by Barry Rubin
Here is what I wrote in October 2010. The leader of the Muslim
Brotherhood, Muhammad al-Badi, had just given a sermon calling for the
overthrow of Egypt’s government, which happened four months later, and a
jihad against the United States, a country he considered weak, foolish,
and retreating from the Middle East. I declared that this was:
“One of those obscure Middle East events of the utmost significance that
is ignored by the Western mass media, especially because they happen in
Arabic, not English; by Western governments, because they don’t fit
their policies; and by experts, because they don’t mesh with their
preconceptions."
Two and a half years ago, who would ever have thought that the United
States would enter an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood? There were
hints in President Barack Obama's Cairo speech, yet now it is clear that
this is the new basis for regional security sought by the Obama
Administration.
For all practical purposes the closest allies to the United
States are no longer Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a moderate Egypt but an
Islamist Egypt, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian rebels led
by the Brotherhood.
And literally every mainstream media outlet, every expert who speaks in
public, every Democrat and the majority of Republican politicians still
don't realize that this is true.
There have been in American history the Truman Doctrine (help countries
fight Communist takeover), the Nixon Doctrine (get local middle-sized
powers to take part of the burden of the Cold War from the United
States), the Carter Doctrine (defend Gulf Arab states from Iranian
aggression), and the Reagan Doctrine (go on the offensive against Soviet
expansionism). Now we have the Obama Doctrine:
An alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood to transform the Middle East.
Is this really an improvement on a situation based on alliances with
pro-Western dictators? Now they are still dictators but are also
anti-American and even more oppressive than their predecessors. After
all, the old dictators, as horrible as they were, were content with the
status quo (except for Iraq where the overthrow came without a new
extremist regime taking power) . The Islamist ones want the fundamental
transformation of their societies. By our times, the old dictators were
resigned to the regional situation. The Islamist ones want a wave of new
revolutions, terrorism, wars against Israel. And sooner or later they
will strike out against America, just as they give their Salafist allies
a free rein to do so.
The occasion for declaring that an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood
and similar groups is the new Obama Doctrine is, of course, the decision
to supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As recently as April 28—a
mere six weeks ago!—the New York Times was talking of an imminent rebel
victory! Now, however, panic has set in about a total rebel collapse.
This has prompted a rush to give weapons to the rebels.
The weapons will be given to the Supreme Military Council which runs the
Free Syrian Army (FSA). But while the FSA is nominally led by defected
military officers, in fact most of its soldiers hold views close to the
Muslim Brotherhood. Thus, the fig leaf will be that these guns are
being given to “moderates”—like the people Senator John McCain met
with—while actually they will be given to people whose politics
encompass hatred for Jews, Christians, the West generally, and ready to
engage in what in American politics has come to be known as Homophobia
and a War on Women.
If the rebels were to win, this would mean imposing a Muslim Brotherhood
government on Syria. Let’s remember that the political opposition
organization the United States recognizes and has financially supported
is overwhelmingly run by the Brotherhood and it refuses to admit real
moderates and Kurds on a serious level.
Note that this is the second Muslim Brotherhood entity the U.S.
government has provided with weapons. The first was the Egyptian
government, to which despite its questionable human rights record the
Obama Administration has no objection to helping. The shipment of
weapons is not even postponed as a gesture.
Thus, Egypt is an anti-American client state of America. And so is
Tunisia. So, too, is Turkey, which is sort of a Muslim Brotherhood
regime in Turkish style. The Turkish regime, it should be remembered, is
the chief adviser to the Obama Administration on Syrian affairs and its
favorite government in the region.
Why did Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt endorse an American no-fly zone
in Syria? In Islamic terms to invite in an infidel power to "invade" an
Arab land cannot be justified by any Islamist in contrast to a
non-Islamist Muslim-majority state. The Muslim Brotherhood can justify
this support because the goal of this action will be to install a Muslim
Brotherhood government, that's why.
There are four places where U.S. policy is not (not yet?) backing the Brotherhood.
First, because of pro-Israel sentiment in the United States, the Obama
Administration is still anti-Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood group which
rules the Gaza Strip. Hamas has also committed too many terrorist
attacks and is in revolt against the U.S.-backed nationalist Palestinian
Authority.
In an unguarded moment, Obama’s then counterterrorism advisor let slip
that he would engage Hamas if he thought he could get away with it. But
this would be too big a step for even pro-Obama Democrats to accept. And
besides right now Hamas is in a conflict with Egypt so that doesn’t
have to be faced right now.
The second problem is with Jordan, where the Obama Administration still
supports the monarchy though it often seems only absent-mindedly so. The
Brotherhood, which is the chief opposition group, wants to overthrow
the king but is afraid—precisely because the regime is so tough--to try
violence. Who knows what will happen, though, if Syria is ever taken
over by the rebels?
The third case is in Lebanon. The leadership of the Sunni Muslims there
is pro-Western and moderate. Radical Islamists are in a small minority.
Both Sunni groups hate Hizballah, which is of course the ally and now
co-belligerent of Iran and the Syrian regime. Still, there is no sign
that the United States is going to do anything on Hizballah’s home
court. It is somewhat ironic that the one place where the Sunni Muslim
leadership is most moderate is where Obama isn’t acting even though
Hizballah (another force Brennan declared moderately not long ago) is
now a proven enemy beyond denial.
And fourth, the Obama Administration has not yet supported the Muslim
Brotherhood against Israel. The strategy on this point is to get a
two-state peace agreement and thus defuse the issue. Of course, the
Islamists will not be satisfied with that result even if it happens,
which it won't.
Why is the United States backing the Brotherhood in Syria? Most
immediately it is being done in order to prevent an Iranian bloc victory
in Syria, even though the Brotherhood and al-Qaida are on the same side
there. Except in Iraq, U.S. policy is backing the Sunnis over the Shia.
Beyond that, however, the Obama Administration has argued that the
Brotherhood is the best way to defeat al-Qaida, which wants to attack
American directly. It has also claimed that the Brotherhood will
inevitably moderate, the same argument that was once heard about Adolf
Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Yasir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Saddam
Hussein.
Are the Sunnis the lesser of two evils compared to Iran? Arguably, yes.
But that doesn’t mean that the Sunni Islamists are better than the
non-Islamists who range from nationalist army officers to traditionalist
conservatives, and pro-democratic liberals.
At any rate, the new policy is in place. America has had many unlikely
allies in its history—including Stalin and a number of Third World
dictators. But have any been such strange partners as those who would
like to kill all the Jews, wipe out Christianity, reduce women to
permanent second-class citizens, and murder gays? Indeed, these are not
only strange but unnecessary and mistaken allies.
An interesting MEMRI piece gives an example of Sunni closing of ranks.
Muslim Brotherhood and chief Sunni Islamist guide Yusuf al-Qaradawi
attacks Hizballah (Islamist but on the Shia side) and extols his
friendship with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia (anti-Islamist but on the
Sunni side).
And here's another Sunni Islamist, a Kuwaiti, wishing in a MEMRI video that
he could personally slit the throats of Hizballah soldiers. Why is
this significant? Because Kuwait has a lot of Shia with whom the Sunni
Islamists have worked pretty well. The new Sunni-Shia conflict may also
bitterly divide Kuwait. What this all means is that the Sunni Islamist
war against the Shia supersedes the Islamist war against the
non-Islamists.
And on demonstrations in Turkey see this source: On Turkish demonstrations for English-speakers.
Barry Rubin
Source: http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/obama-doctrine-america-allies-with.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment