Obama and his staff have made a complete mess of the situation in Egypt (still deadlocked between protesters and government at time of writing), so the following is no real surprise:
Hugh Tomlinson Riyadh
February 10 2011 12:01AM
Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually. America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.
There is one lesson that the USA's erstwhile allies have learned from bitter experience over the last 50 years or so, and that is that they'd better have a backup for when the US abandons them. Mubarak doesn't want to end up in Gen. Pinochet's shoes for his last months or years, and there are some at least who don't intend for that to happen. Since Mubarak's not likely to get nukes (the only certain way to keep the American from driving you out) a new "sugar daddy" is a necessity to maintain the current regime with or without him.
Any kind of order in Egypt in the near future is dependent on the Army and armies are expensive to keep running, so somebody's money is required. This is an even better example of the retreat of America from the world stage than my previous post; they were too clueless to see this coming (though it did come quickly after Tunisia) and compounded that by waffling in their line on the situation. Nature abhors a vacuum, and a sudden decapitation of the government in Egypt would have fearful local and geopolitical consequences.
The Saudis are not blinkered by "democracy" and therefore keep their finger on the pulse of their neighbourhood. I can't be certain, but I think the House of Saud may be regretting the export of so much fanatical religion. It has certainly come home to roost in the Arabian peninsula causing them no end of headaches, and the Ikwhan (Muslim Brotherhood) taking over Egypt would not help their theoretical coreligionists. Or anyone else that we'd like to see helped, for that matter; think of the Suez Canal in the hands of Hamas for a worst-case scenario.
Let's play that out for a bit. MB takes over, the Army supports it (I'm not saying this is likely, btw) and Egypt repudiates the treaty with Israel. The return of the Sinai after the '67 (and '73) war was part of that deal. Were I the Israelis in this or similar situations, I'd take it back, and I'd lay money on it that unless there's a major upheaval in the Gulf states, they'd at least keep their mouths shut about it. The people would likely bleat (the usual suspects anyway) but kingdoms keep an eye on the horizon, not just at their feet as they trip over them. I can't see a best case scenario where that's true for the Americans.
As I noodled on about that I almost passed over the fact that Saudi Arabia is now telling the President of the USA what's going to happen in the Middle East. The Bushes in particular were tight with the Saudis; and whatever else you might say this would never happen if someone like that was in office in the White House. Obama is on track to do the most damage to US standing in the world of any president, ever. Alliances and arrangements are already re-aligning, and in the world lunchroom the Americans will be left more often than not standing around looking stupidly as the seats at all their usual tables are taken by others.
No comments:
Post a Comment