New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio ... sident-who-lost-egypt-1.340057
Published: Jan 30, 2011
Author: Aluf Benn
Post Date: 2011-01-30 18:40:45 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 36065
Comments: 44
Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled. The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara. America's general weakness clearly affects its friends. But unlike Carter, who preached human rights even when it hurt allies, Obama sat on the fence and exercised caution. He neither embraced despised leaders nor evangelized for political freedom, for fear of undermining stability. Obama began his presidency with trips to Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and in speeches in Ankara and Cairo tried to forge new ties between the United States and the Muslim world. His message to Muslims was "I am one of you," and he backed it by quoting from the Koran. President Hosni Mubarak did not join him on the stage at Cairo University, and Obama did not mention his host. But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom. Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation, and focused his policy on demanding the suspension of construction in the settlements and on the abortive attempt to renew the peace talks. That failure led him to back off from the peace process in favor of concentrating on heading off an Israeli-Iranian war. Americans debated constantly the question of whether Obama cut his policy to fit the circumstances or aimed at the wrong targets. The absence of human rights issues from U.S. policy vis-a-vis Arab states drew harsh criticism; he was accused of ignoring the zeitgeist and clinging to old, rotten leaders. In the past few months many opinion pieces have appeared in the Western press asserting that the days of Mubarak's regime are numbered and calling on Obama to reach out to the opposition in Egypt. There was a sense that the U.S. foreign policy establishment was shaking off its long-term protege in Cairo, while the administration lagged behind the columnists and commentators. The administration faced a dilemma. One can guess that Obama himself identified with the demonstrators, not the aging dictator. But a superpower isn't the civil rights movement. If it abandons its allies the moment they flounder, who would trust it tomorrow? That's why Obama rallied to Mubarak's side until Friday, when the force of the protests bested his regime. The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail. Now Obama will try to hunker down until the winds of revolt die out, and then forge ties with the new leaders in the region. It cannot be assumed that Mubarak's successors will be clones of Iran's leaders, bent on pursuing a radical anti-American policy. Perhaps they will emulate Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who navigates among the blocs and superpowers without giving up his country's membership in NATO and its defense ties with the United States. Erdogan obtained a good deal for Turkey, which benefits from political stability and economic growth without being in anyone's pocket. It could work for Egypt, too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Wouldn't be the first time we lost Egypt.
We lost Iran by the way the Shah and his secret police had been propped up by the U.S. government in general. If you read the history of foreign entanglements and the undue influence we have see the west engage in politically and socially, the backlash that happened in Iran was to be expected. The Hostage situation did Carter in to the extent that event hurt him. And the Iranians manipulated that as much as possible by waiting until Reagan got in office. Egypt is an explosion in progress, and until the chips fall, nobody know how this is going to hurt anyone worse than anyone else. Though it's not surprising to see the spin start early.
First we ousted their elected Prime Minister, socialist you know, and then installed the Shah. Ungrateful people, the Iranians. Egypt is an explosion in progress, and until the chips fall, nobody know how this is going to hurt anyone worse than anyone else. We don't know, but others have all the answers.
His secret police Savak will go down in history as one of the most sadistic terror wing any dictator eve had. And we were largely silent on there activities as things played our way. The Shah overplayed the Westernization effort too, which caused deep stress and resentment fueling the revolution there. We had a good idea before the revolution things would change, but the depth and scope of those changed surprised us greatly and caught us completely by surprise.
Thanks, yeah I've seen that and it's interesting. The U.S. has deeply influenced the governance of Iran for many decades, and so it would behoove anyone calling for a war with Iran to go back and read up on just how systemic our influence has been. They still might support war, but if they at least gain insight as to how we are not always the good guys in everything we do there it helps when engaging in lively debate with them in forum about this topic.
Mike we were the good guys. They had it better under the Shah then they presently do. It is unfortunate he had to govern a bunch of superstitious fools.
Not really. There was a great deal of torture and repression under the Shah's iron fisted rule. I was glad to see him go, but it would of been far more useful to have gotten rid of him much earlier. Savak: (snip) A turning point in SAVAK's reputation for ruthless brutality was reportedly an attack on a gendarmerie post in the Caspian village of Siahkal by a small band of armed Marxists in February 1971, although it is also reported to have tortured to death a Shia cleric, Ayatollah Muhammad Reza Sa'idi, in 1970.[16] According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for "scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from 'brute force.' Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked. [17] Despite the new 'scientific' methods, the torture of choice remained the traditional bastinado used to beat soles of the feet. The "primary goal" of those using the bastinados "was to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices ..." [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
You really don't believe in womens rights do you? The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy. Iran could have been so much better but they took up islam and regressed about 2000 years.
I guess it depends on who is being brutalized.
Iran under this current system of theirs has more elective democracy (as imperfect, rigged and limited as it is) than the system under the Shah - certainly more than Saudi Arabia currently does.
Anousheh Ansari is the first Muslim women in space.
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
,,,,,the world's first female space tourist who happens to be Muslim. No big deal.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: lucysmom (#4)
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
We lost Iran by the way the Shah and his secret police had been propped up by the U.S. government in general. If you read the history of foreign entanglements and the undue influence we have see the west engage in politically and socially, the backlash that happened in Iran was to be expected.
#8. To: lucysmom (#7)
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
"They had it better under the Shah then they presently do."
SAVAK (Persian: National Intelligence and Security Organization) was the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service established by Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi by recommendation of the government of the United Kingdom[citation needed] and with the help of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and Israel's Mossad. SAVAK operated from 1957 to 1979, when the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown. SAVAK has been described as Iran's "most hated and feared institution" prior to the revolution of 1979 because of its practice of torturing and executing opponents of the Pahlavi regime.[1][2] At its peak, the organization had as many as 60,000 agents serving in its ranks according to one source,[3] although Gholam Reza Afkhami, whose work on the Shah has been described as a "sympathetic biography",[4] estimates SAVAK staffing at between 4,000 and 6,000.[5]
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy.
#31. To: lucysmom, A K A Stone (#29)
The Shah wasn't perfect but his brutality compared to the current regime makes him look like soft little pussy.
#36. To: Godwinson (#31)
Replies to Comment # 36. Anousheh Ansari is the first Muslim women in space.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]