Egypt: US interests in the Middle East - why the US is supporting the Muslim Brothers
My view on this topic is simple, really simple. Egypt (or any country for that matter) must look within for identity, development and progress. No other nation, none, will bestow on Egypt the standing it desires among nations or the life standards it aspires to for its people. The choice is simple: get it done from within, be strong and smart enough to deal with external forces, and achieve a give-and-take equation without having to sell your soul in the process.
Strong, progressive nations demand and invariably receive the stature and respect they deserve globally, even those at the opposite end of the spectrum from the US - consider China as an important example.
First, it is important to note that the US first and foremost pursues and always will pursue its own perceived, real or imagined, interests. No nation negatively affected by US interests can ever hope to alter that pursuit. I emphasize that this is the job of any government: to pursue the interests of the country it governs. Egypt will not - and should not! - do differently; it will always pursue its own interests (again, real or imagined). Again, I submit to you, friends, that the only way to change the way a country is treated by others is to negotiate from a position of strength. Only when Egypt can do that, will it be able to articulate its own interests and arrive at a win-win state of affairs. Only competent, enlightened leadership can lead to that kind of strength. This applies to dealing with any developed/strong nation, not just the US.
Now, here are the four basic US interests in the Middle East:
- Stopping an attack on the continental United States with conventional and unconventional weapons,
- Energy security,
- Supporting Israel, and
- Stopping Iran from getting the bomb.
The link below is an article by Aaron David Miller that covers these four US interests in the Middle East region with detailed analysis:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/15/the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_us_interests_in_the_middle_east
Below article by Tony Cartalucci also sheds light on the subject:
US Struggles to Install Proxy "Brotherhood" in Egypt
From Egypt to Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood does the West's bidding - now joined by overt State Department fronts.
Were anyone to still believe the rhetoric of the so-called "Arab Spring," one would be admittedly confused over the emerging political landscape in Egypt where the military establishment and the Muslim Brotherhood have emerged from what was supposedly a "pro-democracy" "popular uprising."
However, if anyone understood that the "pro-democracy" protesters were in fact US State Department-funded, trained, and equipped mobs providing cover for the attempted installation of the Muslim Brotherhood amongst many other potential Western proxies, the current political battle would make perfect sense.
The Egyptian military, like in many developing nations, may accept money from the West, may train with Western forces, and may even participate in Western machinations of global domination, but are ultimately nationalists with the means and motivation to draw lines and check the West's ambitions within Egypt and throughout Egypt's sphere of influence. The necessity for the West of removing not only Hosni Mubarak who had refused to participate in a wider role against Iraq and Iran, but the grip of the military itself over Egyptian politics and replacing it with the Muslim Brotherhood who is already hard at work in Syria attempting to overthrow one of Iran's primary regional allies, is paramount.
"Pro-democracy" movements, particularly the April 6 youth movement, trained, funded, and equipped by the US State Department, serve the sole purpose of giving the Muslim Brotherhood's installation into power a spin of "legitimacy" where otherwise none exists. Those within these "pro-democracy" movements with legitimate intentions will be inevitably disappointed if not entirely thrown under the wheels of Western machinations as regional war aimed at destroying Iran, Syria, and Lebanon's Hezbollah arch of influence slowly unfolds.
Muslim Brotherhood were, are, and will be Western Proxies.
Despite the Brotherhood's lofty rhetoric, it has from its inception been a key proliferator of Western foreign policy. Currently, the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved heavily, leading in fact, the US, Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed sectarian violence that has been ravaging Syria for over a year. In a May 6, 2012 Reuters article it stated:
"Working quietly, the Brotherhood has been financing Free Syrian Army defectors based in Turkey and channeling money and supplies to Syria, reviving their base among small Sunni farmers and middle class Syrians, opposition sources say."
While Reuters categorically fails to explain the "how" behind the Brotherhood's resurrection, it was revealed in a 2007 New Yorker article titled, "The Redirection" by Seymour Hersh, as being directly backed by the US and Israel who were funneling support through the Saudis so as to not compromise the "credibility" of the so-called "Islamic" movement. Hersh revealed that members of the Lebanese Saad Hariri clique, then led by Fouad Siniora, had been the go-between for US planners and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
Hersh reports the Lebanese Hariri faction had met Dick Cheney in Washington and relayed personally the importance of using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in any move against the ruling government:
"[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh
The article would continue by explaining how already in 2007, US and Saudi backing had begun benefiting the Brotherhood:
"There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefited the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents." -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh.
