By Joel Skousen, Editor – World Affairs Brief
The mess in Egypt is symptomatic of a major transition taking place in various African and Middle Eastern countries–taking advantage of boiling, pent up frustration with Western-backed dictators who have been sapping the wealth out of nations and suppressing dissent. For decades this frustration has gone nowhere–and it can’t, really, unless a bigger power secretly sets the revolution in motion by whispering support for key opposition leaders. While the media has made this out to be a rather spontaneous uprising, it never happens that way. Only after assurances of external backing does an opposition leader (willing to be controlled by the West) have the clout to tell their followers that this time they can succeed. When the US decides it’s time to dump a leader like Mubarak, who they have supported for decades, they never tell him and thus the leader fights back thinking he is still supported by the West.
What is going on in Egypt looks very much like the way the US overthrew their own puppet-the Shah of Iran, while keeping the Ayatollah Khomeini on tap in a luxurious villa in France, ready to stage his supposed spontaneous revolution. Are US globalist leaders setting up Egypt to be an Islamic state like Iran? It looks like it.
The UK Telegraph had a blockbuster piece this week citing evidence of US involvement in the efforts to get the opposition rolling:
“The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police. On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011. He has already been arrested by Egyptian security in connection with the demonstrations and his identity is being protected by The Daily Telegraph.
“The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police. Mohamed El-Baradei, the pro-reform leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner [something usually given to Communists or globalists, or those who can be used for globalist purposes], was placed under house arrest after returning to Egypt to join the dissidents. Riots also took place in Suez, Alexandria and other major cities across the country.
“The US government has previously been a supporter of Mr. Mubarak’s regime [to the tune of $1.5B in military aid each year–notice all those US tanks in the streets of Cairo?]. But the leaked documents show the extent to which America was offering support to pro-democracy activists in Egypt while publicly praising Mr. Mubarak as an important ally in the Middle East [typical of US double dealing]. In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for ‘regime change’ to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.” While this is the only evidence that has slipped through the cracks of US National Security, it most likely is just the tip of the iceberg.
While Hosni Mubarak has conceded that he will step down at the end of his term in September, the opposition is demanded he resign now. Even more strange, “His newly appointed Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman said Mubarak’s son, Gamal — who was being groomed as his successor — will also not seek the post.” This almost looks like a capitulation of the ruling regime on several fronts. Just as in the phony “Fall of the Soviet Union” we have to be very skeptical of dictators stepping down “for the good of the nation.”
Then there is the issue of why the opposition can’t wait for new elections in September. Why the rush? This is a key element that deserves analysis: Sure, the election system is rigged toward Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (a contradiction in terms), and constitutional reform is necessary. But this kind of “step down now” demand is usually indicative that there is a radical transition being planned–not a mere reform to a more representative democracy (which in the Arab world is a sham–a mere excuse to have new tyrannical regimes hiding behind the pretense of popular support).
As to the current state of affairs, the AP reports that “Another bout of heavy gunfire and clashes erupted Thursday around dusk in the Cairo square at the center of Egypt’s anti-government chaos, while new looting and arson spread around the capital. Gangs of thugs supporting President Hosni Mubarak attacked reporters, foreigners, and human rights workers and the army rounded up foreign journalists. Another round of heavy gunfire rang out in central Tahrir Square, where Mubarak supporters and opponents have been fighting for more than 24 hours. At least one wounded person was carried out. At least eight people have been killed since the clashes erupted Wednesday afternoon.”
According to the AP, “Ahmed Shafiq, appointed prime minister last Saturday, pledged a thorough investigation into Wednesday’s violence in Tahrir Square. Shafiq said he and newly-appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman were to meet with the opposition — including protesters in Tahrir Square. He said no one would be excluded from the national dialog, including the Muslim Brotherhood, an outlawed Islamist umbrella group. But spokesman Essam El-Erian, said the Muslim Brotherhood will not participate in talks with the regime. Other key opposition groups have also rejected meeting invitations, including the secular liberal Wafd Party and the Al-Ghad party, led by former presidential candidate Ayman Nour.”
The refusal by the Muslin Brotherhood (MB) and others is telling. The continued violence by and against protestors indicates that someone wants a less than orderly transition-and that is what will happen. I expect that if violence continues, we’ll see an early capitulation of the Mubarak regime after more external pressure is applied (with promises of some exile in a “lifestyle befitting a Monarch”). The fact that the Military has been a reluctant player in the violence, neither provoking nor stopping it, is telling. They partially intervened when violence got bad, but then withdrew again. When the military leaves, clashes heat up again. The police have had a weak presence as well and are relatively powerless in these situations.
