The Muslim Brotherhood Wants Chaos in Egypt
From the Muslim Brotherhood’s actions of the past week–especially its decision to scuttle a desperately-needed $3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund–it seems clear that Egypt’s dominant political organization is acting like a Leninist or Nazi vanguard revolutionary party, in what it evidently sees as a pre-revolutionary situation. The Brotherhood knows and says that Egypt’s economy is headed over a cliff, but wants to blame the crisis on the military the better to seize power.
American policy, which focuses on protecting a $75 billion investment in Egypt’s military over four decades, is hopelessly obsolete. The reverberations reach up to the Persian Gulf, where security officials now warn that the Muslim Brotherhood is a danger to Gulf security as big as Iran.
From today’s “Spengler” essay at Asia Times Online:
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood signaled its intent on Sunday to push the country into economic chaos. With liquid foreign exchange reserves barely equal to two months’ imports and panic spreading through the Egyptian economy, the Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Khairat al-Shater warned that it would block a US$3 billion emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) unless the military government ceded power.
“We told them [the government], you have two choices. Either postpone this issue of borrowing and come up with any other way of dealing with it without our approval, or speed up the formation of a government,” Khairat al-Shater said in a Reuters interview. [1]
The news service added that al-Shater “said he realized the country’s finances were precarious and a severe crunch could come by early to mid-May as the end of the fiscal year approached, but that this was the government’s problem to resolve”.
Last week, Egypt’s central bank reported that total reserves had fallen to $15 billion, but – more importantly – liquid foreign exchange reserves had fallen to only $9 billion, equivalent to just two months’ imports. Foreign exchange futures markets expect the Egyptian pound to lose half its value during the next year, and Egyptians have responded by hoarding diesel fuel, propane gas and other necessities.
With half of Egypt’s population living on $2 a day or less, the expected devaluation would push a significant part of the population below minimum nutrition levels, and balloon the government’s deficit as the cost of subsidizing imported necessities rose. Egypt imports half its caloric consumption.
The IMF loan was a stop gap to delay devaluation, but the Muslim Brotherhood’s al-Shater made clear that Egypt’s dominant political party would spike it. “It is not logical that I approve a loan that the transitional government would take for two or three months, then demand that I, as a permanent government, repay,” Shater told Reuters.” I have to agree to a loan, somebody else gets to spend it, then I have to pay it back? That is unjust.”
As Egypt headed towards chaotic breakdown, Western observers asked how its economy might be stabilized. This appears to have been the wrong question to begin with, for the Muslim Brotherhood will not allow the West to stabilize Egypt’s financial position. The right question is: who will benefit from the chaos?
The whole essay can be found here. But there’s more.
A Brotherhood coup in Cairo would have implications through the whole Arab world. As Issandr el-Armani wrote April 2 at The Arabist:
The US is still putting all of its eggs in the military’s basket, as the recent waiver for aid to Egypt and the backroom deal over the NGO affair showed. Gulf states like the UAE [United Arab Emirates] are in full-blown anti-Muslim Brotherhood hysteria, reflecting a wider unease in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Qatar about a Muslim Brotherhood-led Egypt.[5]That is an important wrinkle, virtually ignored by the US foreign policy establishment. To the extent American analysts have examined the links between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi royal family, they have concluded that “the Saudis gained newfound influence with the Muslim Brotherhood and its even more hard-line Salafis”, as John R Bradley argued last October in Foreign Affairs. [6]
The Gulf monarchies have a reason to fear the Muslim Brotherhood: as opposed to the tribal monarchies of the Gulf, the Brotherhood rebottles Islamic radicalism in the form of a modern totalitarian revolutionary party. If Egypt starves, the cry will go up from Cairo: “Our brothers lack bread and the corrupt House of Saud spends in wealth on whisky and whores.”
Gulf State officials have made no secret of their alarm. Egypt Independent columnist Sultan al-Qassemi [7] reported on February 2, “In a widely circulated video recording of a recent speech in Bahrain, Dubai’s police chief, who enjoys close relations with the country’s prime minister, warned against the Muslim Brotherhood, stating that their ‘threat to the region was just as serious as that of Iran’s.”