It was warned that such backing would benefit the Brotherhood as a whole, not just in Syria, and could effect public opinion even as far as in Egypt where a long battle against the hardliners was fought in order to keep Egyptian governance secular. Clearly the Brotherhood did not spontaneously rise back to power in Syria, it was resurrected by US, Israeli, and Saudi cash, weapons and directives.
And most recently, as the West frequently does before elections it wishes to manipulate, premature claims by the Muslim Brotherhood of a victory during a presidential runoff were made headlines by the Western media in an effort to portray the Brotherhood as the victors and lay the groundwork for contesting any results other than a decisive win for the West's proxy of choice.
US State Department-run Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty's (RFE/RL) "Muslim Brotherhood Declares Victory In Egypt Election," amongst many other articles attempted to give readers the impression that the Muslim Brotherhood had indeed already won the election. In reality the official tallies had yet to be given and it was merely the Brotherhood's own rhetoric upon which the report was based. As election results were finalized, and the Brotherhood's candidate, the US-educated Muhammad Morsi, appeared not to have the decisive victory claimed by his party and the Western media, immediately accusations of voter fraud were leveled against the Egyptian government.
The West is already combining its various proxy fronts for what it sees as a pivotal showdown and perhaps another opportunity to overthrow any remaining nationalist tendencies within the Egyptian military. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood, allegedly being a theocratic sectarian party, the antithesis of what the secular April 6 Movement allegedly stood for, Ahmed Maher, the movement's founder threw his full support behind the Brotherhood.
Maher it should be remembered, had been in the US, Serbia, and back again to the US for a series of training and networking opportunities arranged by the US State Department before during and after the so-called "Arab Spring." What seemed like politically ideological opposites, between April 6 and the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact share a common denominator - they are instruments executing Western foreign policy.
The link below is of a 10-minute video of an interview that sheds even more light on the subject, clearly demonstrating that expecting the US to seriously engage in nation-building in the Middle East could be envisioned only in a hallucination!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_bbRhAHHo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Now, below is key feedback from friends I received over the last month in regards the above-noted subject.
Hussein
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The US always supported the MB, and there is a historic relationship that predates the events following Egypt’s 2012 elections."
"I've been asking myself this question over and over again without being able to find an answer....It must be obvious to them that Egypt's falling into the wrong hands would mean the end of the entire area and THAT cannot be their objective!"
"How the US perceives where its interests lie; especially with regard to Israel's security. In other words, it's strictly interests, which have nothing to do with supporting the spread of democracy!"
"Who says the Americans are supporting the MBs for anything more than in order to influence their policies and moderate these. There are US red lines that the MBs cannot cross for all sorts of economic and geopolitical reasons. The US knows that the Islamic current is there, it is strong and cannot be denied. Better to work within that reality than try to deny it with repression - as with the Mubarak era. Plus I believe that there is probably a strong hope that the liberal stream (or at least all those who voted for Shafic) will provide a counterbalance and eventually ordinary people will become more and more disillusioned with MD policies and turn away. At that point, opportunistic US will exploit a more liberal situation. This sitting on the fence is win win for them."
"I believe it's a re-run of the old golden rule of "divide to conquer": dealing with two competing powers instead of just one is a much preferable situation to be in as far as the US is concerned. This allows them a lot of leeway for back room deals with one power at the expense of the other: a perfect scenario for a world power! Here is a related article:
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/node/977611 "
" Forming a front against Iran
Weakening Egypt before NATO's assault on Libya was a crucial step in ensuring the latter's absolute destruction and the creation of what is now a Libyan terror-emirate shipping cash, weapons, and fighters east and west to destabilize and overthrow various governments on the Anglo-American's long "to-do" list. The West's ability to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, with it's substantial regional standing and influence would be a serious blow not only to Syria, but to Iran as well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is already echoing calls by the US and Israel for "intervention" in Syria.
Along with Libya, Egypt and of course the Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and with the possibility of the Brotherhood coming to power in Syria as well, a united front against Iran would be formed and prepared to fight a proxy war on the West's behalf against the Islamic Republic.
