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. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share