Déjà Vu. It is about 1979, all over again.

The anti-American protests and the violent killing of the US ambassador to Libya has prompted quite a few commentaries on 1979--from the chest-thumping Newt Gingrich, to this more nuanced piece in the New York Review of Books, which is titled "Islamist Déjà Vu: The Lessons of 1979."

Well, all this is déjà vu all over again for me--because, I wrote a column on how 1979 was a pivotal year, and that we are continuing to deal with those issues because we never really resolved them. (I should have added in that commentary that 1979 was also the first year in Congress for Gingrich--yet another unresolved problem since then!)

Anyway, the following is what I wrote, which was published in the Register Guard back, way back, in January 2008:

With the presidential primaries heating up, commentators are tempted to compare the 2008 election with 1960 - when a young and charismatic John F. Kennedy edged out Richard Nixon - and a few others point out to 1968, when the Democratic Convention in Chicago was the scene of chaos and protests. And, of course, we hear the comparisons to the Vietnam War.

Well, we are focusing on the wrong years and the wrong decade. I can't wait for all the brouhaha to die out so that the candidates, the media, and all of us can focus on the national and international issues, almost all of which were caused by events in one single year: 1979.

If ever there was a competition for which year since World War II will qualify for the title of Annus Horribilis, 1979 could be a leading candidate. First, a list of some of the events from that year:

• Jan. 16: The shah of Iran flees the country, and goes into exile.
• Feb. 1: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns to Iran, and is warmly welcomed by millions of Iranians.
• April 4: Former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is hanged in Pakistan.
• July 3: President Jimmy Carter signs a directive to support the opponents of the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan.
• July 16: Saddam Hussein becomes the president of Iraq.
• Nov. 4: Americans in the U.S. embassy in Tehran are taken hostage.
• Dec. 25: The Soviet Union begins to deploy troops in Afghanistan.

After ousting Bhutto in a military coup in 1977, Gen. Zia ul-Haq initiated a number of policies that made the country's politics and governance explicitly Islamic. The death of Bhutto in April of 1979 formalized Zia's power over the country and stoked the growth of fundamentalism that was characterized by violence and an inflexible anti-Western dogma.

The rise of a theocratic Iran provided Islamic fundamentalists with a real example that they wanted to emulate everywhere - even if they were Sunni or Wahhabi Muslims, who may not exactly be fond of the Shiites of Iran. One such individual was Osama bin Laden, who led many foreign fighters to take up jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and Khomeini belonged to different sects of Islam, but shared a common belief that the Saudi Arabian kingdom had become corrupt and was engaging in un-Islamic agreements with the infidels. Protests became increasingly violent in the kingdom, and erupted into a finale at Islam's holiest place - the Grand Mosque in Mecca. On Nov. 20, more than 500 armed dissidents and their families stunned the ruling family by seizing the Grand Mosque.

Even though most of the dissidents died in the armed struggle, the act resulted in religious orthodoxy gaining more influence in society and politics. Further, violence mixed with religion has since then become a frighteningly common occurrence, as we found out on the fateful morning on Sept. 11, 2001.

Here we are in 2008, still reeling from these events that happened in 1979. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan sum up our current predicament with that part of the world.

Yet after listening to presidential contenders of all political stripes, I am not convinced that our understanding of any of these countries and the underlying dynamics has improved even a tad in the 29 years since Khomeini made a triumphant return to Iran. We continue to make simplistic statements about these countries, their peoples, and their beliefs. It is no wonder then that the United States has not engaged in consistent, systematic and productive long-range actions and has, instead, jumped around from one hot issue to another.

I hope we will all soon drop our collective preoccupation with the elections of 1960 and 1968, and instead challenge the candidates with tough questions about 1979 and its aftershocks. The '60s are so over!