China Confidential
Foreign News and Analysis Since April 2005
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
OBAMA'S OUTREACH TO MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD BACKFIRES AGAIN AS REVOLT SPREADS TO JORDAN
BREAKING NEWS ABOUT THE ISLAMIST-ORCHESTRATED ARAB REVOLT HERE.
COMMENT: U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama's overtures to the Muslim Brotherhood, the clerical fascist (Islamist) organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and spawned Al Qaeda and associated groups, outreach to the "Muslim world"--a policy that posits the existence of a global Muslim nation that transcends all national and political boundaries--and messianic meddling and posturing are backfiring ... big-time ... as the Islamist-orchestrated Arab revolt threatens to topple longtime allies and friends of the United States like so many dominoes. We are witnessing democracy promotion gone bad--Condoleezza Rice's irrational transformational diplomacy taken to new levels of folly.
The dirty little secret is that there are important, influential Americans, including administration members, who believe that the revolt is a good thing. They aim to both appease and actually align with radical Islam for all kinds of reasons. One circle, influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of the U.S. covert war in Afghanistan--ahead of and in order to cause the Soviet invasion of that country--and the fall of the Shah--holds that political Islam is an unstoppable wave that Washington can safely ride in order to capture and control the energy riches of Central Asia. Others secretly wish for way-higher energy prices in order to justify government support for uneconomical, inefficient--and non-existent--alternative energy schemes (and scams).
Catastrophe looms.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Russian Echoes in Egypt's February Revolution
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
-- Mark Twain
Egypt's February revolution is underway. How it ends remains to be seen. This reporter predicts a repeat, more or less, of the Russian and Iranian examples: interim, or provisional governments, ultimately replaced by totalitarian regimes. In Egypt's case, this is likely to mean a temporary role for the Islamist/Iranian stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei, followed by outright Muslim Brotherhood rule.
In short, a disaster for the United States and its allies, including, of course, Egypt's neighbor and America's great ally, Israel--the only democracy in the Middle East.
N. KOREA HAS MORE NUCLEAR SITES
ANTI-ISRAEL PUNDITS PREPARING FOR POST-MUBARAK, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-RUN EGYPT
Early Warning.
Legions of well-placed, anti-Israel pundits are preparing for a post-Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt and the cancelation of the country's three-decades-old peace treaty with the Jewish State. An outline of their planned propaganda push appears below.
The bashers intend to blame Israel, a strategic American ally, and the only democracy in the Middle East, for supposedly squandering the opportunity to make peace with the Palestinians--meaning, for stubbornly refusing to commit national suicide by withdrawing to indefensible, pre-1967 borders in order to make possible the creation of an irredentist Palestinian Arab state in the heart of the Jewish homeland.
The new anti-Israel party line will be that Israel's only hope for survival lies in immediate withdrawal to the above-referenced boundaries, which the late, great and distinctly dovish Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban, famously branded "the Auschwitz lines." Surrender of sovereignty over the disputed areas of Judea and Samaria and all of eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, will be demanded. Nothing less will satisfy those who seek, crave, long for Israel's isolation and peace-by-pieces dismantlement.
The Obama administration can be counted on to overtly back their perfidious demands, and to covertly encourage calls for ending all aid to Israel. Administration shills and mouthpieces (the vile, self-hating Jew, Roger Cohen, comes to mind) are already gearing up to argue that Israel must be squeezed--harder than ever--to "save Israel from itself" (and from its American Jewish and Christian supporters--impossibly backward types, in Left/liberal eyes, who insists on resisting acceptance of global "moderate Islamism" as the key to world peace).
More extreme anti-Israel elements--the left wing of Obama's antidemocratic Democratic Party--seek Israel's immediate destruction. Thus, they are preparing to paint Israel as an "apartheid state"--the new South Africa--destined for the dustbin of history. Israel should cease to exist--like Judaism itself, the "anti-Zionists" will say. Seriously. We are, maybe, five minutes from a tidal wave of media-fed anti-Semitism, on a scale not seen since the 1930s.