A potential conflict between the Gulf States and Egypt will further add to centrifugal tendencies in the region. They are allies against Iran, but prospective competitors, and deadly ones. The Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to wrest control of Syria from the Iranian-allied Assad family may push the the conflict into an entirely new dimension.
How do you confront an enemy that deliberately sows chaos? No-one should underestimate the intelligence and dedication of the Muslim Brotherhood. Over a year ago, the Brotherhood’s English-language website reposted my essay “Tunisia’s Lost Generation,” which summarized my “Spenglerian” thesis about Muslim demographics. The Muslim Brothers, that is, have been more attentive to their own weaknesses than, say, the American conservative mainstream, which until recently suppurated in bathos about the wonderful prospects for democracy in the Arab Spring. The Islamist leadership in Egypt is in general tougher-minded and more realistic than most of the American conservative leadership. They are much more like Communists and Nazis than the cartoonish Jihadists we sometimes imagine our enemies to be. (I do not mean to suggest they are any less Islamist; as Andrew Bostom points out, one can argue credibly Hitler was inspired by the jihadists, rather than the other way around. But these are jihadists with the organizational ruthlessness of the Nazis in 1933).
And they are about to make mincemeat out of American policy. Again, from Asia Times:
American policy seems entirely unprepared to deal with this scenario. America has paid out $75 billion in aid to the Egyptian military since the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and continues to see the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces as the fulcrum of stability in Egyptian politics.
This is a bi-partisan stance. Senators John McCain (Republican-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (Republican San Francisco) met with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo in March, evidently in the hope of persuading the Brotherhood not to challenge the armed forces’ control of the government.
McCain made clear that he wanted to maintain reduce “tensions” between the Islamists and the armed forces regime, as he said in a March 30 radio interview in Cairo:
The current tension between the military council and the Muslim Brotherhood may aggravate the situation in the country in the upcoming period during which the constitution will be drafted … I’m deeply concerned about the possibility of an escalation of tensions and the occurrence of more confrontations and demonstrations [in Egypt]. However, the more important question is whether the Muslim Brotherhood will adopt a moderate approach, or if some of its extremist members will be directing the constitution-drafting process and the [presidential] elections. [2]That is the default American position, but it appears to have become obsolete in the week since McCain and Graham went to Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood, contrary to earlier promises, was not content to take over parliament, but also fielded its own presidential candidate, Khairat al-Shater, and al-Shater showed his hand on April 8.
The Republican position to date really isn’t that much different from that of the Obama administration. It amounts to clinging to the wreckage of military rule. Here’s my recommendation:
As traditional American policy tools fail, the alternative to promoting stability is to manage instability. That is a task for which Americans lack the required cultural skills and iron stomach. But they will have to learn fast.
If the Muslim Brotherhood proposes to gain from an economic crisis that transfers power from the old civil institutions to revolutionary organizations on the street, the obvious riposte is to intensify the crisis, so that the revolutionary organizations cannot manage it: to fight fire with fire, and discredit the Muslim Brotherhood.
We don’t have the stomach anymore to do what you are prescribing.
Probably not. But the Muslim Brothers have the stomach of a starving alley cat. And the next few rounds will go to them.
“the obvious riposte is to intensify the crisis, so that the revolutionary organizations cannot manage it: to fight fire with fire, and discredit the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Is there any case study of the US using such a strategy successfully in the post-WW II era?
“…Egypt’s dominant political organization is acting like a Leninist or Nazi vanguard revolutionary party”
Obama, Grass and Muslin Brotherhood. Beautifully woven tapestry of blames in common. It seems that the Russians have the most experience in dealing with the likes of them. But I could be wrong…
We don’t know how cohesive the MB might be. They have been underground for something like three quarters of a century, always waiting for their chance. Some of them might think that their opportunity is now, some of them might think it would be prudent to go slow. A tragedy in the making could be the irresistible opening for those who cannot wait, crushing the cautious into irrelevance. How could we expect anything good to come out of this? A popular uprising against the MB? If such a thing is possible, why did not the residents of Gaza rise against Hamas?
