Obama: in the Service of the Muslim Brotherhood

Increasingly, as time goes on, it appears that Obama’s policy in the Middle East is to strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood. The War on Terror that the Americans have led for the past decade has ended. Now, America has adopted an ideology of “defending the weak” under which Obama is establishing and strengthening the position of the Muslim Brotherhood, treating it as the moderate political element in the Arab World. When that is Obama’s policy, both Israel and Fatah will face significant difficulties.

Obama’s unrestrained support for the toppling of Mubarak in the end served to create the current stagnant situation in Egypt. A regime has not been changed, only a leader. The new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nabil el-Araby, is an example of a politician who who holds anti-liberal positions but wears a suit.

The organized power in Egypt, which for various reasons has been losing power, is the Muslim Brotherhood whose home base in the Middle East is Egypt. If the result of Obama’s actions in Egypt is the strengthening of the Brotherhood, it is obvious why Assad in Syria, Gadhafi in Libya and Abdullah in Jordan all oppose Obama’s policies.

The first two lead secular governments in their countries, and the third requires the support of the religious establishment in Saudi Arabia. In practice, the declared ideology of defending the weak conceals a support of the Brotherhood. Egypt, under this concept, is the first stop along the way.

“The Libyan Problem” (April 28, 2011) that was described here in this column was that the true core of the Libyan rebels, who are somewhat romanticized in the media, were Islamic extremists who belong to a group that the U.N. itself determined to be a terrorist organization.

It was for good reason that there was a debate as to whether or not the U.S. should arm the rebels with American weapons. Obama was among the supporters. In practice, Gadhafi is fighting an enemy that up until now, the United States was also fighting. Also, in Syria, the overthrow of Assad’s government (which people suddenly hope for), may bring power to the Brotherhood, who are the central power in the predominantly Sunni population.

It turns out that Obama’s decision to intervene — in words or in power — actually leads to an undermining of the stability of the area. In reality, Israel must know how to deal with the results of American diplomacy.

Mahmoud Abbas has also fallen prey to Obama’s pro-Islamist policies. In a sense, the unity between Fatah and Hamas is a result of the strengthening of the Brotherhood in the Arab public sphere. About a month ago, Abbas addressed the events in Egypt in an interview, explaining how it was actually Obama and his special envoy George Mitchell who halted the negotiations between the two nations. “From day one, when it started with Mubarak, I had a telephone call with Madame Clinton. I told her, ‘Do you know what are the consequences? Either chaos or Muslim Brotherhood, or both,’” he said. “Now they have both.”

In this reality, the central problem is not Abbas (who actually stands his ground and maintains his moderate stance despite the merging of Hamas and Fatah) but Obama, who is essentially the hidden solution to the unified factions.

Benyamin Netanyahu, as opposed to Ehud Barak, finds himself in a comfortable position. He can continue to claim that there is no partner in peace, whereas Barak, who is always calling for a diplomatic plan with a framework for a final agreement, can only continue to use his limited resources to attempt to move forward. He understands that against Netanyahu and Obama, it is almost impossible to prevail (despite the fact that they portray him and Netanyahu as a suitable match).

When Clinton visited Egyptian activists in Egypt, she pointed out that it is not always those who start a revolution that end up leading the country. In that, there is more than a clue as to what is to come.