"Who pays, commands" and it is the U.S. who has provided 1.500 million dollars (about 1.168 million euros) a year to Egypt and thier army in military and economic aid, making it the second largest aid recipient after Israel. Soldiers who have just carried out a “revolution” also receive money from Saudi Arabia and control 25% of the country's economy. Washington, in turn, is waiting for African country rulers to be able to bring internal stability to the system (even if they use Saudi or Mubaraki methods), externally loyalty to American strategic interests and especially not to disturb the Israeli neighbour.
The sin of the legitimate president Mohamed Mursi was its inability to guarantee internal order. Continuing protests from various sectors of the population, culminating in collecting 20 million signatures by the Tamarod (disobedience) movement, headed by El Baradei and other personalities, against the policies of Mursi, offered a golden opportunity to the army- Pentagon to stop the Tahrir Square protests from taking an anti-American tone, as many posters blamed US-in particular its ambassador Anne Patterson for protecting Mursi and being jointly responsible for the calamities happening to the country. The soldiers accused of gross human rights violations reacted quickly, as Democrats were introduced, fulfilling the protester’s desires.
In one moment Obama avoided to define what happened as a "revolution" in his speech due to two reasons: The law prevents him from helping a country whose democratic government has been overthrown by a military strike or decree, and he did not wanted the Egyptians to saw his hands behind military action.
It was not the first time that the U.S. acts against a government installed by their selves : Afghan Mujahideen overthrew the Taliban and imposed their removal, not for their barbarity but rather because of their failure to ensure the order required in a key country like Afghanistan.
Overall, at the end there was no sovereign government in Egypt In 2011. Obama, before the fall of Mubarak, had three alternatives: the army, Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s favorites; the Muslim Brotherhood, with which the U.S. has strong ties since 1940; and its almost personal choice, Mohamed Al Bardie, the Nobel of Peace. The first was impossible for the democratic demands a revolted people. The third one encountered resistance among Israelis that often branded it as an "Iranian agent", by insisting on the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear program when he was director of the Atomic Energy Agency, and for stating the need to revise the Camp David agreement. Only The Muslim Brotherhood remained, with which Obama already had a first and placid contact at Al Azhar (Errors of Obama in the Middle East), where he delivered a speech that would end the Bush policy of invading Muslim countries with resources (a broken promise).
Finally, an “Egyptian style” Cohabitation was chosen, between the military and the Islamists, the priority was to prevent a civil war on the borders of Israel, to keep the counterweight of Iran in the region, and to find a friendly face to the military dictatorship.
USA, through General al-Sissi, army chief – a religious man appointed by Mursi-, and on the name of the Egyptian people, takes back the reins of the country without putting "boots on the ground". The role of several thousand CIA agents and other Western intelligence services moving in and out of the presidential palace in Heliopolis are left to be seen.
Keeping the threat of the military strike has been one of the Obama instruments to pressure Mursi, along with preventing the International Monetary Fund to lend him the pledged 4.800 millions and other 5.000 million euros from the European Union. Now, he can open the wallet and drop the millions of dollars that are needed to push the development in his so called "new Egypt". It is quite outrageous to see how we can manipulate a people who are between a sword and a wall…
Military interventions in politics are so undemocratic and dangerous as if they were played by religious forces. Education of both forces, which are presented with false "supra classist" intentions- are based on authoritarian and exclusionary methods.
Mohamed Mursi Former member of Mubarak’s parliament, who along with his organization came late to the Egyptian revolution, but used his impulse and from power he applied ideas from another era to a society anxious of economic and political democracy, did not took note of something primordial: that he had the vote of only 51% of the electorate and that some of the votes cast at the second candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, a member of the old regime, were to not vote for him.
Something similar happened in Iran in 1980, when Ayatollah Khomeini, facing harsh criticism of his proposal to install an “Islamic” republic, rejected the proposal of the majority which was to create the "republic of Iran" and also the "Islamic Democratic Republic of Iran", devised by moderate Islamists. He called a referendum with only two options, "Islamic Republic: Yes or no?", in a climate where the "no" was interpreted as supporting the dictatorial regime of ousted Shah. The "yes" obviously won, even though there were those who have not been heard who threw a terrible civil war that lasted several years. Self-deception brings dire consequences.