This is how Islam works. Islam itself is directly responsible for much of the ignorance, hatred, intolerance, and violence we see in every Muslim dominated nation on earth. And yet, when the hatred and violence caused by Islam reaches a critical threshold, the calls go out for “more Islam!” rather than less. It’s like a cancer patient asking his oncologist, “Doc, I’m in pain! What can we do to feed my tumor?”
I don’t think we will need to “intensify the crisis”. I think it is going to be worse than any MB member can imagine. Crises like these have a way of spinning totally out of control. If the MB is stupid enough to push for the destruction/restructuring of Egyptian society look for the collapse of Suez Canal operations, food/fuel riots in the streets, mass destruction of ancient Egyptian monuments and war with Europe, the Gulf States and Isreal. Hold on to your hats. This is going to be a wild ride.
At last — an optimist!
M. Magaletti has set the starting point for your policy.
Simply stop feeding the beast.
Didn’t our Administration just give $11 billion to someone in Egypt?
Who to? Why?
Egyptian court suspends panel empowered to write new constitution
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/egyptian_court_suspends_panel_empowered_to_write_new_constitution.html#ixzz1rlNDzmr8
And so it begins. According to the blog the military is behind this because the judiciary is “dominated by the military” and the military is angling to get its man elected President (under the old Constitution which provides dictitorial powers to the President). We shall see how fast the MB strikes back.
Didn’t the real Spengler write “Optimism is cowardice”?
If Egyptian society decends into chaos, keeping the canal open would seem the easiest task to accomplish, as a straight-forward military adventure could do that.
Maybe the Americans could ask the UK, France, and Israel to take care of it? they’ve tried before.
The Iranians/Syrians already have chemical WMDs and rich enough uranium for dirty bombs, and MAD holds in spite of provocative Islamist rhetoric. Why they’re the focus of so much turmOil instead of Egypt is beyond me.
“Why they’re the focus of so much turmOil instead of Egypt is beyond me”.
The reasons have been expounded often enough by Spengler and other analysts at PJM. The Iranian conspiracy with insurgents groups to kill American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is reason enough for me.
The Iranians don’t seem to share your feeling that their present arsenal, sans nuclear weapons, is sufficient to their purpose (which certainly includes the domination of regional “Oil” reserves). Perhaps you should direct your complaints to Tehran?
A nuke going off is for nationalistic posing needed to hold together a third world country, not a strategic game changer.
You are entitled to your opinion but I would say that the overwhelming majority of informed analysts since 1945 consider the use or credible threatened use of a nuclear bomb to provide enormous (or “strategic”) physical and psychological effect.
Mr. Goldman:
My thesis of the MB taking 2-3 million desperate, starving, crazed, Nazi Jew-hating Egyptian symapthizers on a masssive death march across Sinai to occupy Israel is looking less and less far-fetched every day.
I venture the MB would genuinely welcome Israeli nukes obliterating the mobs, and even drowning millions of Egyptians in a broken Aswan Dam flood.
It would simultaneously create 10 million martyrs and help reduce Egypt’s overcrowding at the same time.
One could reasonably argue that only the LSE has significant leverage with the Russians but I am not sure if there is a uniform way for the LSE to formally declare itself a “friend of Israel”.
Would you like to enlighten us as to what the LSE is? Using acronyms when you assume that we all know what they mean is no way to get your message across.
If the Muslim Brotherhood had accepted to the IMF loan, would an Egyptian economic meltdown be averted?
If the Muslim Brotherhood had accepted the IMF loan, would an Egyptian economic meltdown be averted?
It would be postponed in any event.
By how much? To play Devil’s Advocate a bit:
Echoing Kent Gatewood below, haven’t you previously commented that at this point the military government is a totally out of control kleptocracy and that no matter how much money they get starvation would nonetheless happen because a lot of those who need the resources would never get them? Has this changed?
Could we read this from the Muslim “Brotherhood’s presidential candidate Khairat al-Shater”:
“It is not logical that I approve a loan that the transitional government would take for two or three months, then demand that I, as a permanent government, repay,” Shater told Reuters.” I have to agree to a loan, somebody else gets to spend it, then I have to pay it back? That is unjust.”