What doesn’t have a minor presence are the Pro-Mubarak counter demonstrators who are often the cause of the violence and provocations. That kind of counter protest doesn’t happen spontaneously. Someone is organizing them. This is where the Egyptian secret services are putting their influence and ammunition.
The fact that the mainstream media keeps pushing the MB forward as the main opposition and viable next alternative to Mubarak is both manipulative of public opinion, and deceptive as to its characterization. A veritable flood of commentary is emerging trying to paint the MB as moderate.
Caitlin Dickson offers this sampling of the current questions about the MB. Most of these comments downplay the MB threat, and reflects the new establishment position [my comments in brackets]: “As protests in Cairo continue, attention has turned to the Muslim Brotherhood, the 83-year-old Islamist opposition group. Members of the long-suppressed organization have recently been arrested in the protests. The opinions of the Muslim Brotherhood are vast and varied, as beliefs that the group’s sole motivation is to oust President Mubarak and bring peace to the country are contradicted by proclamations that the Brotherhood plans to take over Egypt and create an anti-American state [This, of course, has long been the US neocon position-fostering a Muslim threat in order to justify continued globalist intervention in Muslim nations].
“What Is the Brotherhood’s Role in the Protests? Cara Parks at the Huffington Post attempts to break down who exactly the Muslim Brotherhood is and what role it plays in the current protests. Founded in 1928 and suppressed in Egypt since 1952, the Muslim Brotherhood is known both for its support of democracy and its criticism of American foreign policy. In the protests currently ravaging Cairo, Parks writes, the Brotherhood’s role is minimal [very naive]. She cites news reports crediting Egypt’s youth for the uprising [Partly true, but these reports don’t go to the heart of who set the students off on this path with assurances they would get away with it]. Still, members of the group have been arrested during the protests, as ‘the Egyptian government has warned protestors of the group’s ‘hidden agenda’.’ But, Parks points out, Nobel laureate Mohamad ElBaradei [fronting for globalists] insists ‘the Mubarak government uses its Islamist opposition as an excuse for authoritarian rule.’
“Are They Violent? ‘For most of its existence in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has refrained from violence against the state. It is not the organization of radical jihadists that it is sometimes made out to be. But its caution in dealing with Mubarak has made it appear recently that it is more concerned with protecting itself than with improving the nation,’ writes Will Englund at The Washington Post [Only partly true recently. They do have a violent past and could be biding their time, just like Khomeini’s radicals did in Iran].
“Are They a Threat to the U.S.? Think Progress writer Tonya Somanader scoffs at the purported threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, calling it the Republican hardliners’ ‘delusion-du-jour.’ She writes that Representative Thaddeus McCotter and UN Ambassador John Bolton [both neocons] are among many in the U.S. who believe ‘the result of this pro-democracy movement will be the enfranchisement of the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-American ‘jihadist nutjobs.”
“She cites Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei’s appearance on Fareek Zakaria’s CNN show in which he denounced such assertions as ‘a myth perpetuated and sold by the Mubarak regime,’ insisting that the religiously conservative group is a minority in Egypt, but has a lot of credit because they are interested in a secular state [sheer nonsense, and implicates ElBaradei as projecting a false sense of future peace]. Somanader affirms ElBaradei’s comments by writing that the Muslim Brotherhood has moved away from its past violence [for now] and, now peaceful, is the largest opposition group to the Egyptian government [that’s also not true. The MB membership is simply not known since it is secret].
“Now allied with legal Egyptian political groups and tied to Egyptian professional unions, university campuses, and social welfare programs, the Brotherhood is a ‘peaceful’ group that ‘could draw moderate Muslims who identify with [its] ideology to participate in electoral politics, thereby isolating violent jihadis.’ Indeed, the Brotherhood denounced a recent terrorist attack in Egypt as a ‘cowardly act’ and is not on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list….Though banned by Mubarak’s regime from participating in parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood has 17 supportive representatives in the Egyptian Parliament and is supporting El-Baradei’s leadership role in forming a new government without Mubarak.
“What Would a Muslim Brotherhood-Run Egypt Mean for Israel? The Israeli government fears that an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood will mean ‘not only a stronger Islamist force in Gaza but also in the West Bank, currently run by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, as well as in Jordan, meaning Israel would feel surrounded in a way it has not in decades,’ writes the New York Times’s Ethan Bronner from Jerusalem [true, but don’t count on the globalist Netanyahu government to actually defend Israel’s interests–they will only feign to do so].
“According to Bronner, the Muslim Brotherhood, which has ties to Hamas, is the ‘best-organized political force in Egypt.’ If in charge of the country, the group could be expected to turn Egypt’s long held alliance with Israel into a hostile relationship and ‘quite likely stop in its tracks any further Israeli talk of peace negotiations with the Palestinians [no on the latter–the globalists have an ulterior motive in pushing the peace agenda, and that won’t stop].’
