If Egypt is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood as the result of the current insurrection and rebellion, the implications for the U.S. and the world would be a major game change.
Those of us around at the time of the 1979 Iranian student revolution that deposed the shah are having strong feelings of deja vu because that uprising was swiftly co-opted by Ayatollah Khomeini who hated the Great Satan, America, as much as he hated the Little Satan, Israel.
The U.S. lost a major ally in the Middle East. The Shah may have been a bastard, but he was our bastard. The CIA had put him on the Peacock Throne.
The uprising in Egypt, if taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, will severely endanger American interests that have largely been coasting along in the belief that Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak would engineer a smooth transition of power to his son. This was the scenario in Syria when its dictator, Hafiz al-Assad, passed away.
That scenario just went out the window. Given the depth of opposition to Mubarak, it is unlikely power would pass to his son, Jamal, who, with his wife and daughter, have fled to Great Britain. Moreover, since Mubarak has no vice president, there is a major power vacuum.
The fate of the Suez Canal is the biggest geopolitical concern at this point. A lot of oil transits through it in much the same way it does through the Strait of Harmuz. Years of growing dependency on Middle East oil while our own vast reserves were locked up and neglected will demonstrate why the policies of several administrations have been not just short-sighted, but incredibly stupid.
As big a pain as Saddam Hussein was, I always believed that he was overthrown as much because of his control of Iraqi oil as for any other reason. The U.S. backed his war on Iran until it fizzled after eight years. When he invaded Kuwait, we pushed him back into Iraq. After 9/11 it is likely that the calculation was made that Iraq and the Middle East would be better off without him. His overthrow might also have been seen as an object lesson to others in the region of what happens when Uncle Sam is unhappy.
Mubarak has been "our man" in Egypt since he took over after the assassination in 1981 of Anwar Sadat, who had been killed because he made peace overtures to Israel. Up to then, Egypt had been repeatedly defeated, especially in the Six Day War. After thirty years of dictatorship Mubarak is hated by most Egyptians for all the usual reasons.
To understand the current unrest in Egypt and elsewhere, it is necessary to understand that most of the population of the Middle East and northern Africa's Maghreb are young people. They are fed up with the oppression of their governments, with unemployment, with inflation, with the region's endemic and historic corruption, and its lack of political freedom.
They rioted in Lebanon against Syrian oppression after the assassination of their prime minister. They rioted recently against Hezbollah control of Lebanon. Within the past weeks, there have been riots in Tunisia, in Yemen, and now Egypt. It is a contagion.
We are running out of friends in the Middle East. For all of the talk of supporting freedom in the Middle East, the U.S. has usually backed its despots. Given our dependency on Middle East oil, we have had very little choice. That's what happens when you don't allow drilling in Alaska's ANWR, anywhere off our coastlines or domestically where billions of barrels are estimated to exist.
Now, however, we have a President who is VERY different from any that came before him going all the way back to Truman and Eisenhower.
A neophyte when it comes to foreign affairs, no matter what nation is involved, Obama has demonstrated extraordinarily bad instincts and judgment. He has regarded the United States as just one nation among others. He has apologized for the sixty years of relative peace the U.S. provided as global sheriff. He has been eager to "reach out" to Middle Eastern nations. The result is that Obama has appeared weak to everyone.
He failed to speak out strongly in June 2009 when ordinary Iranians filled Tehran's streets to protest the despicable and detested ayatollahs that rigged its election in favor of Mamoud Ahmadinejad. He lost a major opportunity while saying at the time that he did not want to "meddle" in Iran's affairs.
Although he increased combat strength and supported Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai, the results there have been a predictable failure for a regime that lacks popular support.
Ironically, the only actual and natural ally the U.S. has in the Middle East, Israel, has been beaten about with Obama's absurd demands that it not construct new housing in its own capitol, Jerusalem.
In the first two years of Obama's presidency, it has become obvious to everyone, friend and foe alike, that he is anti-Israel. Perhaps he was trying to signal some kind of accommodation with Iran? Or maybe he just doesn't like a Jewish presence in the Islamic Middle East?
That is why the rumor that the U.S. will not veto yet another anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council worries a lot of people. Failure to do so would make Obama the first U.S. President ever to abandon Israel in the UN.
Throughout the Middle East, people risking their lives for freedom know that if the U.S. abandons Israel, it will abandon them.
That is why, also, there can be no accommodation with Iran. Every other nation in the Middle East knows this. Hezbollah and Hamas are both terrorist organizations and both are funded and directed by Iran. It is the single greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. Syria is Iran's closest ally and agent.
