US Policy: Disgracing Mubarak

By DORE GOLD, JPOST

Is the US repeating with the Egyptian president the errors it made in handling the Shah?

In late 1978, US president Jimmy Carter faced a situation in Iran that looked strikingly similar to what President Barack Obama is dealing with today in Egypt. Massive demonstrations were being held in the streets of Teheran, calling for the ouster of the shah, who had been America’s key ally in the Persian Gulf. The White House did not know quite what to do: back the shah or seek his replacement.

The State Department recommended that a broad based coalition of Iranian politicians be formed to take power. There was also a group of American academics and even some officials who thought the US should reach out to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was living in exile outside of Paris.

Many of these experts advised a confused administration that Khomeini was someone the US could work with. The US ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, wrote that Khomeini would work well with younger officers in the shah’s army. There was also Richard Falk of Princeton University who wrote an article in The New York Times on February 16, 1979 entitled “Trusting Khomeini.” It argued that he was surrounded by moderate politicians who had a “notable record of concern for human rights.”

The shah’s defense minister saw how the US was preparing to seek the shah’s removal and concluded that Washington “took the shah by the tail, and threw him into exile like a dead rat.”

THERE ARE several similarities between US policy in 1979 toward Iran and its policy in 2011 toward Egypt. First, the Obama administration appears to be pursuing a policy of leaving all options open. Like Carter, Obama’s team has been indecisive in this crisis. Washington is not calling for Hosni Mubarak to resign, but it is not backing him and his government either. In fact, Obama’s tone toward Mubarak sounded surprisingly harsh, and even insulting. Obama disclosed in a press conference on January 28 that after hearing Mubarak’s speech to the Egyptian people, he told him over the phone that “he had a responsibility to give meaning to those words.” Obama insisted that the Egyptian leadership “take concrete steps” and not limit itself to rhetorical promises.

But it was White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who went beyond Obama by issuing what sounded like an implicit threat to Egypt. At a press briefing, he stated that the Egyptian government had to address the “legitimate grievances” of the people “immediately.”

A journalist then popped the question to Gibbs: “You say that these legitimate grievances have to be addressed. I’m wondering.

Or what?” Gibbs came back: “We will be reviewing our assistance posture based on events that take place in the coming days.”

In other words, precisely when the Egyptian government had its back to the wall with the worst protests in recent history, the White House press secretary threatened the Mubarak with a cut in US foreign aid.

The US position did not go far enough to win the support of the Egyptian protesters, but by disgracing Mubarak the administration made statements that will alienate any future government based on Mubarak’s men. Moreover, what kind of signal did Gibbs’s threat about cutting aid send to King Abdullah of Jordan or to President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, as well as to other allies in the Persian Gulf? Did it mean that as soon as an Arab leader gets into trouble, he starts to get disowned? A second similarity between the two crises is the US reliance on individuals whom they hope will create stability and will not be exploited by more extremist forces. In 1979, ambassador Sullivan recommended that the Carter administration work with Mehdi Barzagan, who Khomeini wanted as prime minister, instead of Shaphur Bakhtiar whom the shah appointed to take over.

Barzagan’s foreign minister, Ibrahim Yazdi, was a US citizen who reassured influential Americans about Khomeini. Within eight months, Khomeini threw out Barzagan and Yazdi, once he no longer needed them, and appointed a new government that more reflected the Islamic revolution.

TODAY, MANY in the West call for making Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Islamic Energy Agency, an interim president to replace Mubarak. ElBaradei is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and appears to be the ideal instrument for it to reassure Western powers that it is safe to get rid of Mubarak. The danger is that he has no popular support, having lived outside of Egypt for many years. He would be a weak interim figure who could easily be toppled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

For that reason in the streets of Cairo, there have been reports that Muslim Brotherhood activists refer to ElBaradei and people like him as “donkeys of the revolution” – someone it can ride in on and then cast aside. It should be remembered that the Brotherhood is the best organized party in Egypt and has massive backing. It could easily get rid of ElBaradei once it is more securely in power.