As “We have no interest in the military government pocketing a loan which we’d then have to repay”?
Concur.
Al-Shater is probably an intellectual and spiritual first cousin of V.I. Lenin, Hitler and Haman, but even honest Abraham Lincoln would be a fool to assume liability for a loan to Egypt’s kleptocracy.
Using the numbers David Goldman provides (roughly $4.5 Billion for each month of imports), a $3 Billion IMF loan would cover just a few weeks of imports. What happens then?
I see Egypt requiring Greece-level financial support to ward off collapse. I don’t see Egypt’s Arab “brothers” stepping in beyond token levels. Nor do I see France and Germany eager to prop up another failed state. Obama will no doubt “accelerate” military aid that’s only recently been slowed down – as if that will help – and the Congress is in no mood to bail out another US-hating state.
Four thoughts: 1) If all the IMF loan would have done is stave off the inevitable devaluation, then the IMF should count itself lucky that the MB refused the loan.
2) If this chaos is happening as you describe, why isn’t the military stepping in to stage a coup of its own?
3)Also, David, you wrote: ” … one can argue credibly Hitler was inspired by the jihadists, rather than the other way around.” From watching the Military Channel, I learned that Rudolf Hess, who grew up in Alexandria Egypt, helped Hitler edit Mein Kampf while in prison. Mein Kampf sounds eerily like my jihad. Do you think Hess suggested the title based on his knowledge of Arabic? Just an idle speculation.
4) Finally, not all conservatives thought that the Egyptian Spring would turn out well. One who did think it would turn out well, and who disappointed me enormously for it, was william Kristol.
Follow the link to the Andrew Bostom essay for an argument that Islam influenced Nazism more than vice versa.
The mainstream conservative view was that the Arab Spring was a good thing. Few conservatives rejected it out of hand at the beginning.
The IMF loan was of course no panacea but an IMF program generally is a precondition for other forms of assistance.
Wouldn’t the Egyptian military automatically steal the IMF loan?
Is there a significant possibility that Egypt, Turkey, and Iran could coordinate their militaries once the MB comes to power?
(Sorry, can’t avoid thinking about Dumb and Dumber when using possibility.)
A recent article noted that Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria (I think) have set up co-ordinated command centers in both Iran and Syria.
I’m waiting for the MB and the bad half of the Royals to jump in; include the bad half of the Paki/Afghan ISI/Taliban combo to climb onboard too.
Seems like some major realignments are being ignored by the State Dept once again. The Three Norns are probably more interested in domestic springboarding than actual consequence, unless friends and family are making money in some side biznis over there.
I wish we had a better picture of the splits and realliances over there, similar to our Dems and Repubs reaching across the aisle as they pretend to stab each other in the back.
I also wish people wouldn’t expect MidEasterners to be unified in a way that we are not, or easily classified along simplistic lines such as ‘Sunni vs. Shia’.
Look at Lebanon or Bosnia. Nobody really knew who was friend or foe, or what they were fighting for.
as much as i read here and in his books Mr. Goldman generally makes the point: it is true you have to play hardball from the beginning with extremist and death loving rulers like leninist, nazi, maoist (for me as a german in this historical order) and also today islamist;
you have to fight and to crash them from the beginning before they will bring chaos, slavery and death around them (that means today around the world)
Confronting the Communists, Nazis and Muslim Brotherhood at the same time would require a ruthless leader not bound by Western constitutions. It would make more sense to prioritize because such a leader may not have been born yet. I wonder if the Communists would be willing to confront the Muslim Brotherhood on our behalf if we guaranteed oil at $100/bbl over the next 25 years. It wouldn’t hurt to ask…
I dunno Spengler, Im getting impatient here. U have been predicting the starvation of Egypt for some time now. Ive been anxiously waiting to see that country burn to the ground and I even made bets with my Arab friends that at least 1 million people will die of starvation and violence in the next year. Im starting to get nervous about my wagers! I bet 3 people a (Egyptian) months salary. Now THAT would be a REAL tradgety if I lost all that money! What should I do? Hedge my bets? Or have faith and get out my old disco LP “Burn Baby Burn…Egyyptian Inferno”? Or maybe here is something I can do to help the cause?
