Mysteries of American Policies in Arab Countries

When the Hamas movement rose to prominence in 2006, won the Palestinian elections and formed a government, the United States refused to recognize this government, deal with Hamas or offer support to it in any way. The rest of the world followed suit.

The matter didn’t rest with a boycott of Hamas and a refusal to deal with them, but developed into an economic siege. America exerted pressure on the whole world to imitate its example in oppressing the Palestinians and driving a wedge between the two principal Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas.

The result was a deep division among Palestinians, which resulted in Hamas taking exclusive possession of the Gaza Strip and a deep division in the Arab world between supporters of each Palestinian movement.

The United States exercised pressure on the Arab states, Egypt most of all, not to reconcile the two movements, and Israel embarked on slaughter and destruction on the pretext of cartoon Palestinian rockets.

So why has the American stance been different when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt although its ideology is the same as that of Hamas; although looking at the strategy of Hamas and the Brotherhood is like looking at one, as their positions on regional and international issues are identical; although the Brotherhood in Egypt has achieved the popularity that supported them and brought them to power despite the hostile propaganda of Israel and America?

For the American administration, the matter didn’t stop at welcoming the transition to democratic rule in Egypt, but extended to direct support for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate’s successful election to the Egyptian presidency. And when the committee responsible was late in announcing the election results, American statements pushed it in the strongest terms to make its announcement.

It even brought the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the point of requesting the return of Egypt’s parliament, which was dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, dissolved by the highest judicial authority in Egypt (the Supreme Constitutional Court), and was witnessed as impartial by the United Nations. So what is this great magnanimity that the United States is showering on the Brotherhood?

The Secretary of State wants to contravene the court ruling and is using her authority, position and status in service of the Muslim Brotherhood — praise be to change!

Has the United States or the Brotherhood changed? Or have the interests of each changed? Or have American techniques toward Islam and Muslims changed?

The constant is that the United States works for its own interests, and interests might change from time to time. So have the interests of the United States aligned with those of the Brotherhood? Or there is something new in the United States’ strategy of dealing with the region in the years to come.

There are some who explain American positions as a plan for all-out sectarian war between Sunnis and Shias in the region, especially after the Syrian regime falls and Sunni rule comes in its stead. It will co-operate with the similar Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt to form a Sunni front with the other Sunni states, inaugurating a sectarian war that will facilitate a blow to all of Islam, according to adherents of this nightmarish explanation. And there are some who say that America has brought the Brotherhood to power to direct a crushing blow to the Islamist plan by causing it to fail in the largest Arab state, besiege it and rule over it forever. They encourage these several contradictory interpretations of American policies for the Arab region, as they support the sectarian protest movements in Bahrain and are absolutely certain that these movements take place under the instructions of Iran.