Mubarak Replacement Will Come from IAEA

Recent events in Egypt, according to the Western media, are now often called “a revolution.” The outcome of these events may be seen exactly on Jan. 28. On this day, the opposition promised to bring a record number of protesters of President Hosni Mubarak’s regime out onto the streets.

Official authorities admitted, per se, the inability of police to cope with the pressure caused by the protesters. On Mubarak’s orders, the army was brought out to the streets, including elite subdivisions specializing in fighting terrorism, to suppress the protesters.

Nevertheless, they haven’t stabilized the situation so far. Despite the number of people put behind bars, the count goes not to the hundreds but to the thousands. (Some leaders of the Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, are among them.) From hour to hour, the clashes are gathering momentum. Almost all towns are drawn into vehement strife. In the course of those clashes, the opposition has changed from cold steel to explosives. According to official reports only, seven people are dead, hundreds are injured, and about 20 of them are soldiers and members of the police force.

Noteworthy is that Muslims and Christians have united against Mubarak, and mosques and Coptic churches have been turned into centers of insurrection against the dictator. The Islamists were quick to announce their union with the Christian world, and called Mubarak’s regime the reason why they clashed head on, diverting their resentment of him to turn them against each other.

Joint statements are made that “the Muslims and Christians of Egypt are going to fight together against corruption, unemployment, oppression and the absence of freedom.” Moreover, the liberals entered into alliance with Islamists and left-wing representatives against Mubarak. The events taking place in Egypt are now being called “a revolution” with increasing frequency.

Let us remind you that the Americans appreciated Mubarak for many reasons. First of all, he openly supported them in 1992 during their operations against Saddam Hussein by sending a substantial martial contingent against a sister Arabian nation.

But now it is different; the actions of the opposition find little approval in Europe and the U.S. It looks like the West sees Mubarak as “easy” since the Western leaders summoned him to sit at the bargaining table with the opposition.

However strange it might be, Western human rights advocates suddenly noticed only now that Hitler’s institutions are nothing compared to Mubarak’s prison conditions and how awful it is — official authorities are violating freedom of speech by blocking social networks and websites of the opposition. And now, the E.U. leaders are appealing to Egyptian authorities for “moderation.” The American media doesn’t see Mubarak’s combat with the opposition as a combat of their own goon with the Islamists, thinking that by no means are the radicals behind this uprising. Before, Mubarak attempted to show the West that he had to withstand bearded cutthroats who would start a war against Israel and cut the Suez Canal off if they came to power.

The New York Times, without any ceremony to the former American position toward their own loyal ally Mubarak, writes: “We are sorry for the disappointment and rage that forced the Egyptians to the streets.”*

An even more indicative statement was made on Jan. 26 by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she appealed to Mubarak asking for “reforms and to stop blocking peaceful protests,”* and to start negotiations with the opposition.

For Mubarak, it would be a capitulation, and he has no intention now to follow recommendations from the West, where the stakes were probably made on another man. Before, it seemed that there is no alternative to Mubarak. Still, the appearance of the “liberal” Mohamed ElBaradei on the horizon has somehow confused the present dictator’s plans.

He has already called several times to overthrow Mubarak’s regime, which is “a speculation on the subject of danger from the Islamic opposition to suppress any opposition in principle.”* As for ElBaradei himself, he is very popular among Egyptian citizens and the Arabs in general. He was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997 to 2009, and has a reputation for being a vehement adversary of the U.S and a protector of Iraq and Iran from American aggression.

He had so much power in the world that the U.S. tried to prevent him from being elected for a third term in 2005, and as a result, he was left all alone. Attempts to make ElBaradei, a Muslim himself, look like a person sympathizing with Iran were not taken into account by the U.S., and they had no choice but to tolerate his “pro-Iranian tricks” for the following four years.

The U.S. tried to “unearth” some compromising data, particularly that he received money from Iranian officials. But despite the CIA interception of several dozen of his communications with Iranian leaders, they were of no use to Americans. The attempt to “shape” the corrupted person of ElBaradei has failed.

The American authorities grew to dislike this politician back in 2002, when he refused to support Washington’s position regarding the fact that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. Later, he criticized American actions in occupied Iraq and made a statement that Iranian nuclear programs didn’t pose any threat to the world.

Then the West does not have much to choose from, nor does the United States. The choice is between Mubarak losing power and the Muslim Brotherhood. The West can put their stake on ElBaradei. The American media has recently stopped lunging at him, and the European media sometimes calls him a viable alternative to the current president.

*Editor’s Note: These quotes, though accurately translated, could not be verified.