Perhaps the most dangerous analogy between Iran in 1979 and Egypt in 2011 is how the dangers of a new radical Islamic regime are understood. As noted earlier, many academics and officials tried to argue that Khomeini could be a partner for the US. The New York Times reported earlier this week that at a meeting with Middle East experts convened by the National Security Council on Monday, White House staff members “made clear that they did not rule out engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood as part of an orderly process.”

This should not have come as a surprise. There have been significant voices in the US foreign policy community making the same argument for years, including a small but vocal group of former intelligence analysts. Additionally, the powerful quarterly Foreign Affairs, published an article in 2007 called “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.” In the Middle East, there is little naivete about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is understood that it remains committed to militancy – not to moderation. Indeed, the current supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Badi, gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that Muslims “need to understand that the improvement and change that the Muslim nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.”

Many commentators note that most of the leaders of the main terrorist organizations are graduates of the Muslim Brotherhood, from al-Qaida members like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to Khaled Mashaal of Hamas.

The readiness of Western governments to risk the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will depend on how well they understand the true global implications of it coming to power, and not making the same mistake that was made in 1979.

February 5, 2011 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. He has steadfastly opposed the Muslim Brotherhood and its brother Hamas.

    Not exactly true: He has opposed the MB in Egypt because they directly threatened his rule. He suppressed all other opposition as well.

    He supported Hamas as long as they threatened Israel and become more restrictive when they threatened Egyptian interests and security.

    All of those tunnels are dug on the Egyptian side of Rafah a few miles in length and he has never made a serious effort to close them down because it was directed mostly against Israel. He has used those tunnels as a lever to pressure Israel to allow more Egyptian military into demilitarized Sinai. BB just Ok’d allowing 2 battalions of Egyptian Army into Sinai to fight the Bedouins. They will never return to Egypt as per Camp David agreements. I have said Hezbollah to Syria is the same as Egypt to Hamas. Egypt could easily shut down the tunnels and the arms smuggling into Israel but it serves the multipurpose anti-Israel agenda not to do so. Egypt supported Hamas financially for many years.

    He was probably more steadfast than Israel, in opposing the Gaza blockade busters.

    Sure he didn’t want them and by closing the border all the International pressure accrued against Israel. He got a pass. At the core this move was also ant-Israel.

    Unlike his predecessors, he has not launched the obligatory war with Israel — despite pressure to the contrary by his own people and army.

    I suppose it was because he still was not strong enough militarily or economically to do so but you don’t spend close to 120 billion dollars on a modern military with no natural existential enemies, training only for war against Israel: unless at some point you don’t intend to use them against Israel. Unlike you white guys these Semites have oriental focus and patience. Bernie Madoff paid out over many years his obligations on demand and on time till one day he didn’t or couldn’t. Your argument here is specious and sophomoric.

    You have a way, Yamit, of trashing every good deed by everyone, so you are true to form in attacking Mubarak. Like the Sonderkommandos who sabotaged the ovens at Auschwitz, he did SOMETHING and can sleep well because of it. You have done NOTHING but complain, criticize and lie.

    Irish revolutionaries coined the term the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t I can accept that with regard to defense of Mubarak but to give him credit for good vis a vis Israel is revisionist history. The facts to not match the sentiments of those who now support Mubarak.

    I complain but I have fought and killed Egyptians and Palis terrorists. I have seen friends and neighbors blown up by rockets supplied or allowed into Palis hands by Mubarak and his government. I also blame Israel’s leaders as well sure what do you expect to sit back and call being pissed upon rain?

    Stick with bashing Obama and Health care when it comes to our realities and nuances of life here you are out of your league. Not all of what you read is true and not all of what is true is printed.

    You were always a BB groupie which say a lot about you and your intellectual acumen. Notice I haven’t called you an anti-Semite lately? Somethings don’t have to be said when it is so apparent.

    I pick Pittsburgh 😛

  2. @BlandOatmeal:
    Totally agree with you!

    Obama is a miserable rookie, his handlers made serious mistakes, and it won’t end well for Israel, nor the AMAiddle East in general.
    One has to understand, that the current administration is supportive ONLY of muslim, regardless of cost, bloodshed, or suicide bombings etc.. It has been his goal all along, his vindictivness against Israel is obvious.

