Is Washington backing the Brotherhood?

Is Washington backing the Brotherhood? – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

( A fascinating analysis of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy.  It wants to be friendly but can’t help sound patronizing.  I wish Israel was in a position to be as equally honest and open about the US. – JW )

Monday, 15 July 2013

For a year now there has been talk of a conspiracy that Egyptian president Mohammed Mursi’s rise to power was planned overnight in Washington. Those spreading this conspiracy based it on a report by the New York Times. The report alleges that U.S. president Barack Obama, after advising Hosni Mubarak to step down in the end of January 2011, said during a secret meeting that he would support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Of course, both the Brotherhood and their opponents claim that their rivals are a product of the Americans. The youths of Tahrir Square and the leftists accuse the White House of giving a helping hand to the Brotherhood in the elections and of wanting the Brotherhood’s return to power. In turn, the Brotherhood claims that President Barack Obama is behind the coup against it.

Stuck in the middle?

This is part of the propaganda war between the two parties sparring in Egypt. The U.S. administration says it is caught in the middle of this dispute. But it does seem to tend to take the Brotherhood’s side, requesting that the ousted Mursi be released. It also does not oppose his remaining president until the end of his presidential term, while simultaneously reminding him that democracy is not only about elections.

Washington’s stance reveals that it prefers to deal with the Brotherhood because the U.S. believes that the Islamists proved their credibility on the level of respecting international agreements since the Islamist group upheld the Camp David Accords, deterred jihadist groups in Sinai, restrained Hamas and destroyed its tunnels. This positive performance of Mursi’s cabinet was favored by the Americans who considered that their experience with the Brotherhood was the only successful one with an Islamist group in the region, compared to their failed history with the Iranian regime and Hamas. As for Turkey, the Americans do not consider it to be an Islamic regime but rather a secular one.

The problem of academic analysis in Washington is that it collects all similarities in one basket, and then confuses its analyses. Washington thinks that supporting a Sunni Mohammad Mursi in Egypt balances its support of the Shiite Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq, who like Mursi came to power through elections. This leads the American government to think that it has a balanced relation with Muslims of both sects. The problem is that the result is identical, and identically negative. Democracy in both countries, Iraq and Egypt, produced two religious fascist groups. Mursi, like Maliki, does not respect the democratic system that brought him to power.

The attempt to engineer regimes for the region by excluding the military and including religious dictators or preferring certain groups over others will not result in stability but in more tension. And above all, the plan will not succeed. Proof of that is the Americans’ sympathy with the Shiite religious opposition movement in Bahrain, which failed. Preferring Egypt’s Brotherhood will fail to bring the Brotherhood back because it will clash with local and regional disputes which the Americans don’t have enough capability to influence.

If Egyptian political parties accept the Brotherhood’s return to politics, they will place many obstructions to prevent the Brotherhood from returning to governance. Activists in Egypt believe they have granted the Brotherhood its chance. But instead of democratically practicing governance, the Brotherhood attempted to take over everything. The Brotherhood proved that it is a fascist movement that only believes in democracy as a ladder to completely seize power and not as a means towards participation and a peaceful devolution of power. The Americans’ best option is to keep away from Cairo’s rebellious Squares. The Egyptians know better about their own affairs. Whoever emerges victorious will not find an alternative for the U.S. as a strategic ally.

This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on July 15, 2013

Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

6 Comments on “Is Washington backing the Brotherhood?”

  1. Luis's avatar Luis Says:

    Its about time to make order in the Egyptian revolutions issue and what, how and when Obama knew something if anything.
    1.Obama’s secret services and advisors have given their boss the estimation that the Islamic Sunnis are on the rise in Egypt and Mubarak may soon be confront with insurmountable problems. The result: Cairo speech.
    2.And the first Egyptian revolution took place: Obama hurried to jump into the caravan because, up to that moment, the events played by his book.
    3.However, serious ”deviations” from the plan took place. Those who lead the revolution were non Islamic young people, while the Brotherhood, in that first and important stage, remained into ”barracks”, waiting and see.
    4.After Mubarak were ousted, the Brotherhood take control of the events and, literally, thieved the revolution from those who started it.
    5.So, we already can see that the seeds of the actual events in Egypt were planted then, in the first revolution.
    6.Mursi felt himself strong and stable so started to Islamize Egypt at a fast pace; that, the same people who started it all, cannot have it anymore, so
    7. A second revolution was triggered in Egypt, this time against the Islamic rule in the country. Now, Obama was taken by surprise, because he overthought the Brotherhood as a political power that can lead Egypt. And now, Obama is bumbling and wanted to be ”correct”, but the truth is he was caught with its pants down by this second Egyptian revolution.

    • Joop Klepzeiker's avatar Joop Klepzeiker Says:

      Nice but why is obama thinking that the mo bro, s are playing according his book, what is his book ?

      • Luis's avatar Luis Says:

        Obama’s foreign policy is based on internal, ultra secret estimations which in turn are based on a very sophisticated new theory of games. The first to put that in place was a celeb figure, a great math professor, De Mesquita, who worked for CIA for a while.
        Those theories are good but sometimes their fall is spectacular, like in many cases regarding the actual president of the USA. What Obama needs is not more ”game theory scientists” but good, experienced and profound analysts who are supposed to tell him that Israel is America’s real ally, the terror isn’t over and the head must be out of the ass.

  2. IAmSpartacus's avatar IAmSpartacus Says:

    Duh! As I’ve said before; whether it’s been in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or Syria, Obama has ALWAYS supported the Mo Bros AT ALL COSTS, it’s the one constant of his Middle East policy! Obama was raised as a Sunni Muslim; he went to a madrassa in Indonesia!


Leave a comment