Such a reordering has not only been mapped out in US foreign policy documents like Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report, but mirror designs against China where all of Southeast Asia is slated for destabilization, regime change, and realignment to carry out the West's ambitions to contain and even collapse a rising China."
Another friend's point of view:
- One thing about the American Administration, as opposed to European governments, is that it contacts all forms of opposition in various countries, well before "anything might happen", kind of scenario. This means, that ever since the Sadat Era, it has maintained contact with the Muslim Brotherhood. I hardly have any doubt about that. This seems to be the policy, of "scout and see". So, in my view, the MBs are old acquaintances. Meanwhile, they are the only organised political force in the country now. They are well known by the Administration, they are considered reliable because they are headed by businessmen and professionals who are fundamentally capitalists and for free trade. Meanwhile, a decade long dialogue will probably have borne fruit on the Israeli issue, in view of the fact that MBs are pragmatists (and businessmen!) at heart. As such, in the eyes of the US Administration, the MBs in power could bring about stability in Egypt and in the region, without constituting a threat to Israel.
- Should the MBs encourage a radical Islamist regime is no problem to the Americans as such, after all Saudi Arabia is one of their best allies, if not the best. Moreover, the US is full of puritans, born against and what not!
- Other hypotheses suggest that an Islamist Sunni government in Egypt will reinforce the Saudi and Gulf front against the Shiites in the Gulf and Iran. In my opinion it is a secondary issue, but should also be taken into account.
- Lastly, there is another suggestion, that the US would be favourable to a "standardisation" of its political stance in the region, i.e. if all the countries are Islamist, this would mean that the US Mideast policy would be one for all. Easier than dealing with each situation separately. Interesting, only Algeria and Libya have voted secular, Iraq and Iran are Shiites. Moreover, what about Syria, a key player? We still have to wait and see."
Another's friend point of view:
مصر ليست حاله فريده وحيده منعزله عن ما يحدث في العالم كما يعتقد الكثير من المصريين, بل هي احدى دول المنطقه المهمه المراد السيطره عليها لضمان مصالح الغرب وعلى رأسهم أمريكا .. أنّها ليست مؤامره سرّيه بل أنها استراتيجيه معلومه (مكتوبه ومنشوره لمن يرغب في الأطّلاع) وكما قال جومسكي ( لاتحتاج لعبقريه لفهمها) ... أنها استراتيجيه للهيمنه على مناطق العالم المهمه موقعا وثروةً .. هناك عقول جباره تدير الأحداث بحرفيّه عاليه ولكنّها ممكن أن تنجح مرّه وتفشل مرّات لأنها أولا واخيرا عقول بشريّه اي نعم متطوره لدرجه كبيره ولكنها لازالت محدوده.. أنا اعتقد أن الاستهانه بها خطأ ورفعها لدرجة الرّبانيه هو خطأ اعظم
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazK-d6LCVs&feature=related
Another friend
The weakening of China is the prime US foreign policy priority in the near future, any methods would serve the purpose. The main efforts will be concentrated on extending the US presence in the Asia-Pacific. That’s why the United States is going to gradually pull out of the Middle East. But the US ruling political circles don’t want to leave it alone out of fear that China, while intensifying the efforts to boost its clout in the region, will quickly fill the void.
Another
If the aim of the USA is to fill the vacuum of political influence at the regional level, there is no better instrument than the Muslim Brothers. Right now they are vigorously fighting the Assad regime in Syria that is implementing the US plans to create the Greater Middle East. As the World Tribune says the Barack Obama administration decided it’s the Muslim Brotherhood who should come to power in Syria after the Bashar Assad’s government is toppled. As far back as July 2011 US State Secretary Hillary Clinton met the Muslim Brothers in Syria and called on them to closely cooperate with Turkey for the purpose of eliminating the Assad rule.
Another friend
أهداف أمريكا الحقيقية فى المنطقة، والتى تقف على رأسها السيطرة على مواردها وأولها النفط، وحماية إسرائيل قاعدتها العسكرية التى تحاول عن طريقها إحكام السيطرة على المنطقة.