Happy Passover!
That money is tight. No way anyone gets out of there alive; the problem is how will you know?
How can a visit by two Republican Senators be considered “bi-partisan”? Even assuming that Graham is “Republican San Francisco”. He is from South Carolina. There are no functioning Republicans in San Francisco.
“4) Finally, not all conservatives thought that the Egyptian Spring would turn out well. One who did think it would turn out well, and who disappointed me enormously for it, was william Kristol.” Well someof these same folks thought Serb-rein Kosovo would be a wonderful place, now didn’t they? Cold reason seems to be kicking in for David re: the MBO in Syria, he seems to want both sides to lose ala that arms dealer character/rival to Yuri Orlov arming both Iran and Iraq in The Lord of War. I understand at this point there’s no smoking guns, just lotsa people who quit Al-Jazeera pointing out that they were told to stay away from the best weapons smuggling routes for the Syrian rebels.
“There are no functioning Republicans in San Francisco.” Seems to have been a typo, though these days Lindsey Graham might be mistaken for Nancy Pelosi on certain issues.
And I can understand why even a non-Islamist government of Egypt wouldn’t want the IMF to lend them money and then turn around and demand ownership interests in the only collateral Egypt has left i.e. Suez Canal, some limited gas fields, and tourist resorts at Hurghada and Sharm El Sheikh with a lot fewer Russians/Ukrainians than used to vacation there.
I’ve argued in print before that the Syrian problem is insoluble as long as Iran is meddling. Neutralize Iran first, and then worry about Syria. The idea that the US should engage in a proxy war with Iran without taking out Iran’s nuclear weapons program seems entirely bass-ackwards to me.
Two more items that Spengler may find interesting:
1) Over at Belmont Club, Wretchard’s getting some pushback from a Chinese poster who guys by the handle Baobo, who basically says the only Chinese government that the West would be satisfied with is one that would re-open the German and other Western imperial colonies of the Boxer Rebellion era i.e. one that’s totally weak and humiliated.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2012/04/10/chinese-laundry/#comment-201178
While I don’t quite agree, after reading Vanity Fair telling its gullible readers that Mikhail Khodorkovsky is the most popular public figure in Russia and would win an election in a landslide, it’s hard for me not to wonder if the Western media is about as deluded when it comes to China as Russia. I think the only way Edward Lucas of the Economist would be satisfied is if Russia did in fact collapse into four rival states as he reportedly told fund manager Eric Kraus would happen back in the 1990s. Certainly no sane or popularlly elected Russian government would back NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia anymore than we’d favor a Chinese/Russian military alliance with advisors/’contractors’ on the ground Mexico and Guatemala.
http://zenpundit.com/?p=7692
2) Mark Safranski of ZenPundit has a link to an (Israeli?) author named Gur Laish comparing Biblical warfare by the Amorites to Hamas’ strategy in Gaza. I suppose there’s a long tradition of this sort of thing since the Irgun’s favorite weapons supplier among the British was a devout Christian Zionist who claimed the Books of Joshua and Judges were his military textbooks.
Cheers to the last free blog at PJM!
“The idea that the US should engage in a proxy war with Iran without taking out Iran’s nuclear weapons program seems entirely bass-ackwards to me.” Ah but David, an attack on Iran will send gasoline to $7.50-$8 a gallon nationwide, a course of events that not even the Bureau of Labor Statistics (aka Amerikansky Gostat) or the Obama Administration can spin away. After all, Steve Chu said getting as close as possible to the EU average is ideal despite the U.S. alone without Canada and Mexico sitting on vastly more oil than the EU.
An attack on Syria or a ‘covert’ war so massive it becomes undeniable, Libya style? Mmmm…probably not, but maybe an excuse for the summer peak gas prices your previous column predicted that are coming anyway.
