Take a Look at America'sChanging Face in the Middle East

On Feb. 11, President Obama gave a speech from the White House. Obama announced that after Egypt’s President Mubarak resigned, Egypt’s armed forces would ensure that the Egyptian people’s call for democracy would be achieved through a peaceful transition. After 18 days of protests against the government, Egypt’s Vice President Suleiman announced on national news that Mubarak had resigned his post, and control was handed to the military.

“Changing faces” is a popular acting trick throughout various genres in China’s performing arts. Sichuan opera is particularly famous in employing this stunt.

Recently, due to the combination of many different complex factors, several Middle Eastern nations have seen “governmental earthquakes.” First, it was the Tunisian government being quashed by riots; next, it was 18 days of chaos in Egypt, leaving an indelible mark on the firm, 30-year rule of Mubarak. We are seeing how these types of violent uprisings are having a spillover effect on other Arab nations, and this has attracted worldwide attention. The speed at which chaos has spread in the Middle East has shocked the world. America, however, is coolly assessing the situation and how it will affect its interests in the region.

The rate at which the U.S. changes its stance has been rapid — even faster than Sichuan opera’s “changing faces.”

Egypt is the leader of the Middle East; it is also a pressure valve that keeps the region stable. Mubarak was once America’s “friend,” and yet, toward America’s greatest enemies — Islamic extremists — he is totally uncompromising. On the other hand, he has been very influential in furthering the Palestinian–Israeli peace talks.

When Cairo’s street-corner government cries erupted, America initially backed Mubarak. Vice President Biden even publically called him a reliable ally. As the situation developed, America called for different responses. The U.S. called for a peaceful transition until the Sept. presidential elections; however, as it was seen that demonstrations and marches were growing in intensity and that Mubarak could not control the situation, President Obama stepped in and called for Mubarak to step down immediately.

The American government has an approach of rolling with the punches. Their actions in this situation could even be considered kicking someone while he is down. How could the U.S. desert Mubarak at this crucial juncture? It not only disappoints other Middle Eastern allies, but it brings them closer to understanding the true pragmatic nature of American diplomacy.

Leading affairs in the Middle East is basic to America’s agenda for world hegemony. The Middle East, as the link between Europe, Asia and Africa, holds a highly strategic position and, thus, is crucial to the U.S. bid for dominance. The Middle East is the largest holder of oil and natural gas. In 2009, a study ascertained that the Middle East possessed over 103.2 billion tons of oil, accounting for 55.6 percent of all known oil reserves. Because of this, administrations after World War II have believed in the saying that “Whoever controls the Middle East and its oil possesses the world.” Great resources and painstaking effort have been poured into managing the Middle East. The usual strategy of fostering hostilities and endless conflict is a way for America to hedge its bets. It spares no effort — military or economic — in supporting Israel. This helps them in their goal of supporting and defending Israel by intimidating other Middle Eastern countries and thus deterring them.

It also helps them to draw in some Islamic countries as supporters. By converting some into spokespersons for U.S. strategy, they can hope these countries will lead others to cooperate with American ambitions. In the eyes of the American people, it doesn’t matter if it is Iran’s Shah Pahlavi from 32 years ago or Egypt’s President Mubarak from 10 days ago — they are playing the same role. In 1979, when the Islamic Revolution ousted Shah Pahlavi, America cast him away like a pair of worn-out shoes. When he wanted to move his family to America, he was rejected.

Because of America’s “changing face,” people can see the shadow of the Shah on Mubarak’s future.

After 9/11, America focused its anti-terrorism efforts on the Middle East; it also lost no time in starting its Greater Middle East Initiative. America thinks that only democracy will eliminate anti-American terrorism; however, as the Middle East experiences democratic uprisings, America has not applauded. Instead, it has selectively interfered or gradually forgotten these democratic activities. The clearest example is the American desire for Iran, Libya and other countries to quickly shift to democratic governments. However, for the countries where there are U.S. military bases, they proclaim that “the situation is different.” The true situation is more like what the Swiss paper Basel Daily reports: America does not have genuine interest in seeing democracy flourish in the Middle East; it is interested in democracy there, only insofar as it can perpetuate U.S. interests. It really isn’t hard to understand: Lofty calls for “democracy, “freedom” and other values that the U.S. often parrots are just catchphrases.

As America changes its position on different Middle Eastern countries, there is only one thing that remains constant: America’s desire to control the region.