America’s Concern about Leadership Change in Saudi Arabia and Egypt

Dictatorship still survives in the Middle Eastern Arab states. “I command” is said by those in power in the Arab states who refuse to leave power and allow their people to endure pain and suffering in these nations. They head despotic regimes, having inherited their authority, and keep on stifling the masses.

Many Arab nations are faced with this kind of government. Iraq followed such a system of government until a short time ago. Lebanon has bitterly experienced the rule of the same tyrants throughout its semi-established democracy. In countries from Oman to Morocco, imperial regimes oppress their people, and any and all protests are nipped in the bud. In the last decade of the past century many of these dictators faced decline, but there are a handful of them still in power. The U.S is very much concerned about fall of one or two of these despots who, as a matter of fact, are known as the worst rulers worldwide in terms of human rights violations. The Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Saudi King Abdullah are the two rulers over whose loss the White House continues to worry.

While some Egyptian media like Al-Shruq release reports of Hosni Mubarak ordering provisions for his burial ceremony, because of which the paper’s officials have been jailed, Saudi Arabia is home to thousands of princes waiting for King Abdullah to pass away so that the ruling authority might enter a new era. In its latest edition, the Los Angeles Times quoted certain officials in Washington as saying they have expressed concerns over future successors in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A source in the U.S. State Department was genuinely concerned about the future of the Middle East without Mubarak and Abdullah.

Mubarak assumed power in 1981, in the wake of Anwar Sadat’s assassination. In practice, he has moved Egypt into the western world, and over the past 30 years has been following the U.S.’s guidelines in such a way that annual billion dollar grants have been pouring into the country. Egypt has virtually been converted to an operational base for U.S. security and intelligence agencies. On the other hand, since 2005, King Abdullah has officially governed Saudi Arabia. In reality, however, he took over the throne in 1996 when his brother, Malek Fahad, suffered a heart attack. Mubarak and Abdullah differ in that the former will end his rule in 2011. Rumors are spreading that he intends his son, Jamal, to be his successor. What has become certain to Americans is that Mubarak will not run for president in 2011 and his term of office will come to an end.

The Egyptian presidential election has spurred concerns for U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, in Saudi Arabia, Abdullah will remain the monarch until his death; however, he is over eighty years old and grows feebler day by day.

The U.S. plans to maintain the Middle East without Mubarak and Abdullah. During the last decades, these two countries have gone along with U.S. plans in the region against will of Egyptians. These two countries tried for peace in the Arab-Israel conflict particularly by giving concessions to Israelis. Saudi Arabia, under American pressure, went so far as to declare an Arab peace initiative which had been ignored by Israelis. Also, Egypt closely cooperated with U.S. during the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This expanded cooperation with Israelis happened simultaneously with an increased level of control over Palestinian groups.

One of the plans Americans have in mind for Egyptian leadership after Mubarak is General Omar Soleyman, the powerful and influential chief of the Egyptian Intelligence Service. He has played a major role in controlling the Islamic factions in his country. In Saudi Arabia, Americans are wondering which one of the princes to court. But what is significant to them is that they favor a prince in power with no links to his predecessors.

The role America wants Egypt and Saudi Arabia to play is two-fold, although both have to deal with Israel. Americans know that no war against the Israelis can be successful without Egypt, so they will try to keep Egypt and Israel close commercially. Egypt will control Palestinian Islamic groups, and in return, the U.S. will continue to aid Egypt financially. Moreover, considering that talks with Israelis are potentially ineffective if not mediated by Saudi Arabia, and owing to the fact that the power of Saudi diplomacy is honored from Kabul to Beirut, American diplomats remain optimistic about finalizing Arab-Israel talks under the auspices of Riyadh. They are also aware of the fragile peace not brokered by Syria. Therefore, they are trying to find the place for Syria in the Middle East equation. This will eventually lead to Israeli victory.

Another major American concern with regard to the changing heads of state goes back to the issue of resistance groups. With Syria also playing the political game, the U.S. might take too long to learn how to deal with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas in comparison, and might lose a lot in the region politically. For example, the hidden and popular resistance group Ekhevan ul-Moslemin (Muslim Brotherhood) might take control of Egypt. However, the U.S. is concerned about Egypt and Saudi Arabia having unpopular rulers. Public discontent is like a fire under ashes that might flare up at any time. Consequently, the U.S will lose control of these countries if the people are not happy with their new leaders.

What surprises experts is the dualistic attitude of the White House towards observation of human rights in these countries. Egypt and Saudi Arabia seriously violate the primary rights of their citizens, something Americans know about. The U.S. is by no means willing to exert pressure about human rights issues, because this could spark public protests.