The only thing that has prevented Duck of Death removal 2.0 in Assad’s case is that his Allawites and even secular Sunnis are more motivated to fight than Gaddafi’s tribe, and Russia and China have drawn a line in the sand on any UN authorization for no-fly zones.
If you have to ask what it costs to be a superpower, you can’t afford it. The gas price probably will go up. I don’t care. Let Iran get nuclear weapons, and you’ve got 1912 in the Balkans, but with WMD, with Russia and China draw in to the black hole.
I recall a professor of middle eastern studies interviewed on NPR when the Arab Spring was in full flower intone that “the Muslim Brotherhood is not radical Islamist – it is simply untrue” and there is nothing to see hear, move on. As far from reality as that man was/is, what are McCain and Graham taking to think they can rock this group? What – with their purse? I am as far from knowing anything about Egypt as the next guy, but I know street fighting and those MB boys are about kicking ass and anyone can see that if they bother to look. You take to these guys with some serious mind warp and they lose – unrelenting, mind f**& with their banks, their markets, their culture – leaving 100,000 cases of Jack Daniels on the docks, printing their money by the bale, dropping a zillion CARE packages a day and opening free Laurel and Hardy movie houses, CDS of Metallica and taking some MB boys out in the alleys now and then – like who did that? – will do more to bring down MB than a carrier group. By the time we get through the damn country will be opening sex tourist destination resorts in every village for Eurotrash and when they arrive, well then, then we drop the nuke.
I don’t know what illusions Sens. Graham and McCain might harbor, but they don’t explain their actions one way or another. They are going through the motions of furthering the bi-partisan American policy towards Egypt, which is to rely on the Egyptian military. I doubt it will work. But if I were in their shoes, I would go through the motions, too. That’s why being Senator is a lousy job.
Maybe Sens. Graham and McCain were telling the Sunni generals that the Communists are laughing because we, the Judeo-Christians, are about hit the Shiite mullahs. The Senators may also have advised the Egyptian Generals to consider converting to Eastern Orthodax Christianity and moving to Athens, just to be safe.
“The Senators may also have advised the Egyptian Generals to consider converting to Eastern Orthodax Christianity and moving to Athens, just to be safe.” Well they certainly would feel free publically to threaten Greece with further humilation and/or denial of the failing loans its receiving from the EU if it even thinks about offering the Russian Navy a lease in the Pireaus. I’m assuming the port facilities Greece could offer in return for some very generous Russian loans would be much better than at Tartus in Syria.
Gen. Leonid Ivashov (ret.), chairman of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems, warned in the Duma last month that “This aim [of an Israeli or American attack on Iran] is obvious. A military build-up will start and China and Europe will be left without Middle Eastern oil, a new war will come to our borders, will lead to the destabilization of the situation in the North Caucasus, infringement on our positions on the Caspian.”
I don’t agree with this, of course, but the statement is revealing for its concern about the “destabilization of the situation on the North Caucasus” and the Caspian. Russia is prone to destabilization throughout its Muslim south, and its involvement in Syria is in part motivated by this vulnerability.
In my view, quite the opposite is the case. If the US were to behave like a superpower rather than an NGO, it would help sanitize these problems on Russia’s southern borders.
Found it…
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/former-russian-gen-russia-is-defending-the-entire-world-from-fascism-is-ready-to-use-military-power-to-defend-iran-syria
Well David at least you give a damn about the S. Caucases. Seems some in D.C. don’t or actually think jihadis there different/less lunatic/dangerous than elsewhere. Hopefully sanity prevails, Assad steps down, and Syria gets non-MBO, non-Iranian aligned government, non-combatant Allawaites/Syrian/Iraqi Christians fled to Syria stay alive.
“If the US were to behave like a superpower rather than an NGO, it would help sanitize these problems on Russia’s southern borders.”
I do not dispute your statement but I would suggest that our help to sanitize their South seems like a weak argument to try to convince them not to follow through with their perceived obligation to defend Iran and Syria if attacked. We simply have not given the Russians enough reasons to look the other way. If our republican leadership does truly believe that Russia is our number one foe then the signals from this foe have not been sufficiently contemplated.
