The Egyptian hot potato is preparing to fall into President Barack Obama’s lap and the US might have to own it for a long time, for the sake of Israel’s security and its own national interests.
Today the Muslim Brotherhood rejected participation in the new interim government partly because it does not want to be outdone by its rival Islamist al Nour party, which did so earlier despite having encouraged disposal of former President Mohamed Morsi. That means the main Muslim parties, commanding nearly half the electorate, are shunning the military-backed transition regime.
The killing and wounding of almost 500 Morsi supporters from the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo by soldiers on July 8 has inflamed rage and religious fervor. Some are now talking of an Islamic uprising and “civil war” against the military and its supporters. It is short step from this to the clandestine entry into Egypt of armed al Qaeda-affiliated radical Salafists battle-hardened in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa.
Currently, Egypt is not being shaken just by military ham-handedness. It is also being taken apart by intra-Muslim rivalry. The hardline Salafi al Nour party, which came in second after the Muslim Brotherhood in last year’s elections, was handed an unexpected gift last week when millions called for Morsi’s removal and the military obliged.
Thus, the Nour party got an undreamed of opportunity to grab the mantle of leadership over all Muslims in Egypt. That would fulfill its dream of imposing a tough theocratic regime on the country. This is another reason why Washington may not be able to avoid exercising more leadership in Egypt.
If, at such a time, the US cuts off the $1.8 billion annual subsidy to the army, the only force capable of preventing chaotic violence in Egypt will have been considerably weakened. That might cause a widespread breakdown of law and order as clans fight one another for power over various Egyptian localities. An intra-Muslim reckoning may also occur between the fundamentalist Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood. The army might itself break up into various Islamist factions.
Many Americans seem to think that the political upheavals in Egypt do not involve the Obama administration but the fact is that US foreign policy interventions heavily mark the post-World War II and recent history of Egypt. Now, the chicken are coming home to roost and the implosion is happening on Obama’s watch.
For instance, Obama was directly involved in keeping the Egyptian military’s power intact after they dropped and abandoned one of their own – former President Hosni Mubarak – into the pits of humiliation and life imprisonment. They did so on Obama’s urging.
Mubarak was a very longtime US ally and his abandonment – however great the reasons for it – shook the trust of all Middle East leaders in Washington’s friendship. It also revived the ambitions of Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt.
Last week, the White House acquiesced to the military’s disposal of Islamist President Morsi partly because the generals deeply mistrust his powerbase in the Muslim Brotherhood. On July 6, the New York Times cited Morsi’s aides as saying that during Morsi’s final hours in power his top foreign policy adviser, Essam el-Haddad spoke to the Anne Patterson, the US ambassador in Egypt, and national security advisor Susan Rice.
After the phone calls, Haddad told Morsi and his entourage that “the military takeover” was about to begin. “Mother just told us that we will stop playing in one hour,” an aide texted an associate, playing on a sarcastic Egyptian expression for the country’s Western patron, “Mother America,” the NYT reported. That expression speaks volumes about continuing US influence over Egypt.
The White House is still involved deeply enough to continue searching for legal methods to keep up US aid to the military. So far, it has avoided calling the takeover a military “coup” against a democratically elected leader because US law would force it to cut off that lifeline. That has turned the Muslim Brotherhood against Washington while the Salafist al Nour is already an ideological foe.
Washington’s intentions may be honorable. It could be standing behind the military to prevent violent chaos in Egypt if Islamists take up arms against army rule or other secular pro-democracy groups in the country. But the military and intelligence services seem to have misunderstood US support as a signal to go back to what they do best – stop dissidence by killing opponents or jailing them without due process.
Senior army officers are so used to power and deference in Egypt that they do not seem to realize that mass killings no longer intimidate people into submission as they did in the past. Moreover, world opinion finds such actions unacceptable. Despite its caution and goodwill, Washington will have to cut off aid to the army if another similar instance of killings occurs.
Washington will be forced to manage the Egyptian hot potato as it sinks into prolonged political instability because the country is a pivotal power in the Middle East and vital for Israel’s security. Obama will not be able to sit on the fence or observe passively.
He will have to pick sides and intervene in some way because an Egyptian failed state alongside Syria and an instable Iraq will bring too much danger to the region and severely hurt US interests. The regional disorder may also encourage Iran’s mullahs to hinder democracy, reinforce theocracy and speed up acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Nobody in Egypt is able to intimidate or place checks on the military’s abuse of power. The only ones who might succeed are the paymasters in Washington and the Pentagon, who have enriched many generals and senior officers for decades and continue to do so. But this is not an easy task since militaries protect their own interests before serving foreigners giving them sweeteners.