America's Unraveling Power

[Ray]

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor

America's Unraveling Power

By GEOFFREY WHEATCROFT
Published: February 10, 2011


BATH, ENGLAND — We don't know what will happen. After the high drama of Tahrir Square and Hosni Mubarak's imminent departure we don't know what will come next.

But if detailed prognostication is foolish and presumptuous, some things can be said with confidence. No regime that follows Mubarak's in Cairo is likely to be as friendly to Washington. More generally, American policy is unraveling throughout the Middle East, and far beyond. We are witnessing an historic eclipse of U.S. power.

Despite the difficulties American forces have lately experienced — history might have taught that there are rarely short sharp victories to be won in Afghanistan or Iraq — and for all the economic challenge from Asia, the United States remains overwhelmingly the most powerful country in the world, or in history. In military might it overshadows most of its allies and enemies combined.

And yet America too often seems hopeless and helpless. President Barack Obama is a churchgoing man and must know the story in St. Matthew's Gospel of the Centurion, "having soldiers under me," who speaks of the kind of temporal authority he can exercise. "I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."

Today, when the American president says "Go," no one goeth. That includes even his supposed friends. The Middle East countries that have received enormously the largest sums in American aid are Israel and Egypt. But what happens when the White House tries to call in part of the debt?

First Obama begged Benjamin Netanyahu to desist from building any further settlements for a short period, to encourage a renewed peace process and help the Palestinian leadership. Then the president implored Mubarak to leave right away and enable an orderly transition of power. Both men studiously ignored him. Even if Mubarak does now depart, it will be on instructions from his own army rather than from the White House.

Never mind those billions after billions of dollars their countries have accepted. In their dealings with the Americans, Bibi and Hosni alike might have borrowed the sarcastic words of Prince Schwarzenberg of Austria after the Russians had helped suppress the Hungarian rising in 1849: "They will be astonished by our ingratitude."

For that matter, in different contexts, no amount of American cajolery or veiled threats can persuade the Chinese government to revalue their currency, nor induce the Pakistani government to cut links between its intelligence services and the Taliban.

From one side of the world to the other, countries are doing what they think best for themselves in the circumstances, rather than what the White House, the State Department or the Pentagon think they should do.

Some of the reasons for this helplessness are obvious enough. President Obama has been criticized for excessive caution in handling the Egyptian crisis, advising Mubarak to stand down but not putting severe pressure on him, expressing approval of the democracy movement without fully embracing it. He showed something of the same nervous hesitation earlier over popular protest in Iran.

His critics say that this nervosity is ignoble and misplaced, and that fears about a new Revolt of Islam sweeping the Middle East are exaggerated. Maybe so, although there are well-informed people, among them an Oxford historian and a former American diplomat, who pour cold water on the enthusiasts.

In his learned recent book "The Arabs," Eugene Rogan gave his view that Islamists would likely win free elections in most Arab countries today. And another illuminating book, "The Much Too Promised Land," by Aaron David Miller, tells of his years as a State Department official engaged in what is forlornly called the peace process. As he says, in the Middle East today the United States finds itself "trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon," where America is "not liked, not feared, and not respected."

Although Israel is not liked either, it's feared — but also fearful. The Israeli reaction to events in Egypt has been close to panic-stricken. David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Post, thinks that Israel's "concrete strategic assumptions were liquefied almost overnight" by the "colossal psychological blow" from Cairo. "The Israeli government is freaking out," says Shmuel Bachar of the Israel Institute for Policy and Strategy. Those apprehensions may also be exaggerated, but they certainly aren't incomprehensible, and it could be that the most intransigent Israelis are more clear-sighted than starry-eyed Americans who urge Israel to embrace the Arab popular rising.

As Bachar says: "For the past 30 years we have depended on Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Now, suddenly, we have rediscovered the existence of something called an Egyptian public, the existence of which we've vigorously tried to ignore."

We still don't know for certain the degree of popularity enjoyed by Islamists, in Egypt or elsewhere. Only putting it to the electoral test can answer that, and Rogan might prove to be too bleak in that assessment, although the election of a Hamas government in Gaza gives some weight to it. But he is surely right to say "the inconvenient truth about the Arab world today is that, in any free election, those parties most hostile to the United States are likely to win."

Not so long ago it might have made sense as realpolitik for Washington to back undemocratic regimes, from the days of "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" in Latin America to Mubarak himself, but at least those regimes could be relied on to co-operate with their sponsor. One of the consequences of the end of the Cold War is that the old deal no longer holds.

Even Mubarak's departure has been accompanied by the words of his foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, saying angrily that Washington should not "impose" its will on "a great country."

This is a strange new world the Americans find themselves in, and one where they are finding it harder than ever to impose their will on anyone anywhere.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft is the author of "The Controversy of Zion," "The Strange Death of Tory England" and "Yo, Blair!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/opinion/11iht-edwheatcroft11.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=global]US Unravelling Power

A very pessimistic analysis.

