Washington needs a friendly regime in Cairo more than it needs a democratic government

[Better Believe It]

White House Wobbles on Egyptian Tightrope
Washington needs a friendly regime in Cairo more than it needs a democratic government
by Simon Tisdall
Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist.
October 29, 2011

Caught off guard by the escalating unrest in Egypt, the Obama administration is desperate to avoid any public appearance of taking sides. But Washington's close, longstanding political and military ties to President Hosni Mubarak's regime, plus annual financial support worth about $1.5bn, undermine its claims to neutrality.

While the US favours Egyptian political reform in theory, in practice it props up an authoritarian system for pragmatic reasons of national self-interest. It behaved in much the same way towards Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980s, when Iraq was at war with Iran. A similar tacit bargain governs relations with Saudi Arabia. That's why, for many Egyptians, the US is part of the problem.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the establishment rebel who joined the protests, was flabbergasted. "If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer," he said.

in the final analysis, the US needs a friendly government in Cairo more than it needs a democratic one. Whether the issue is Israel-Palestine, Hamas and Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, security for Gulf oil supplies, Sudan, or the spread of Islamist fundamentalist ideas, Washington wants Egypt, the Arab world's most populous and influential country, in its corner. That's the political and geostrategic bottom line. In this sense, Egypt's demonstrators are not just fighting the regime. They are fighting Washington, too.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/28/obama-clinton-wobble-egypt-mubarak

[social_critic]

1. Too late, I think

I suspect it'll be too late to stop a democratic government to emerge. Mubarak's move may put a stop to the ongoing revolution, but it's a matter of time. If they don't allow change now, then later it's going to be a lot worse.

As for the US, its policy in the Middle East has been subservient to Israeli interests. I don't think President Obama can get the backing to take the Israel Lobby out the picture, so we'll continue to do whatever keeps the lobby happy and as a result nothing positive for the US will come out of this. But nothing positive comes out of the Middle East for the US ever anyway. We might as well face it, we're the whipping boy, and will remain this way until we can set our own course.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Which is why it is fortunate

that the Egyptians are already aware of that.

Wikileaks had already published the relevant papers :

1) At an April 2009 meeting between Suleiman, then Egypt's intelligence chief, and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Suleiman said "his overarching regional goal was combating radicalism, especially in Gaza, Iran, and Sudan. ... (R)adicalism in Gaza posed a particularly serious threat to Egyptian national security. Soliman said Egypt must 'confront' Iranian attempts to smuggle arms to Gaza and stop arms smuggling through Egyptian territory. 'Egypt is circled by radicalism,' he continued. ... Soliman noted that only the Muslim Brotherhood remained and the Egyptian government continued to 'make it difficult' for them to operate."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/wikileaks-cables-shed-light-on-egypts-new-vp-.html

"Making it difficult for the Muslim Brotherhood to operate" has probably already sealed his unsuccessful future.

[Hydra]

3. You know

With all the effort and money we spend controlling policy in the Middle East, we may as well move the US to the Indian Ocean, right off the Red Sea.

Much easier to keep your colonies in line when you're right next door.