    Cuddle, and support your enemies, and disown or destroy your friends-it’s his MoJo. Incompetence is his deed; weakness is not attractive to anyone in the Middle East.

    Say what you will about Pres. Bush, you always knew where he stood, and what his intentions were contrary to what we have now-anything but Bush.

  3. Yamit, your said,

    Recent polls indicate Egyptian hatred of Jews and Israel are no different than they were during Nassers time. Except for Rabins funeral Mubarak has never been to Israel. He has opposed Israel in every international forum…

    I will say “Duh!”, but not as a direct attack on you intelligence. Your mind seems to function well, for soemone who’s spent his life eating the wrong facts. But a “duh” is in order here. Considering that the Egyptans ARE as anti-Israel as they are, and the fact that they eat Jews in effigy for lunch, what do you EXPECT Mubarak to say in public forums? If you judge him by what he’s actually DONE, I will list the following:

    1. He has steadfastly opposed the Muslim Brotherhood and its brother Hamas.

    2. He has cooperated with the Israelis at the Gaza border, to the point that they have to dig tunnels to bring in (and out) what they really need.

    3. He was probably more steadfast than Israel, in opposing the Gaza blockade busters.

    4. Unlike his predecessors, he has not launched the obligatory war with Israel — despite pressure to the contrary by his own people and army.

    You have a way, Yamit, of trashing every good deed by everyone, so you are true to form in attacking Mubarak. Like the Sonderkommandos who sabotaged the ovens at Auschwitz, he did SOMETHING and can sleep well because of it. You have done NOTHING but complain, criticize and lie.

  4. BlandOatmeal says:
    February 5, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    Yamit,

    Unlike some goyim here;I thought always that the Camp David Accords were an unmitigated disaster for Israel, that would lead to not only another war but one so devastating that it would threaten the existence of all of us here.

    Mubarak was no friend of Israel and Egypt was no peace partner to Israel ever. What Syria is to Hizbollah, Egypt is to Hamas. There has been no people to people friendship between Israelis and Egyptians, Recent polls indicate Egyptian hatred of Jews and Israel are no different than they were during Nassers time. Except for Rabins funeral Mubarak has never been to Israel. He has opposed Israel in every international forum advocating sanctions and boycotts against us. He has been the primary mover to put our nuclear program under International supervision and to denuke us as his primary goal.

    Egypt with American help has used the past thirty years to build military parity with Israel and has mostly succeeded. They even produce their own American Abrams tanks. Unlike Israel thei$1.3-5 billion in aid frees up an equal amt to be used to purchase non American built weapons and platforms. All of the military training has been directed against their only enemy Israel.

    Now give me a good reason to support Mubarak and Egypt?

    How can you say our situation is hopeless? Don’t you believe in Jesus? If we all die he won’t return I’m told. 🙂

  5. Yamit,

    I’m glad you understand what is happening, in that Obama (the man you voted for) wants to remove Mubarak (whom you ridicule, and say he is finished) and install the Moslem Brotherhood. You know this, and at the same time, you ridicule people who are supporting Mubarak. You might as well buy your airline ticket now an kiss Israel goodbye, for all the good you’re doing. I don’t see much hope for the country, since it seems to be composed of clueless, chickenshut lefties and smartaleck, eternally kvetching nationalists. Hamas has just pulled the plug on 25% of your energy supply, and your southern border is in shambles, and all you can do is support your enemies and complain about your leaders. Your situation is hopeless, as far as I can see. All I ask, is that you don’t relocate in the US. We don’t need your noisy, futile chatter here: we have enough problems of our own. Maybe Ted will welcome you to Canada.

  6. White House and Egypt Discuss Plan for Mubarak’s Exit

    The Obama administration plans to remove Mubarak from power immediately and replace him with Suleiman.

    Those people are truly ignorant. The riots are not about removing Mubarak, but about installing the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly pledges to renounce Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel. The rioters will never accept a government run by Suleiman, Mubarak’s security chief. Suleiman, strong and capable as he is, just cannot run a government: his mentality is totally different, one of clandestine operations, ultimate authority, and unrestricted use of force. And Suleiman is so old that the issue of his own replacement may well surface very soon.