permit exterior reformation. External, and hence artificial, political engineering only strengthens the internal position of the radical camps. Arab liberal democrats, viewed as Trojan horses, have virtually disappeared. American-supported governments are, and will always be, perceived as colonial viceroys.

Only when genuinely native governments emerge will the internal historical Muslim debate redirect from its present anti-Western vector towards a search for genuine inner development. This may well mean that several Islamic governments may come to life. Nevertheless, this may be the best America could achieve given the present situation. As the Iranian case demonstrates, such a development could prove to be positive over the long run. The West has won millions of supporters for the principles of democracy since the revolution of 1979; if given the choice, most Iranians would replace their theocratic state with a Muslim liberal democratic government in order to secure their personl freedoms and enhance their economic prosperity. Turkey, whose regime does not depend on Western assistance, is also governed by an Islamic party closely attached to the principles of liberal democracy.

A direct intervention to create a liberal Arab order will only backfire, as the Iraq case is slowly proving to be. America's longing to export its values will be better served by giving Arabs a real opportunity for self-determination. Maybe it is time the United States practiced what it preached and allowed Arabs to determine their own future, free from interference. Maybe it is time to let go, strip the neo-colonial mantle, and allow Arab history to follow its course.

Writings by Abdolkarim Soroush and Mohsen Kadivar advocating a secular liberal democracy are most popular in Iran, especially among the young, in blaring contrast to the unpopularity of such liberal discourse in Arab states.