By contrast, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, all monarchies, all protected by the U.S., fear Iran.
No Middle Eastern nation is safe so long as radical Shia Islam is directed from Tehran and operates with impunity in Yemen and in Pakistan.
No nation in the world is safe if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
If Egypt is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood as the result of the current insurrection and rebellion, the implications for the U.S. and the world would be a major game change.
A lot of nations who found it fashionable to oppose and criticize the U.S. as a big military bully are going to be looking to it to avoid an ugly, expensive, and dangerous future.
On Friday, the White House released a statement that was made in Platitude Heaven:
Politico.com reported that "President Obama called for Egypt's government to respect the rights of its people. 'The people of Egypt have rights that are universal,' he said.
Calling for Egyptian authorities to respect citizens' right to speech and protest, he said, 'suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.' The president also urged the people of Egypt to refrain from violent protest. Obama spoke with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for 30 minutes earlier Friday.
The problem, of course, is that we have a President who is intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, and in all other ways not up to this crisis.
I’m not even going to try to argue that Obama is up to this latest Middle East crisis; his instincts and his intellect both point in the wrong directions. The US should be very afraid of the contagion of mass revolt in the Arab world. Any regime that is based on the Arab street will be Islamist to the nth degree. As I said in my comment on Ms. Alexander’s post, the Arab street revolts, all right, but revolts in favor of sharia. Americans usually assume that any popular movement is in favor of what we think is the right kind of change–in that part of the world, we should not keep on making this mistake. However, if history is our guide, we will keep making it.
The US has always had a penchant for paying lip service to democracy while propping up some regimes that are fairly sketchy democracy-wise.
As I postulated earlier in responding to Rachel Alexander’s January 31st post; there are few situations that may fall within the sphere of Obama’s previous experience but this may be one of them.
The administration will need to get ahead of the curve here and attempt to control the narrative. If Mubarak falls without any options in place, the Muslim Brotherhood will fill the vacuum and we may find another Middle Eastern country forming a Sharia based fundamentalist state.
The US State Department needs to immediately call for;
• The immediate departure of Hosea Mubarak
• The formation of a military backed interim government.
• Open and free elections by the end of 2011
These initiatives will accomplish the following things.
• Put the US in control of the narrative
• Cool the present situation and give the people confidence that their concerns are being addressed.
• Give the US time to find more secular political allies within the country.
• Give the US time to encourage these more secular allies to organize so as to be capable of challenging the Muslim Brotherhood in the elections.
I cannot help but notice that this situation seems to be squarely within Barack Obama’s core competency: Railing against the incumbent (and blaming all associated problems with that incumbent). Organizing political opposition against the established organization (the Muslim Brotherhood). Finally; doing whatever is required to ensure the victory of secularism.
This is an exercise he’s run more times than he can count in his political career. It just remains to be seen if he can recognize this situation for what it is and use his experience in elective politics to change the game.
A piece of unsolicited advice: Instead of departing to Chicago to run the President’s reelection campaign maybe Obama should dispatch David Axelrod to Egypt as a political consultant for any and all political opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Every media outlet from the conservative Fox network to the New York Times are wringing their collective hands because we, America, may lose Egypt. But despite all those chafed hands, we don’t dare ask what this current crisis will eventually cost us. Did anyone mention the 25 billion in foreign aid we’ve given Egypt over the past decades? With our trillion dollar deficits, 25 billion may seem as insignificant as your kid’s weekly allowance but still we have to wonder if we paid enough money – maybe that’s why we’re losing Egypt, Washington didn’t give the Egyptians enough in welfare payments.
Or maybe it’s the threat to the Suez Canal we should be concerned with, although this perennial fear over Middle Eastern oil supplies should be coming from Europe more than from the Western Hemisphere. But, under Europe’s “designated hitter” rule, the United States is the acknowledged Superpower, it’s clearly our job to keep the peace. Maybe so, but why shouldn’t we consult with China, the Superpower In Waiting? Our money didn’t seem adequate to secure Egypt, perhaps China’s vast wealth and vaster influence needs to come into play.
Or maybe, President Obama is a foreign policy rookie and we need a “wiser” head to keep Egypt in our court. And those “wise” analysts within the State Department’s Middle Eastern desk are strangely mum on all this hoopla. They work for us, they’re paid to be our “experts”, but the White House does their explaining for them and to us, their employers. But what are the Egyptians’ complaints exactly, poverty, unemployment, loss of hope – sounds like Detroit, Newark and large chunks of Chicago – so maybe Obama does understand the Egyptians after all.