If indeed the US is losing its clout around the world, what could be the flaw in their foreign policy?

Even in Bush's Presidency the US got bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq with devastating number of casualty and floundered over how to exit. Afghanistan was a equal fiasco. The so called 'coalition of the willing' started in droves becoming the 'unwilling'. Even the most loyal Yo Blair's Army was not at all pleased at the way the war was being addressed (see British Army informal site ARRSE).

Therefore, is Obama weak or was his Administration only the legatee of US falling popularity that was started with Bush. Could it be that the world was digging their heels because of the US flouting all international checks and balances?

Did Obama beg Netanyahu?

If El Barade comes as the Egyptian President, how does the Govt become ani US. He was always a loyalist of the West, or in other words, the US!

What can be said of Bush and that cannot be said of Obama, Bush capitalised on whipping up a constant state of fear of terrorist attack on the US and the perennial danger of the 'axis of evil'. Then via the gung ho rhetoric portrayed himself and his Administration as the greatest Force on Planet Earth fighting these terrorists and cleaning up the world! The rhetoric was so stage managed that even the world started believing it. The negative part was that it also spurred the real terrorists on to greater goals. This cycle ensured that US was the 'saviour' of the world. In actuality, it would not be too far to realise what was the real effect all this caused.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, indeed, the US is experiencing the famous last words of Prince Schwarzenberg of Austria , "They will be astonished by our ingratitude."

 

[Ray]

Russia: Kremlin Eyeing Egypt Events with Caution

February 9, 2011 - 2:20pm,

by Tom Balmforth

Moscow is remaining conspicuously silent on the Egyptian crisis as the Kremlin worries about the possibility that the fall of President Hosni Mubarak's regime in Cairo could create a ripple effect in the authoritarian-minded states of Russia's near abroad, analysts say.

Anti-government protests in Egypt have already invigorated opposition activists in several members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, including Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. "For Russia, it [the events in Cairo] is a kind of Color Revolution. That's why they are very afraid of it," said Alexei Malashenko, a political scientist at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

Armenia's newly energized opposition coalition, the Armenian National Congress, has already declared its intention to hold a protest at Yerevan's Freedom Square. Opposition leaders in Azerbaijan, meanwhile, are linking the recent arrest of a 20-year-old youth activist to government worries about an "Egypt Effect" hitting Baku. Malashenko also pointed to statements made by Kazakhstani opposition organizations about emulating the Egypt rallies. At the same time, he ruled out as "not possible" any "real" knock-on OFF unrest in Russia's near abroad.

Russia did not officially react to events in Egypt until the sixth day of mass protests in Cairo. And when Russian officials finally spoke out, they were restrained in their comments. President Dmitry Medvedev, in a February 3 telephone conversation, urged a peaceful resolution to the crisis and thanked Mubarak for ensuring the safety of thousands of holidaying Russians, the Kremlin's official website reported.

"Dmitry Medvedev expressed the desire and hope that the current complex moment in the life of friendly Egypt is overcome in the nearest future in a peaceful manner and within the legal framework for solving the current problems," the Kremlin report said. Analysts in Moscow interpreted the reported phone conversation as a sign of Moscow's tacit support for Egypt's embattled ruler.

Since then, Russian diplomats have worked quietly to find ways to defuse tension. On February 8, Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin called for the UN Security Council to send a mission to the Middle East to assess the turmoil in Egypt and revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, wire agencies reported. Mubarak on February 9 met Russia's Middle East envoy Alexander Sultanov. No details of the discussion were immediately available, media outlets reported.

In the domestic arena, the Egypt crisis is resonating awkwardly for the Kremlin. "Moscow, and particularly [Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin do not want any of this change. It reminds society of the possibility of revolution and riots. That's why in principal they are against," said Malashenko.

Alex Nice, a Russia analyst at London-based think tank Chatham House, said that coming to the support of protestors in Egypt would contradict the logic of police crackdowns on the opposition activists in Russia. Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov recently sought to compare Premier Putin to Mubarak during an opposition rally in Moscow on January 31. Dozens of more radical protestors were arrested in the vicinity of the gathering on Triumph Square.

Nice also said that the unrest in Egypt is unpalatable for the Russian authorities because it challenges one of the basic tenets of Russia's current leadership - "stability is necessarily a public good."

Egypt under the 30-year rule of Soviet-educated Mubarak has been a reliable partner for Moscow in the Middle East, even though Cairo has maintained closer ties with Washington. Moscow's sway in the Middle East has ebbed considerably since the Soviet era. But of late the Kremlin has tried to raise its profile in the region, underscored by Medvedev's January visit to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. "Russia is not preoccupied with Egypt itself, [it is] preoccupied with [its] own position," said Malashenko.