“Is the Brotherhood Being Disingenuous? [Here comes the neocon position, which is correct, but only for reasons of provocation, not long-term peace] At The Daily Beast, Leslie Gelb [CFR] warns strongly against believing the Muslim Brotherhood’s assertion that they are ‘misunderstood Islamic democrats’ and that having the group in power ‘would be calamitous for US security.’ He explains why: The MB supports Hamas and other terrorist groups, makes friendly noises to Iranian dictators and torturers, would be uncertain landlords of the critical Suez Canal, and opposes the Egyptian-Israeli agreement of 1979, widely regarded as the foundation of peace in the Mideast. Above all, the MB would endanger counterterrorism efforts in the region and worldwide. That is a very big deal.
“Will the Muslim Brotherhood Prove to Be Egypt’s Version of Ayatollah Khomeini? Haaretz.com reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is working with Mohammed El-Baradei to form a national unity government, excluding President Mubarak’s National Democratic Party. To some, like Don Surber, this is evidence that the results of the current uprising in Egypt will look like Iran’s 1979 revolution.” To the globalists all this is a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will help engineer.
Using the former UN Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohammed El-Baradei’s part of the plan. But, he too is a globalist, as Israeli investigative reporter Barry Chamish points out.
“Against the regime, the opposition groups – of which there are at least ten – are just as hamstrung by their failure to produce a leader able to stand up and challenge the president. For lack of any representative figure, they picked the retired nuclear watchdog to speak for them in negotiations over the transfer of power. Hardly anyone in Egypt knows him: He is better known outside the country having spent many years abroad.
“Just a few months ago, El-Baradei was paraded on the front cover of the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) rag, Foreign Affairs, with a headline asking if he could be Egypt’s savior. What uncanny foresight, for on the second day of Egyptian protests he showed up in Cairo and was named as the negotiator of The Muslim Brotherhood. So where did he come from? It turns out from the board of an NGO run by CFR muckrakers George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
“Go to the George Soros/Zbigniew Brzezinski Crisis Groups Website<http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx>http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board.aspx and you will see that the Egyptian clashes have hit surprisingly close to home for them. That’s because none other than their own Mohamed El-Baradei, sitting on their board of trustees, is the self-proclaimed leader of the unrest unfolding across the streets of Cairo. The International Crisis Group’s recent condemnation of El-Baradei’s detention and admission of his membership amongst “the Group” is accompanied by calls for the government to stop using violence against the protesters.
“A few board members: George Soros, Chairman, Open Society Institute; Mohamed El-Baradei Director-General Emeritus, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and [Marxist] Javier Solana Former EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, NATO Secretary-General and Foreign Affairs Minister of Spain.
“And then, we have The Muslim Brotherhood meeting with Obama. From the Egyptian press [Almasry Alyoum]:
“Obama met Muslim Brotherhood members in U.S. U.S. President Barack Obama met with members of Egypt’s Islamist opposition movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, earlier this year, according to a report in Thursday editions of the Egyptian daily newspaper. The newspaper reported that Obama met the group’s members, who reside in the U.S. and Europe, in Washington two months ago.
“As for Israel, which should be terrified of a potential Muslim Brotherhood government, who else is pushing for one but President Shimon Peres? Mubarak appointed Peres’ buddy Omar Suleiman as his Vice-President, meaning upcoming interim President when Hosni climbs down from the post [very interesting connection. Peres is a globalist who Chamish exposed as being behind the plot to assassinate Israeli PM Rabin]. And look who Peres got to say what Peres can’t, his rabbi and Vatican representative, David Rosen: ‘Rabbi David Rosen, a prominent commentator on religious affairs, has said that EU diplomats should start talking to Islamic faith leaders in Egypt in order to keep the revolution on a peaceful path.” –the mark of another globalist plant within Israel.
In summary, while all of this is very complex owing to both Israel and the US playing both sides of the conflict, I suspect that creating the specter of another Islamic Revolutionary state in the Middle East is aimed at making the Islamic threat loom even larger, so as to justify another Israeli pre-emptive strike. I posted a story last year on the WAB about the financial expert in the City of London who was mistakenly invited to a top level globalist meeting. In it he overheard the PTB discussing their dissatisfaction that Israel had not yet attacked Iran–and that was 2004. I’m wondering if this new Islamic threat isn’t being bred to give Israel the sense of threat sufficient to finally justify a new Regional war in the Middle East. That upcoming war is the real reason why the US continues to justifying its presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan.