Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse

The extraordinary events of January 2011 in Egypt should prove one point for good: Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, U.S. presidents wish their favored Arab states would forever remain nice, docile autocracies.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The extraordinary events of January 2011 in Egypt should prove one point for good: Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, U.S. presidents wish their favored Arab states would forever remain nice, docile autocracies.

Of course, the Barack Obama administration protests loudly to the contrary. President Obama has gone on national television twice during Egypt's amazingly courageous popular uprising to profess his admiration for the pro-democracy protesters in the streets.

He praised their stand for "universal" human rights and, addressing them directly, expressed his "unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren."

Nice words, even inspiring. In the next breath, however, Obama undercut them. He spoke of an "orderly transition" to a new government "grounded in democratic principles," but he entrusted this transition to the quasi-military regime faction that took control of Egypt amidst calls for the removal of the long-time dictator, President Husni Mubarak.

This bunch, headed by newly named Vice President Omar Suleiman, is the fox guarding the proverbial henhouse.

Suleiman and his backers in the army and security services have adopted the phrase "orderly transition," in fact, because it suits their authoritarian purposes.

By "orderly", they mean a rapid restoration of normal life in Cairo and other towns and cities: Far from seeing their revolution through to its conclusion, the protesters are to go home and mind their own business. If they do not, they risk being beat up by the regime's hired goons or shot.

By "transition", they mean a deliberate handover of presidential prerogatives from Mubarak to Suleiman or someone comparable. This transfer of power will be democratic in name only. It may happen in the shape of an election, but that election will be anything but free and fair.

The fact is, the White House's paeans to people power notwithstanding, that the Obama administration does not mind the Suleiman gang's plans for subverting the will of the Egyptian street. In line with its predecessors of both parties, the administration fears true self-determination for the long-suffering Egyptian population.

It is not just that unfettered elections could bring Islamists to power, scaring Israel and other U.S.-allied Arab governments.

It is that any Egyptian government that genuinely represents the ideas and aspirations of the people will not be as friendly to U.S. strategic objectives in the Middle East: keeping the oil flowing to the world market at artificially low prices and keeping Israel at peace with its Arab neighbors even as its colonization of Palestinian land proceeds.

Under Mubarak and Anwar al-Sadat before him, Egypt has been a cornerstone of U.S. dominion in the region. Sadat was the first Arab leader to sign a non-aggression pact with Israel. Not only has Mubarak maintained the resulting "cold peace," but he has also—to the fury of ordinary Egyptians—helped Israel blockade the Gaza Strip to punish the Palestinians for electing Hamas.

Egypt has limited oil reserves of its own, but the Suez Canal is a crucial conduit for the tankers bearing the hydrocarbon treasures of the Persian Gulf to Europe and beyond. And, last but not least, the Egyptian secret police have routinely carried out the dirty work of the U.S.-led "war on terror". More than one detainee who was later proven innocent has been tortured in Egyptian dungeons.

The Obama administration is loath to disturb this convenient arrangement. Sure, Mubarak himself can go, if need be. But the regime has been too reliable and useful a partner to abandon to fate. The White House will continue to talk out of both sides of its mouth, urging real reform at the microphone even as it restrains its demands over the telephone.

Only two forces can shake this bipartisan policy consensus about democracy in Egypt and the Arab world: Egyptians or another Arab people could succeed in revolutions, forcing the U.S. to change its tune. Or Americans, in the name of life, liberty and human decency, could revolt against a policy that makes a mockery of everything the United States is supposed to stand for.

Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published by the Middle East Research and Information Project.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.