Malashenko added that the Egypt precedent inevitably raises uncomfortable questions for Central Asia's leaders, several of whom – like Mubarak - have been at the helm of predominantly Muslim countries for over two decades. Further, unlike the Color Revolutions, the Egypt unrest was not triggered by elections and thus poses a different kind of threat.

Russia's concerns have helped prompt officials in Moscow to bolster security arrangements, said Alexei Mukhin, director of the Moscow-based Center for Political Information. "It is this kind of worry that was apparent in the raft of documents that were signed in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) at the end of last year. They have created a concrete mechanism for deploying troops in countries who have signed this treaty," said Mukhin.

The seven-member bloc met on December 10 and "approved a declaration on the CSTO peacekeeping force and a declaration of the CSTO member states, and also signed a package of joint documents ," according to the Kremlin website.

On February 4, the eleventh day of Egypt mass protests, the general secretary of the Russia-led bloc said it would carry out drills for the peacekeeping force in 2011, "most probably" in Central Asia, according to the official Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

Russia and Ex USSR states Reaction to Egypt

If the US has lost its clout, the others are not quite ready to burn their fingers in the chestnut.

In fact, Russia is worried that this might be another of the US organised 'Colour Revolution'!

 

[Ray]

Tehran vows to crush rally supporting Tunis, Cairo

Says only approved gathering permitted

By Ben Birnbaum

The Washington Times

7:03 p.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2011

After praising the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Iranian authorities Wednesday threatened to crush a domestic rally proposed to show support for the demonstrators who took to the streets in Tunis and Cairo in massive anti-government protests.

The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards called opposition leaders "spies," while another official said Iranians can show their solidarity for Tunisians and Egyptians on Friday at a government-sanctioned rally on the 32nd anniversary of the Iranian revolution.

In Washington, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley needled the theocratic regime on Twitter.

"There is a certain irony about Iran's reaction to Egypt. What is good for Tahrir Square should be good for Tehran," he wrote, referring to the plaza in Cairo where massive demonstrations against President Hosni Mubarak are in their third week.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs challenged the Iranian government to allow the protests.

"We'll see if the government of Iran is confident enough in its meeting the demands of its people to let its people show the demands that they have of their government," he said.

Iranian opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, both former presidential candidates, had submitted a request to the Interior Ministry to hold a solidarity rally on Monday.

They were the two most high-profile leaders of the opposition "Green Movement," which blossomed in June 2009, after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed a second term in an election seen as fraudulent by most analysts. Millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the election results, until authorities cracked down on the demonstrations and arrested thousands.

Mr. Mousavi, the former Iranian prime minister believed to won more votes than Mr. Ahmadinejad, said, "Whatever we are witnessing in the streets of Tunis, Sanaa, Cairo, Alexandria and Suez, [they] take their origins from the millions-strong protests in Tehran in June 2009."

Hossein Hamedani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency on Wednesday that he considered the opposition leaders "anti-revolutionary and spies" and that the Guards would "strongly confront any of their movements."

Iranian Prosecutor General Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejeie invited Iranians to come to the Friday commemoration to show their support for the Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrators.

"If anybody wants to side with the wishes of the peoples of Egypt and Tunisia, they should come along with the establishment and people on [Friday] and take part in the rally," he said, according to the Iranian Labor News Agency.

"On the other hand, choosing another day [to hold a rally] means these individuals wish to be in a separate front and will create divisions. This is a political act but the people have to be aware, and if required, they will respond to them."

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the protests against pro-Western autocrats in Egypt and Tunisia "an irreversible defeat for the United States" and part of a "Islamic awakening" in the region.

Andrew Apostolou, a Middle East expert and senior program manager at Freedom House in Washington, said the latest events had to be seen "as part of a psychological battle" between the Iranian regime and the opposition.

"The trick that the opposition needs to pull off is to put the regime in a position where its options are bad or worse," he said.

"'Bad' is the regime turns the opposition down, then it looks repressive and hypocritical. 'Worse' is the regime decides to let the opposition rally and is confronted with street protests. The regime has taken the bad option."

Mr. Apostolou believes opposition to the regime in Iran is as strong as it is in Egypt, but Mr. Mubarak is more restrained in his reaction because of his dependence on U.S. aid.

"In Egypt, for all the disgusting faults of the regime, the United States is supplying the kit, and the United States has made it abundantly clear to Mubarak that it does not want Egyptians crushed under American tanks," he noted.

"The people supplying the kit in Iran are the Chinese. They regard shooting protesters as a form of product-testing."

Iran Spooked

If indeed the revolution spreads to Iran and the Govt is imbalanced or toppled, it would be a coup for the US. The US would have removed a regime that is a anathema to the US interests, without firing a shot!

So, has US lost its touch? Or is it that they have realised that it is better to effect regime change without an expensive war and without antagonising the world that the US is a gung ho power.

Influencing nations and gaining friends!