The US Just Stands and Watches

The United States supported none of the revolutionaries in the Arab Spring uprisings and today is being fearlessly challenged by them. America has lost its influence in the region because of Obama’s policy of wanting both change and the status quo.

The Egyptian government apparently never hesitated before ransacking the offices of U.S. human rights and aid organizations, along with those of the German government. But Egypt’s message to their principal financier is crystal clear: Don’t try forcing your fantasies of democracy onto the situation; this is an Egyptian matter, a battle between the old and new orders.

Old vs. young, tradition vs. modernization, the privileged vs. the marginalized: Over the past year in the Arab world, it has been ever more new variations on the old theme of awakening and renewal. From the comfort of its old rocking chair, the antiquated West is observing how suddenly demographics can determine politics.

Last but not least, this isn’t one of those generational conflicts often played out with guns in the Arab world by the young seeking liberation and openness. That is their privilege — they want to escape the confines and the ossification of their society.

All the more surprising that the United States can’t serve as a role model for revolutionaries. Egypt’s military rulers are able to challenge the U.S. image and intimidate Washington’s emissaries who preach democracy and human rights — all without fear that Washington will react against them or that [the United States] will succeed in getting freedom-loving Egyptians into the streets at their behest.

A key feature of the Arab Spring is that it is playing out without assistance from the United States and that the defining, decades-old conflict between Israel and its neighbors only plays a subordinate role. This again indicates a massive loss of American influence and importance in the region — both as a classic military and economic power and as a role model for those who love freedom.

There are obvious reasons for this decline: America’s role as an ally of Israel; America’s traditional support for the old rulers who guaranteed at least a comfortable co-existence; America’s intervention in Iraq and the shrill Bush administration that reinforced the stereotypical image of Arabs. Washington still hasn’t really succeeded in changing its old image in the region. The Obama administration also prefers to support known quantities, who, if necessary, are willing to use oppression to maintain law and order in their countries.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states enjoy the constant flow of armaments that they receive from the United States (and likewise from Germany, never very far behind the U.S.). Bahrain’s civil conflicts are downplayed because of the overwhelming importance of its strategic location and its role as a a military base. And even in Syria, the Assad regime offers more predictability that the myriad factions, religions, ethnic groups and political alliances that would all be fighting for supremacy if the dictatorship were to collapse.

The United States consciously chose what role it wanted to play out of the old super-realpolitik reflex. The Obama administration is fixated on its greatest imaginable threat: Iran and and the growing friction between Shiites and Sunnis. They are depending on the formidable power of its military and its ability to deter Iran.

One year after the Arab Spring uprisings it’s not yet certain how the lines of power will arrange themselves, which nation — Egypt or Turkey — will assume the function of leader, what potential threats to Israel exist and who will confront Iran in its quest for regional dominance.

The United States instinctively wants to keep all its options open in such an uncertain time. Bold strokes will have to come from elsewhere.