By Isaac Yetiv, Ph.D
LA JOLLA, California — Contrary to some pundits and politicos, I do not blame the Obama administration and its Intelligence apparatus for not having foreseen the events that shook Tunisia and Egypt. But I surely blame the US government for mishandling the crisis after it has erupted. The world heard different, sometimes even contradictory, declarations from members of the government, assorted spokespeople, and the president himself.
V.P. Biden said that Mubarak is not a dictator when the president called the behavior of the Mubarak government “repressive and unacceptable.” Both the president and his Secretary of State changed their tunes a few times for and against Mubarak.Obama first demanded that Mubarak resigns “immediately;” then backed down when he felt resistance, then came back in strength, and then again seemed to be appeasing the Egyptian ruler when he seemed to emerge victorious.
At this writing, Mubarak has left town and entrusted the government to “the military Supreme Council” and Obama danced to the new tune. A more prudent attitude would have coordinated the official public declarations, and made them rare and general in nature, leaving the real pressure on Mubarak to more productive behind-the-scenes admonitions and subtle threats.
Since the beginning of the uprising, we could clearly foresee three possible denouements to the crisis:
1) Mubarak , having worn out the demonstrators, might have been tempted to use moderate force to extinguish the last remnants of the revolution, those recalcitrants who dared to appear in Tahrir Square, and emerged as the winner, and then, ADIEU to the “reforms,
democracy and free elections.”
2) At the other extreme, the rioters could have become more violent, with the army in the lowest echelons fraternizing with them, and Mubarak being forced to flee or worse. In this scenario, his deputies would have been unable to control the mess, and a “government of public safety” would have been formed with Mohamed Elbaradei at its head. Such a government could have included the Muslim Brotherhood which is the only organized party in Egypt, and have ruled by decree.
This could still happen, with history teaching us anew that “Revolutions are started by intellectuals, carried out by fanatics, and the fruits harvested by rogues.” As it happened with Kerensky in the Russian revolution, with Naguib in the Nasser revolution, with Qassem and Bakr in the Saddam revolution, and so many other cases, Elbaradei would be swept away like dry autumn leaves and the Muslim Brotherhood would become the sole ruler of Egypt, a totalitarian ,ruthless, ideologist Islamist government a la Iran, whose first act on the agenda would be to rip to shreds the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and prepare for war against the Jewish state, and threaten world peace.
3) Between these two extremes was the best choice for Egypt and the Free World: a smooth transition, led and controlled by the army, the only institution respected by all Egyptians. This is apparently what has happened, and we should heave a sigh of relief.
The army will promise the reforms, the creation of democratic institutions, a constitution, the formation of political parties and freedom of assembly and of the press, and finally the elections, whether in September as scheduled or later if necessary. The army will also be the arbiter and the guarantor that no extremist religious faction can seize power . The emerging strong military man seems to be Hussein Tantawi. Hopefully, he will declare that all parties and all candidates should swear allegiance to the constitution and the rule of law of the SECULAR state , renounce violence and be disarmed, and pledge to honor treaties signed by previous Egyptian governments. ( These requirements are very democratic. The glaring precedent is when Israel prevented Meir Kahane from being a candidate in the parliamentary elections because of his “racist” pronouncements.)
While I trust the Egyptian military to do just that, I am afraid the Obama administration will insist on repeating the same fatal mistakes of previous administrations. Let me quote just three of them, limited to the Middle-East:
.- In 1978-79 President Carter worked hard to convince the Shah of Iran to make concessions and give in to the Islamists, which led to the fall of the Shah and the advent of the Islamist regime of the mullahs, the seizure of the US embassy, the capture of the hostages for 444 days, the pitiful and disastrous attempt at rescuing them with failed helicopters, and the worst anti-American regime in history.
.-In 2006, Bush II sent his Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice to Israel to force PM Sharon to allow the participation of Hamas in
the Palestinian elections, a prospect the PM saw as catastrophic and which he strongly opposed . Hamas WON the elections, and beat
Abbas forces militarily and ended up with an independent Gazastan from which it launched thousands of rockets against southern
Israel, killing many civilians and causing two bloody wars, making peace impossible.
.- Most recently, the US “advised” Lebanon to allow Hizballah to participate in the elections and still remain a heavily armed military organization, in fact a-state-within-a-state. Hizballah won many seats in the Parliament and many ministers in the government, and after smart manipulations, they became the real power in a new puppet government whose strings are pulled by Syria and Iran.
And let us not forget that Hitler was elected democratically in 1933 in ,what scholars call, “one man, one vote, ONE TIME.” Elections alone, without the essential institutions, do not a “democracy” make.
Why do I fear this scenario ? Because Obama himself said repeatedly that “we should reexamine our relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood… and listen to them ; they are part of the Egyptian people…and should participate.., all voices should be heard,” and he
did so without the caveat of “swearing allegiance…etc. (as I wrote above.) This is in line with his invitation of the Muslim Brotherhood
to attend hisf amous Cairo speech in 2009.
Other members of his administration made similar declarations. His (just departed) spokesman, Robert Gibbs said that the future Egyptian government should include ” a host of NON-SECULAR actors…” meaning the Muslim Brotherhood. This clearly shows there is a conscious policy to legitimize the radical Islamist organization, as it was done with Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah. In my opinion,this is a disastrous policy. The law of causation states that, under the same conditions, the same causes produce the same effects. CAVEAT EMPTOR !
Their wish may be fulfilled if the Egyptian army does not hold firm. And then, “free,open, and democratic elections” may just bring to power that same , unreformed, Brotherhood , with its charter intact, Sharia law, war with Israel, alliance with Iran ,and other calamities.
This is not far-fetched. A recent Zogby poll found that, in Egypt today, 66 % believe that a clerical government will improve their situation; 80 % (!) are for the abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel; 80 % believe that a Muslim who commits apostasy (convert to another religion) should be put to death; 50 % favor Hamas; 20 % favor Al Qaeda. This is alarming. Hasn’t the Obama administration seen that?Regardless of their numerical power today (estimated at 30 %) , in real, free and open elections, without fear, the populace will bring the Radical Islamists to power.
If it so happens, the military might decide to adopt the Algerian solution and “annul the elections” with bloody results, or we will be
debating in America the painful question of “Who lost Egypt?”
There is also the danger of the “domino effect” that will bring down other Arab regimes, and when it reaches Saudi Arabia, any American president, with ” a coalition of the willing” will have to send the marines to seize the oil fields.
*
Yetiv is a freelance writer based in La Jolla