By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel–When Muhamad ElBaradei tried to vote March 19 in the referendum on Egypt’s constitutional changes, he was attacked by hundreds of Islamists with stones, at least one of which hit him, and shoes. “We don’t want you,” the mob shouted. “He lives in the United States and wants to rule us. It’s out of the question,” one demonstrator said.
“We don’t want an American agent,” said another. ElBaradei ran away without voting.
Just five weeks after President Barack Obama helped overthrow the Egyptian regime, accompanied by endless media reports about how great and democratic this was all going to be, and after we were told by scores of instant “experts” that the Muslim Brotherhood was weak and harmless, Egypt is beginning to reap the whirlwind.
Why should anyone be surprised? This statement from Rashad Bayoumi, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s number-two leader, as translated by MEMRI, should trigger memories:
“The thing I fear most is foreign intervention. Our people and societies must realize that their main enemy abroad is the U.S. and the Zionist gang, and that their main enemy within is Israel. Everybody must take this into account, and must be aware that this is the enemy that lurks in the midst of Middle Eastern society. This must be clear to everybody.”
My thoughts flew back to 1979. After the Iranian Islamist revolution, which took power the previous February, the administration of President Jimmy Carter did everything possible to assure the new regime of American friendship. But the more the U.S. government tried to engage them, the more suspicious Iran’s new leaders became.
Why? Because they understood that the U.S. goal was to moderate the revolution, which is precisely what they didn’t want to happen. The last straw was when National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, the moderate front man for the regime. This was seen in Tehran as a dire threat and led directly to the seizure of the U.S. embassy and the taking of the Americans there as hostages.
So Bayoumi’s words remind us that the closer the Americans try to get to the Islamists–to prove that the United States is their good buddy–the more they fear “foreign intervention” and feel the need to express their anti-Americanism.
It also reminds us, of course, that Israel is the number-one obsession of the Brotherhood and they are sure to try to implement their plan for attacking and if possible destroying it.
But America can’t make friends with revolutionary Islamists because:
–They hate America because they have an ideological view of it as the enemy. And they’re right in doing so because the United States will not ultimately support and help them achieve their goals.
–They want to keep their distance because they correctly believe America will help strengthen moderate non-Islamists against them.
–They want to keep their distance because they correctly believe America will try to help and strengthen the most relatively moderate tendencies among Islamists, thus coopting them and destroying their movement.
–They wish to push America away to prove to each other and their rivals that they are not American agents.
There are two ways for the United States to understand this: the hard way and the easy way. The easy way is to understand the history, ideology, and behavior of the Islamists.
The hard way is to ignore all of the evidence and experience, create catastrophic situations, and only then wake up and try to repair the damage done by their own policies.
I think U.S. policy is doing this the hard way.
*
Reportedly, security forces stood by and did nothing when ElBaredei was attacked. As I’ve warned, the pro-Islamist views of many officers are now also becoming apparent. Christians report that those killed during a peaceful demonstration on behalf of a church destroyed by the army were shot by soldiers.
This latest scene is a fitting symbol of reality as compared to the fantasies of so much of the Western political leaders, mass media, and “experts.” Picture ElBaradei greatly outnumbered by insult-screaming Islamists. They attack him, he runs away.
At this point–to show how bad the situation is in practice–Amr Moussa, veteran radical Arab nationalist, Israel-baiter, and anti-American is quickly becoming the best one can hope for in terms of the new regime.
The only thing surprising to me is that the Islamists have been emboldened so fast. I thought they would be cautious a while longer in their pretense at being moderate and pro-democracy. But revolutionary Islamists quickly become arrogant when people make concessions to them and they conclude that they are strong and victorious.
After all, they believe that they are 100 percent right and everything they say is divinely ordained. So why should they tolerate anything else? After all, in their eyes their rivals aren’t just disagreeing with them but defying God, not to mention being a lackies of athiestic/Crusader/Zionist imperialism. And that’s what they called ElBaradei.
For ElBaradei the turnaround happened almost overnight. He was the Brotherhood’s front man but broke with them over the referendum. And now they want to break him.
So is the mass media going to start saying: Hey, we were wrong! These people are strong, organized, and radical? Or, rather, is the Obama Administration going to sink deeper into the al-Qaida bad; all other Islamists good mantra? To put it another way, are they willing to lose face for exaggerating the power of Facebook?
*
Important Political Changes in Iran
I’m not going to write about this in detail but just so you’re aware, there are some important shifts in Iranian ruling circles.
1. Rafsanjani, the most “moderate” leader in the establishment has been pushed out. He has favored a more pragmatic policy aimed at making money than at pursuing ideological aggression. He has been dissatisfied since the regime stole the election in 2009. Cautious and power-oriented, Rafsanjani won’t take any steps to join the opposition or to oppose the regime but this does not mark some weakening in the ruling coalition.
2. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to expand his power, even challenging Supreme Guide Khamenei. Ahmadinejad has the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) behind him.
3. But the IRGC is also developing an independent role. Might it one day stage a coup? Some Iranians refer to what’s happening now as a “silent coup” given the IRGC’s unprecedented power.
4. Khamenei is competing with Ahmadinejad in part by becoming more openly radical and strident.
In short, while these are interesting developments to watch they signal neither the weakening of the regime nor a change in policy. If anything, the most extreme ideologues are gaining even more power.
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org He may be contacted at barry.rubin@sdjewishworld.com