Also, a tidal wave of appeasement--of fascism--not seen since the '30s. Liberal media morons are increasingly sympathetic to the insane notion of "Islamic democracy." And not just for Muslims overseas. The Left sees sharia compliance--in the U.S.--as a way to cripple capitalism and to counter the influence of the despised "Christian Right" ... and Sarah Palan ... whom the Left hates almost as much as it hates Israel, Judaism, Jews....
Islamist-appeasing, left-wing lunatics dream of another world, alright: Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt, Hamas-ruled "Palestine" ... and Palin forced into a burqa.
Related:
What Do We Know About Egypt's Protesters?
Leslie Gelb's article--click here to access it--is must reading, a desperately needed dose of common sense from an important, veteran journalist who dares to analyze the Egyptian upheaval from the standpoint of the U.S. national interest (a despised concept in liberal/left-wing eyes).
So far, the protesters number in the thousands, or tens of thousands, notwithstanding the opposition's call for a "march of millions" tomorrow to bring down the government.
Fawning and fainting liberal reporters have interviewed, as Gelb points out, at most, just a few hundred protesters.
Who are they, really? From which social and economic classes--and political movements--do they come? What are their beliefs? Does their notion of democracy match our own? Iran, too, claims to be a democracy, an "Islamic republic."
The questions are far from academic given the strong support among Egyptians for barbaric Islamic law.
The key point is that nobody, except, perhaps, the leaders of the uprising, has the answers. Yet, the liberal media pundits are salivating for the overthrow of the government--for the overnight sweeping away of a regime that has served America's interests in the Middle for more than three decades, preserved a peace treaty with Israel--for which the present Egyptian president's predecessor gave his life--and maintained stability in a complex, densely populated Third World nation menaced by fascistic fundamentalism in addition to all the other problems that plague developing nations.
Incredible. Thirty-two years after the catastrophic Islamist takeover of Iran and its transformation from an ally into an enemy of the United States, and nine years after 9/11, the liberal elite is ready, eager, can't wait to bet on ... the Unknown ... on mysterious forces most likely to be manipulated or eclipsed by the same movement that spawned Anwar Sadat's assassins--and Al Qaeda.
UK WINDMILL MADNESS POISONS CHINA
Sunday, January 30, 2011
THE EGYPTIAN CRISIS IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
By George Friedman
It is not at all clear what will happen in the Egyptian revolution. It is not a surprise that this is happening. Hosni Mubarak has been president for more than a quarter of a century, ever since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He is old and has been ill. No one expected him to live much longer, and his apparent plan, which was that he would be replaced by his son, Gamal, was not going to happen even though it was a possibility a year ago. There was no one, save his closest business associates, who wanted to see Mubarak’s succession plans happen. As his father weakened, Gamal’s succession became even less likely. Mubarak’s failure to design a credible succession plan guaranteed instability on his death. Since everyone knew that there would be instability on his death, there were obviously those who saw little advantage to acting before he died. Who these people were and what they wanted is the issue.
Let’s begin by considering the regime. In 1952, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser staged a military coup that displaced the Egyptian monarchy, civilian officers in the military, and British influence in Egypt. Nasser created a government based on military power as the major stabilizing and progressive force in Egypt. His revolution was secular and socialist. In short, it was a statist regime dominated by the military. On Nasser’s death, Anwar Sadat replaced him. On Sadat’s assassination, Hosni Mubarak replaced him. Both of these men came from the military as Nasser did. However their foreign policy might have differed from Nasser’s, the regime remained intact.
Mubarak’s Opponents
The demands for Mubarak’s resignation come from many quarters, including from members of the regime — particularly the military — who regard Mubarak’s unwillingness to permit them to dictate the succession as endangering the regime. For some of them, the demonstrations represent both a threat and opportunity. Obviously, the demonstrations might get out of hand and destroy the regime. On the other hand, the demonstrations might be enough to force Mubarak to resign, allow a replacement — for example, Omar Suleiman, the head of intelligence who Mubarak recently appointed vice president — and thereby save the regime. This is not to say that they fomented the demonstrations, but some must have seen the demonstrations as an opportunity.
This is particularly the case in the sense that the demonstrators are deeply divided among themselves and thus far do not appear to have been able to generate the type of mass movement that toppled the Shah of Iran’s regime in 1979. More important, the demonstrators are clearly united in opposing Mubarak as an individual, and to a large extent united in opposing the regime. Beyond that, there is a deep divide in the opposition.
Western media has read the uprising as a demand for Western-style liberal democracy. Many certainly are demanding that. What is not clear is that this is moving Egypt’s peasants, workers and merchant class to rise en masse. Their interests have far more to do with the state of the Egyptian economy than with the principles of liberal democracy. As in Iran in 2009, the democratic revolution, if focused on democrats, cannot triumph unless it generates broader support.
The other element in this uprising is the Muslim Brotherhood. The consensus of most observers is that the Muslim Brotherhood at this point is no longer a radical movement and is too weak to influence the revolution. This may be possible, but it is not obvious. The Muslim Brotherhood has many strands, many of which have been quiet under Mubarak’s repression. It is not clear who will emerge if Mubarak falls. It is certainly not clear that they are weaker than the democratic demonstrators. It is a mistake to confuse the Muslim Brotherhood’s caution with weakness. Another way to look at them is that they have bided their time and toned down their real views, waiting for the kind of moment provided by Mubarak’s succession. I would suspect that the Muslim Brotherhood has more potential influence among the Egyptian masses than the Western-oriented demonstrators or Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who is emerging as their leader.
There is, of course, the usual discussion of what U.S. President Barack Obama’s view is, or what the Europeans think, or what the Iranians are up to. All of them undoubtedly have thoughts and even plans. In my view, trying to shape the political dynamics of a country like Egypt from Iran or the United States is futile, and believing that what is happening in Egypt is the result of their conspiracies is nonsense. A lot of people care what is happening there, and a lot of people are saying all sorts of things and even spending money on spies and Twitter. Egypt’s regime can be influenced in this way, but a revolution really doesn’t depend on what the European Union or Tehran says.
There are four outcomes possible. First, the regime might survive. Mubarak might stabilize the situation, or more likely, another senior military official would replace him after a decent interval. Another possibility under the scenario of the regime’s survival is that there may be a coup of the colonels, as we discussed yesterday. A second possibility is that the demonstrators might force elections in which ElBaradei or someone like him could be elected and Egypt might overthrow the statist model built by Nasser and proceed on the path of democracy. The third possibility is that the demonstrators force elections, which the Muslim Brotherhood could win and move forward with an Islamist-oriented agenda. The fourth possibility is that Egypt will sink into political chaos. The most likely path to this would be elections that result in political gridlock in which a viable candidate cannot be elected. If I were forced to choose, I would bet on the regime stabilizing itself and Mubarak leaving because of the relative weakness and division of the demonstrators. But that’s a guess and not a forecast.
Geopolitical Significance
Whatever happens matters a great deal to Egyptians. But only some of these outcomes are significant to the world. Among radical Islamists, the prospect of a radicalized Egypt represents a new lease on life. For Iran, such an outcome would be less pleasing. Iran is now the emerging center of radical Islamism; it would not welcome competition from Egypt, though it may be content with an Islamist Egypt that acts as an Iranian ally (something that would not be easy to ensure).
For the United States, an Islamist Egypt would be a strategic catastrophe. Egypt is the center of gravity in the Arab world. This would not only change the dynamic of the Arab world, it would reverse U.S. strategy since the end of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat’s decision to reverse his alliance with the Soviets and form an alliance with the United States undermined the Soviet position in the Mediterranean and in the Arab world and strengthened the United States immeasurably. The support of Egyptian intelligence after 9/11 was critical in blocking and undermining al Qaeda. Were Egypt to stop that cooperation or become hostile, the U.S. strategy would be severely undermined.
The great loser would be Israel. Israel’s national security has rested on its treaty with Egypt, signed by Menachem Begin with much criticism by the Israeli right. The demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula not only protected Israel’s southern front, it meant that the survival of Israel was no longer at stake. Israel fought three wars (1948, 1967 and 1973) where its very existence was at issue. The threat was always from Egypt, and without Egypt in the mix, no coalition of powers could threaten Israel (excluding the now-distant possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons). In all of the wars Israel fought after its treaty with Egypt (the 1982 and 2006 wars in Lebanon) Israeli interests, but not survival, were at stake.
If Egypt were to abrogate the Camp David Accords and over time reconstruct its military into an effective force, the existential threat to Israel that existed before the treaty was signed would re-emerge. This would not happen quickly, but Israel would have to deal with two realities. The first is that the Israeli military is not nearly large enough or strong enough to occupy and control Egypt. The second is that the development of Egypt’s military would impose substantial costs on Israel and limit its room for maneuver.
There is thus a scenario that would potentially strengthen the radical Islamists while putting the United States, Israel, and potentially even Iran at a disadvantage, all for different reasons. That scenario emerges only if two things happen. First, the Muslim Brotherhood must become a dominant political force in Egypt. Second, they must turn out to be more radical than most observers currently believe they are — or they must, with power, evolve into something more radical.
If the advocates for democracy win, and if they elect someone like ElBaradei, it is unlikely that this scenario would take place. The pro-Western democratic faction is primarily concerned with domestic issues, are themselves secular and would not want to return to the wartime state prior to Camp David, because that would simply strengthen the military. If they win power, the geopolitical arrangements would remain unchanged.
Similarly, the geopolitical arrangements would remain in place if the military regime retained power — save for one scenario. If it was decided that the regime’s unpopularity could be mitigated by assuming a more anti-Western and anti-Israeli policy — in other words, if the regime decided to play the Islamist card, the situation could evolve as a Muslim Brotherhood government would. Indeed, as hard as it is to imagine, there could be an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood designed to stabilize the regime. Stranger things have happened.
When we look at the political dynamic of Egypt, and try to imagine its connection to the international system, we can see that there are several scenarios under which certain political outcomes would have profound effects on the way the world works. That should not be surprising. When Egypt was a pro-Soviet Nasserite state, the world was a very different place than it had been before Nasser. When Sadat changed his foreign policy the world changed with it. If Sadat’s foreign policy changes, the world changes again. Egypt is one of those countries whose internal politics matter to more than its own citizens.
Most of the outcomes I envision leave Egypt pretty much where it is. But not all. The situation is, as they say, in doubt, and the outcome is not trivial.
The above report was provided by STRATFOR.
IN PRAISE OF HOSNI MUBARAK
AN AMERICAN ALLY FOR THREE DECADES
In praise of Hosni Mubarak....
For three decades, following the Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood assassination of Anwar Sadat, who was killed because he made peace with Israel and allied Egypt with the United States, Mubarak preserved the peace with Israel, which he had helped to bring about, and protected the interests of the United States.
For three decades, he suppressed the clerical fascist bastards--barbarians dedicated to imposing Islamic law on all of humanity.
For three decades, Egypt (estimated population: 79 million) was stable.
Overnight, somehow, he has become a pariah, Public Enemy Number One, targeted for elimination by the America-bashing, Israel-hating, Islamist-appeasing liberal media--scum of the earth. They will not be satisfied until he is forced into exile. They long for his departure--and death. The liberal media--scum of the earth--hate him more than they hate Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il .... and Mullah Omar ... and Osama Bin Laden.
The liberal media hate Mubarak almost as much as they hate Sarah Palin.
The liberal media--scum of the earth. They would have loved Mubarak, had he worn a turban instead of a tie, backed Hamas and Hezbollah, called for America's downfall and Israel's destruction.... Little did he know, like Iran's Shah, that supporting stability and peace--and America--would assure his permanent place on the liberal/left hit list.
Related:
Posts
