Egypt and The Obama Administration

A million people are standing in Tahrir Square in Cairo protesting the government and arguing that Hosni Mubarak must go. The military, representing the most stabilizing influence in Egypt, has immersed itself in the protest, at least to some degree. The nation's most notorious prisons have been emptied of criminals, and Islamic extremists and roving bands have destroyed art treasures and looted private property.

While words of freedom and liberty are in the air, there is the distinct danger that these protests could result in less freedom for Egyptians than what they have known, especially if those who harbor Islamist goals (read: the Muslim Brotherhood) gain a foothold in government.

Despite the confusion surrounding these protests, Foggy Bottom was completely blindsided. On one occasion Secretary Clinton said "Mubarak is a friend;" on another occasion Vice President Biden denied that Mubarak is a dictator. As the protests persisted, however, Washington's tone has changed. Now the State Department refers to an "orderly transition" to "a democratic, participatory government."

But there is still not a clear call for liberty that is even consistent with the president's Cairo speech. President Obama has, instead, put a greater emphasis on engagement than freedom -- as his tactics with the Iranian government suggest. Admittedly a democratic election in Egypt could result in one man, one vote, one time -- with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control and, like their Hamas cousins, instituting religious dominance of the nation.

Of course, not everyone views the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat. Bruce Riedel, at the Brookings Institution, argues the Brotherhood might be troublesome, but not a cause for anxiety. This position overlooks the Brotherhood's basic attitude of subjugating women, and the threat to the 30 year peace with Israel.

Muslim Brotherhood power in Egypt, even if exercised behind the political curtain, would be calamitous for U.S. interests in the region. For the Brotherhood, violence is justified when it is consistent with its cause and that cause is jihad. Middle Eastern history is written in blood, not Western law. In 2007, so-called reform-minded leaders argued that all government decisions must be vetted to ensure they were consistent with Islamic law.

It is not clear, however, how much influence the Muslim Brotherhood has among the protestors or the military forces or even among the peasantry. The problem at the moment is that it is not clear what the Obama administration has in mind. It is calling for stability, which could be interpreted as endorsing Mubarak; but it is also continually making reference to "transition," which suggests Mubarak must be ousted.

Clearly the U.S. wants, or should want, a stable, civil society in Egypt that is aligned with U.S. regional interests If this is not possible, the U.S. should curtail its economic and military assistance -- in excess of $1 billion -- and bolster the only enduring democracy in the Middle East neighborhood, Israel.

Should Egypt become dominated by extremist forces, the likelihood of war only increases, and the resultant chaos will work to the advantage of Iran -- an anti-Western nation openly building nuclear weapons, as well as a Shia state distrusted by Sunnis, and the strong horse in the region that garners support through its messianic belief in violence.

If the evolving Egyptians story reveals anything, it is how destabilizing a weak and ineffectual U.S. can be. At another time, the U.S. would have recognized its interests and known exactly what it must do to secure stability. This, however, is not that time, and the U.S. no longer recognizes its strategic interests or how to protect them.

Related Topics:  Egypt  |  Herbert I. London receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list