ما تريده الادارة الامريكية التي تتشبث كذبا بالحريات والحقوق لتحقيق اغراضها وهى لا تريد خيرا لمصر وتهدف إلى عدم الاستقرار لتنفيذ مخططها بفرض نفوذها على مصر بعد سقوط اغلبية الدول العربية في قبضتها لأنها تعلم أن حكم الإسلاميين سوف يجلب الخراب على البلاد وتجاربهم السابقة خير دليل على ذلك
أننا نعلم أن قيام ديمقراطية حقيقية كاملة فى مصر يسيطر فيها الشعب على موارده ومصيره ليست فى صالح المصالح الأمريكية، أو يدرك أننا على وعى كامل بتفاصيل المخطط الأمريكى بإعادة تشكيل دول المنطقة على أساس دويلات قائمة على العرق والدين تسهل السيطرة عليها أكثر من النظام الذى أقامته بريطانيا بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى فيما عرف باتفاقية سايكس بيكو.
وأن نجاح المخطط الأمريكى فى تقسيم العراق فعلياً والسودان رسمياً مستحيل تماماً أن يتكرر فى مصر لأننا على وعى تام به، ولأن التركيبة السكانية فى مصر والتداخل الكامل فى العيشة لكل فئات الشعب من أغلبية وأقلية تجعل من المستحيل تخصيص مناطق منفصلة لفئة بعينها، وأخيراً نأمل أن يدرك المستر وايزنر أنه مستحيل أن تصبح مصر مخلب قط لأمريكا فى مشروعاتها ضد إيران أو لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية على سبيل المثال.
ليست معنى ذلك أننا نرغب فى عداء أمريكا، على العكس سترى أمريكا أن الثورة المجيدة ستخلق مصر قوية مصيرها فى يدها، رضيت أمريكا أم أبت، ستفرض على الجميع بما فيهم أمريكا احترامها، تماماً كما فعلت تركيا الحديثة بقيادة زعيمها العملاق رجب طيب أردوغان.
One last friend's feedback consisted of below input from Herbert London
This Islamist organization is “assigned” by the present US administration to be a “democratic opposition” to Assad. Herbert London, the former Hudson Institute President and President Emeritus of this Anglo-Saxon think tank, in his book called U.S. Betrays Syria's Opposition emphasized the Barack Obama decided to rely on Turkey and Muslim Brothers while creating a post-Assad Syrian government.
Actually the radical Brothers presence serves the interests of Washington to make the Middle East region more “dynamic”. The Egyptian military regime headed by Mubarak was no good for the purpose, it “softened” too much and stopped being a major regional strike force. The toppled Mubarak resolutely opposed the US Iran policy. He didn’t support the US efforts to curtail the Iranian nuclear program and refused to support the Obama’s stance on Syria and Lebanon. Besides Mubarak was friendly with Muammar Gaddafi and couldn’t stay aside while the US was toppling the head of neighboring state that Cairo had good relations with.
It’s absolutely clear that, at least, a part of US political elite strives to make the Middle East plunge into a protracted wide-scale war in the times of world economic crisis. The goal is to solve its own problems and direct the public attention in the West from the problem of living standards and quality of life going down because it’s impossible to preserve the “consumer society” in the same shape as previously anymore.
A protracted Middle East war would give an impetus to the prosperity of the US military industry – then the US military corporations, that traditionally exert significant influence over Washington, could sell weapons to the belligerents. In its turn the USA could become a mediator at peace talks strengthening its positions in the region.
Trying to achieve the goal of creating an Arab Caliphate based on the Sharia law “from Spain to Indonesia” the Muslim Brothers play the spare fuse role in the US led game of exacerbating the Middle East situation. In an interview to Iranian English language news agency Al-Alam, Mohamed Ghanem, one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said the Egyptians should start preparing for the war with Israel. He said the Suez Canal is needed to be closed and gas deliveries from Egypt to Israel seized.
The Muslim Brothers coming to power in Egypt would result in turning it against Russia and China. The North Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Central Asia and Chinese Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous region would become the radical Islamists targets. The Syrian Muslim Brothers branch has already called Russia, China and Iran “accomplices to murders” of Syrian civilians, accusing them of rendering political support and delivering arms to the regime of Bashar Assad. It clearly displays the political orientation of the Brothers and shows who gives them “orders”.
©
Dr Hussein A Amin 2011
hussein.amin45@gmail.com