What we should be doing is exactly what we are doing. Evacuating Americans to safety. Suggesting Americans visit Disneyworld rather than Giza. Safeguarding all those Egyptian artifacts on loan to our museums. Our pundits naturally object that such suggestions aren’t amusing, they’re not enough, we collectively need to do more. But what?
Or, maybe we need this distraction from our domestic problems. An exciting foreign policy crisis may just turn our attention away from poverty, unemployment and loss of hope right here at home. As the designated One and Only Superpower, a foreign policy success at the present moment may temporarily alleviate our deep disgust over our domestic failures – but I wouldn’t count on it.
Pat,
This current situation may indeed cost us and Israel an ally in the Middle East. Any government that takes a harder line with Israel is trouble. There have already been reports of Hamas smuggling weapons into Gaza from Egypt; taking advantage of the Army’s pre-occupation with crowds of demonstrators.
You asked if we paid enough; who can say? In such a game of international Texas Hold’em you place your bets and take your chances. The sum paid is irrelevant once the newly seated regime decides it is in the country’s best interest to align itself with Islam as opposed to Western nations. The one thing that may indeed keep a new Egyptian government in our corner is the aid we ship to them annually.
The most interesting issue is how much oil flows through the Suez and that pipeline running along the bank of that canal. For generations liberals have been against drilling domestically for oil. Technically; the democrats are not against exploratory drilling, they’re just against exploratory drilling in any area that might actually have oil. Four or five dollar-a-gallon gas will throttle the recovery.
Bill: we tried “good will” bribery with welfare payments in Detroit, Chicago, Newark, Watts, New York city, et al for the past few decades and look where we are today. And I doubt our media folks understand enough about Egypt to provide any useful insights – emotional tension generated by our many insecurities, yes. But deep insights into Egyptian politics and culture, no.
With the media’s genetic predisposition toward favoring the “little guy”, this distraction is being hailed as “something good may come out of a change in government”. And, more importantly, when we eventually return to our feature attraction, Obamacare may still be surviving on life support, unemployment may have dropped another full point and the media can get back to assuring taxpayers Obama was right all along. Distractions of this nature have served the Dems quite well in the past.
For Conservatives, perhaps we should pay closer attention to this “violence leads to better government” notion. Historically, it’s not our way, we tend to circle new change testing for a positive good, we habitually hesitate when offered change before we actually reach for it. But consider if the Libs are right in their assumptions. If Egyptians can riot for better government, maybe it would work for us as well.
One thing we can learn from the CNN footage is what makes for the best projectile: Rocks, bottles or bricks? And how many paces is the safe distance between us and the front row of the police line? Or, how do we subvert government personnel to come over to our side?
It’s a safe bet this better government through civil insurrection notion is something the Libs wouldn’t want applied within our own culture, but maybe us Conservatives are thinking about this all wrong.
I agree with your assessment that Foggy Bottom crowd has little if any useful insight into the situation. I saw an interview that Bret Baier conducted with James Baker. He said that on more than one occasion the US had suggested Mubarak release his political strangle hold on Egypt. I also found a report where a left leaning author and Yale professor actually stated that former President George Bush was right in his push for democracy in the Arab world. You can read the entire article here; Yale Professor: Egypt Proves George Bush Was Right I know; they’re probably selling sweaters in Hell right now huh?
I don’t know if we can equate the bribery of welfare transfer payments and inducements via foreign economic assistance. Welfare is meant to pacify a large constituent group. Foreign economic aid, especially in the case of Mubarak’s Egypt was little more than a payoff for proper behavior. “For Conservatives, perhaps we should pay closer attention to this “violence leads to better government” notion.” I think this is a mis-read on your part. The violent radicalism of the 60’s didn’t’ get the progressives anywhere. But look at what has happened to the likes of Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Valerie Jarret, et al since they came to the conclusion that in order to beat the man you have to become the man. I believe the actual lesson here is that non-violent assembly of the people in order to address grievances is the key. This is a lesson the T.E.A. Party exploited in 2009 – 2010. Progressives have been hoping for violence out of these assemblies; and have jumped the gun several times in trying to associate violence with those organizations. In order for progressives to complete the transformation of becoming the man, they need a radical element to focus on. No violence no engaged enemy to discredit.
Sorry, I keep forgetting links don’t quite post correctly Pat. Here’s the link in its entirety http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/egypt-george-bush-was/2011/02/02/id/384784#ixzz1CtzfDlIz
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Alexander, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Losing Egypt: If Egypt is lost to the Muslim Brotherhood as the result of the current insurrection and rebellion… http://bit.ly/e3BzRy [...]