Right-Wing Fears

Ever since the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 began last week, there have been many right-wingers who have been bemoaning the loss of a crucial American and Western Ally. They have been ranting that Mubarak's departure will bring about a coup by the Muslim Brotherhood and signal the end of American influence in the Middle East as our other allies either fall victim to their own revolutions or distance themselves from the US before we can abandon them ourselves.


These views were repeated today by Sima Kadmon of Yediot Ahronot in her Op-ed The American Betrayal.


Her first point is that President Obama is a political amateur, willing to abandon America's allies without taking into account history or culture. She then takes this to the "logical" conclusion that America will abandon Israel if that is the way the political waves shift. While ignoring her repetition of right-wing theories about Obama's credentials, the idea that the American shift in favor of the Revolutionaries in Egypt somehow signals lack of American resolve or a "betrayal" is absolute hogwash.


She says:
"For dozens of years, he was the only leader the West could rely on, the dam in the face of Islamization."


Kadmon recognizes that the American relationship with Mubarak was based on his commitment to fighting Islamists and guarding the Peace Treaty with Israel. But those were the only real reasons for the "alliance." If it were not for these, there would be no reason to work with a dictator who summarily tortures, kills and jails his own citizens and does absolutely nothing to promote peace and understanding with Israel other than refrain for engaging in outright war.


Conversely, the American relationship with Israel is multifaceted and based on 60 years of close political, cultural, economic and military ties. These connections are bipartisan and are felt by the majority of the American population. The idea that this can just be thrown away is laughable.


Kadmon continues:
"And when America does this to the Egyptian president, what should any other ally think? Perhaps that it’s better to conduct oneself like Iran or Syria, rather than like a moderate Arab state."


This is a legitimate concern. How can our other authoritarian Arab allies know that we won't abandon them when their people rise up against them? 


They can't. American ties with Middle Eastern dictators are based on two factors: Oil and the War on Terror.


There was no deep and abiding American commitment to Egypt before the Revolution. The US took stock of the situation, recognized an opportunity to steal an ally away from the USSR and secure the first Arab-Israeli peace agreement. That was it and Mubarak knew it. 


Say what you want about Arab dictators (I have a few choice words myself) but they aren't stupid. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recognizes that without oil, his country has absolutely nothing to offer the US. That is why after 9/11 he ordered oil to be sold to America at a premium much lower than the market value.


As for Kadmon's assertion that it might be better for US allied Arab dictators to act like Iran or Syria, she may be right. But that would also mean international isolation and a loss of substantial US economic and military aid.


Kadmon asserts:
"it’s clear to all that if Muslim groups take power in Egypt at the conclusion of the uprising, our [Israel's] peace deal with Cairo is doomed."


I have written many times that the likelihood of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt is very unlikely. That being said, there are a number of additional economic factors that would lead to the collapse of a Muslim Brotherhood led Egypt very quickly should that unlikely scenario occur.

1. American Aid - Currently, Egypt gets $1.3 Billion (that's with a B) of aid from the United States every year. While most of this is military aid, the economic aid is significant as well. In order to maintain its role as the leader of the Arab world, Egypt can't just throw away that kind of money along with its ties to the leader of the Western world.
2. Tourism - According to the BBC "The Egyptian government is keen to protect the tourism industry, which generated revenues of $11.6bn (£7.3bn) in 2009." With the Muslim Brotherhood in power and tourism will drop significantly, putting more people out of work, which is one of the main factors for why the Revolution has so many supporters.
3. Oil - Much of Egyptian Oil resides in the Sinai desert but if the Muslim Brotherhood revokes the peace treaty with Israel, Israel will take back the Sinai by force (the deal was Land for Peace, if they take back the Peace, Israel will take back the land). Not only that, but Egyptian Oil and Natural Gas exports account for less than 1% and 2% of exports worldwide respectively. World investment will move to other, more stable countries without a huge effect on the market.
4. Suez - Following an Israeli retaking of the Sinai, the Suez Canal - one of the largest and most used canals in the world - would be closed, just as it was between 1967 and 1979. If Egypt wants to continue to gain the revenue from running this important waterway - not to mention the prestige of owning it - it will need to keep the peace. Additionally, if Egypt wants to be able to export any of its remaining Oil (or any other products for that matter) to the Asian market without sending it all the way around the Cape of Good Hope, it will want to keep the peace to keep the canal open and working.

I must point out that all of these reasons are based on Western logic. However, the Middle East often operates on its own system of logic that is, well, illogical. It could come to pass that the Egyptian people make decisions that go directly against their best interests. 

Let's pray that cooler, wiser and more logical heads prevail.