Mursi, as a Muslim Brother who mistook governing a complex state in the twenty-first century with distributing charity in the slums, wouldn’t and couldn’t install a democracy. Reasons: his ideological limitations and membership in the elite, their warped view of politics (A totalitarian caliphate for Egypt), his inability to create at least the feeling of improvement, for example in managing everyday problems (such as garbage collect, water supply and electricity or social security). He inherited a bankrupt country with serious structural problems such as the high rate of illiteracy and birth, faced inflated expectations of a people that could not wait anymore, as his attempt to Islamize the country was too much for seculars (who feared Talibanisation of the country) and little to their Salafi allies who abandoned him, supporting the “coup”. To this was added corruption and a favouritism so nonsense as to name as governor a member of the terrorist group Jamaa Islamiya, who participated in the 1997 attack on the Al agsar (Luxor) killing 58 tourists. The Muslim Brotherhood, who already had against religious minorities against them, atheists, seculars, remnants of the old regime, workers (who in a year organized a hundred strikes), they could not do more to make enemies.
As we pointed out, President Obama, after his re-election, remodelled the defence team and the foreign policy one, getting not too away from the traditional U.S. support for Islamist groups, both military and civilian. Sometimes he wanted them in a pack of 2 x 1: Pakistani military Islamists model.
The rebellion of the Taliban The assassination of its ambassador in Libya at the hands of the fundamentalists which he settled in the place of Gaddafi, or the assault on the Israeli embassy in Cairo by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists took him to prevent such groups to reach power in Syria -Israel border-, denying them heavy weapons. He then welcomed the new president of Iran, praised by the Western media as "moderate" (remember that during the protests of millions of Iranians against electoral fraud of 2009, Obama sent a congratulatory letter to Ahmadinejad), and before withdrawing support from Mohamed Mursi, forced the resignation of another "brother", Sheikh Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, to hinder their plans on Syria or open a Hamas office in the land. The sheik was a strong supporter of Islamist movements, including the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He funded with his petrodollars the fall of Mubarak and injected money to the campaign of the Mursi followers. Hence the “coup” Egyptians have closed the Al-Jazeera channel in Cairo.
It is hoped a new policy from Obama to anticipate the events, making changes from above in some countries of the region and reforms, before the situation gets wild into “springs" or "abdications" of kings and sultans in Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Amman. This position favours the expansion of the movement “Tamarod” to countries like Tunisia, Iraq, Bahrain, and Libya.
Apart the Turkish government – Close to Muslim Brotherhood-, no country has mourned the fall of Mursi. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and even the new emir of Qatar, Tamim al-Thani, congratulated the Egyptian interim president, Adli Mansur. Meanwhile, Iran, declaring "respect for the Egyptian people", did not hide their joy. Mursi did not only confront Iran in the Syrian issue, but so agitated anti Shiite climate in Egypt so much that several faithful of this creed in Cairo were lynched last month. Another relief is the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad: the Egyptian ordered to close its embassy and called for foreign intervention to depose him.
Israel, which can not complain of Mursi because they respected Camp David agreement and destroyed Palestinian survival tunnels along its border with Gaza, dreams of the normalization of relations between the two countries, but fears the Islamist group action on its borders. Satisfied that Hamas -branch of the Muslim Brotherhood-, now become orphaned, before he had lost the sympathy of Iran, to fight against Damascus. Unlike Hamas, the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, who praised the Egyptian army, shows his head again.
Designating a "technocrat" government - an executor of the mandates of the IMF and his authority- as intended, will aggravate even further the suffering of the people and the chaos in the country. The depth of the crisis in Egypt is much more than its political chaos. Only a government of national reconciliation, including the Muslim Brotherhood, may be the first step towards order and democracy.
What happened is not the end of the Muslim Brotherhood. In Turkey Arbakan Islamist government was ousted by a military coup in 1980, they won again the elections in 1995 and were again deposed in 1997, they returned in 2002 and they’re now judging who dismissed them in the 80s, although facing claims of "Unislamisation of power", not by the military but by outraged Taqsim Square. Excluding a powerful organization of the political game may cause splits in her womb and even radicalize sectors which would not hesitate to take up arms.
Henry Kissinger said in 2011, on the fall of Mubarak: “This is only the first scene of the first act of a drama that is to be played out”. What did he mean?