The gap between the Superpower and the number one foe is tremendous. If we attack Iran and Russia looks the other way without reasonable incentives to do so then the gap will increase exponentially. History would record that the current Russian leadership was in effect weak.
Either Russia is our number one foe and their leadership will act accordingly. Or, Russian leadership is weak and they are not our number one foe. Can’t have it both ways.
But I could be wrong especially if the iRussian leadership is quietly provided with billions of dollars via Swiss bank accounts. Then you can have it both ways.
“… I would suggest that our help to sanitize their South seems like a weak argument to try to convince them not to follow through with their perceived obligation to defend Iran and Syria if attacked.” That’s the thing. This is one armchair retired Russian general who may or may not speak for his active duty colleagues, anymore than a certain loudmouth Chinese military analyst that was widely quoted in the alt Right media a few months back as saying “prepare for war with the USA”. Sure, the Chinese are going to throw the million worker army at FoxConn out of a job just to take a wrecked Taiwan? We all know better than that.
I don’t doubt that Russia still views U.S. as adversary no. 1 with certain NATO countries (i.e. the Baltic states) bringing up the rear. Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin (aka the heir apparent to Putin?) has said as much. But he also says NATO is a bureaucracy seeking to preserve and enlarge itself like any other. And he says that after seeing the sausage get made up close in Brussells and playing vigorous games of basketball with lotsa NATO majors and colonels.
Nonetheless, I agree that it’s getting increasingly difficult these days to square Russia as U.S. adversary number one with the desire to bomb Iran, since David is well aware the Russians will be denouncing such a move all the way to the bank.
Putting the anti-shipping and anti-air missiles in Syria was basically a way of the Kremlin saying, “um no, you’re not going to repeat Libya in Damascus” and drawing a line in the sand, if you will. That said they are not opposed to Assad stepping down in a negotiated deal that keeps their lease in Tartus intact.
And there most certainly have been quiet deals made to get Russia to go a certain way, whether its the 100s of millions going to Russian Railways (Yakunin being a major patron of the Rus Orthodox Church) for Afghan logistics, NASA paying Russians to hitchike into space, or undisclosed Israeli/U.S. tech transfers.
End of thread for me.
Well stated Mr. X.
Nonetheless, the posture that the republican leadership is taking toward Russia makes it seem as if we were daring them to get involved in our dispute with Iran. Maybe republicans would have to concede the “reset” is working if bombing is to start prior to the election.
I wonder how history books would record Obama’s presidency if he attacked Iran before the election and then lost the election. The risk to him is too high. After the election Obama would be in a better position to attack Iran than Romney because Obama will get less resistance. Yet, Israel fears that Obama will not attack after the election so Israel must press Obama now, with campaign financing as a lever. I am of the opinion that this Nobel Peace Prize winner has shown that he is not afraid to use force and that he will attack. But, if I was living in Israel then I would want Bibi to lock up that commitment from Obama prior to the election.
I would like to see Romeny, Obama and Bibi in a debate. That way Bibi could protect Romney from embarrassment on foreign policy issues. After the debate Bibi might conclude that it is safer to bet on Obama than to hope that Romney will figure it out in a timely fashion.
But I could be wrong…
“I wonder how history books would record Obama’s presidency if he attacked Iran before the election and then lost the election” – becuase winning elections is what it’s all about in the Age of Obama.
Yes. I doubt that for the next six months Obama will have a higher priority than winning the election and his decisions will reflect that. I would further argue that it is easier to be a progressive than a conservative but I digress…
The whole situation is a win/win for the Brotherhood.
They want to be in the government. If the current government reject the demand, there will be chaos in Egypt, as Mr Goldman describes correctly. The chaos will result in an Islamic regime led by the Brotherhood.
On the other, if the demand is met, that is forming a Brotherhood led new government, the Brotherhood will be in the the lead.
The US policy, led by navies (in the better case) or fools (in the more realistic case) believed that the Brotherhood is moderate, for some reason.
The end result is going toward minimal US influence in Egypt, and a Islamic regime.
Good Job Obama/Clinton.