Has the United States hijacked the Egyptian revolution? The goings on in Egypt appear to be a script written in the United States in a special control room — not to save Egypt’s embattled dictator Hosni Mubarak, but to save the political order in the Middle East.
Mubarak’s addresses to the nation and US President Barack Obama’s carefully-worded statements appear as part of a plan put into operation by the Zionist-controlled US administration.
On the face of it, Obama’s statements are supportive of the revolution. They recognise the people’s right to demonstrate and call on the Egyptian authorities to shun violence. Such statements are aimed at pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people, lest they question their government’s need to prop up a dictator, as much as they are aimed at wooing the Egyptian people.
But behind-the-scenes, the United State, since the January 25 uprising, has been in constant touch with Israel and Mubarak, a US stooge who became president in 1981 after the assassination of Anwer Sadat by a group of soldiers.
One does not have to be a political pundit to realise that the US and Israel stand to lose if the revolution succeeds. Here are some of the main concerns of the US:
A: A democratic government with an independent foreign policy cannot be a US ally.
B: Such a government will be Palestinian friendly and therefore will be hostile to Israel though it may uphold the 1978 Camp David peace accord.
C: If Egypt falls, other Arab puppet states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen may also fall.
D: The US fears that secrets or designs of the state-of-the art weapons it has supplied to Egypt may fall into the wrong hands. For instance, Iran, Russia or China.
E: A hostile government may block the Suez Canal if Israel attacks Gaza or a friendly country.
These concerns have prompted the US to draw up plan after plan aimed at controlling the events in Egypt. When Mubarak’s armed thugs in their hundreds broke into Tahrir Square on Wednesday evening to attack the peaceful protesters, it is naïve to assume that it was not part of back-channel discussions between the Egyptian leaders and the Americans. If the push comes to a shove, the US may ask Mubarak to step down now but will also ensure that the next man in charge will listen to its dictates.
Though the US, probably, was taken aback by the magnitude of the revolution, it was not unaware of the Egyptian people’s discontent with Mubarak’s totalitarian regime. It had its plans. But they were not to promote democracy in Egypt. How can the US when democracy is its public enemy number one in the Middle East? See what has happened to its experiment with democracy in Iraq. Free and fair elections in Iraq have produced governments more loyal to Iran than to the US. Thus it was no surprise that Washington said nary a word when the Mubarak regime fraudulently won the December 2010 parliamentary elections with a 97 percent majority. In contrast, Ivory Coast’s disputed presidential election drew immediate condemnations from both Washington and the United Nations.
Enter Suleiman the torturer
The US had a contingency plan for Egypt in case the stooge dies, steps down or becomes senile. It is to promote Omar Suleiman as successor. Recent US embassy cables posted on WikiLeaks have brought to light Washington’s special liking for Suleiman, a pathological torturer, who was appointed Vice President to appease the protesters, probably at the US behest.
A former intelligence chief, Suleiman is known to have personally supervised torture, especially of those terror suspects outsourced to Egypt by the US. Such is the reputation of Suleiman the torturer whom the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television, for reasons best known to its management, described as a well-respected figure after Mubarak appointed him Vice President.
Speak to the relatives of Egyptian torture victims. With tears pouring they would relate how their fathers and brothers languishing in jail were paraded naked before their daughters and sisters as part of the punishment for opposing Mubarak.
If the Obama administration sometimes appears to be impatient with Mubarak, it may be because of its impatience to bring Suleiman to the seat of power.
ElBaradei and the Iraq war
If Suleiman is America’s Plan A, Plan B is Mohammed ElBaradei, the man who together with the then UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix produced reports on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in such a way that they allowed the then US President George W. Bush to interpret them to suit his war agenda and invade Iraq.
Though ElBaradei may probably have produced his Iraq reports and, later, similar ambiguous statements on Iran’s nuclear programme due to blackmail, threats or his desire to protect his job, he may now be a different man longing for democracy and political freedom in Egypt. But since he has been tested and proved as a pliable character, the US would not mind him as an alternative to Suleiman.
These intrigue ridden backstage moves may make democracy-seeking Egyptians look like suckers. But are they? In this information age, revolutionaries are equally smart. The conduct of Egypt’s most-organised opposition group, the Ikhwanul Muslimeen or Muslim Brotherhood, only underscores it.
Though a substantial part of the crowd that thronged Tahrir Square was either Brotherhood members or sympathetic towards its cause, they stick to the secular nature of the revolution and to its main demand — democracy now. The authors of the Project for New American Century, a policy document that calls for US dominance of the globe, demonized the Brotherhood in their interviews or expert comments on the Fascist Fox TV. They say an Iran-like anti-US, anti-Israel Egypt will emerge if the Brotherhood takes over the government. But the Brotherhood has indicated it has no qualms over promoting ElBaradei as the common opposition leader or alternative to Mubarak. Perhaps, they believe that any devil is better than Mubarak.
Meanwhile, little is spoken about or little credit given to the April 6 (2008) Youth Movement. It is this group which via its facebook page lit the flame of revolution that roared on January 25 at Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Alexandria and Suez.
On their facebook page they say they would like to work with pro-democratic Egyptian political forces but not with any foreign government. Indeed, it’s a clear message to the US.
Where does the Army fall in? There is no Colonel Ahmed Orabi Pasha or Gamal Abdel Nasser in today’s Egyptian Army. Orabi Pasha was an Egyptian hero who gave leadership to the fellahs, the common men, in their rebellion against the British. He was arrested and exiled to Sri Lanka in 1882. Nasser, a military officer who overthrew King Farook in 1952 rose to be Egypt’s President. He was an inspiration to the Arabs and a well respected leader in the non-aligned world.
The Egyptian military has been purged of the rebellious elements after Sadat was assassinated by Islamic-minded soldiers who saw peace with Israel as capitulation to the Zionists. The US has bought the loyalty of today’s Generals with its annual 1.5 billion dollar military aid. So do not believe what the Army says. Be wary of its statements even if they are supportive of the revolution.
The Army which questionably did nothing when Mubarak’s thugs attacked pro-democracy protesters on Wednesday is Plan C, the final fallback option available to the US to protect the system. Plan D will come into operation if Plans A, B, and C fail and the revolution succeeds. Pharaohs should not play with people power.
Compliments: Ameen Izzadeen