Anytime a population breaks free from the oppression of a corrupt government is good. If you’re an Egyptian, the issue to be concerned with now, even when all of this is over, is how competent of a government the transitional government produces. Moreover, it would be beneficial to find out which demographic the new government in power truly supports. For example, if I were a politically active devout Christian, I would expect that the Republican Party would represent my views. But when one actually looks at the empirical data, this is not the case. So goes it for Egypt and the rest of the countries experiencing revolt. Now, the question is not necessarily whether or not a new government will make the revolting population's country better off, but whether or not the new governments will make its citizens who are worse off, better. Despite the leaps and bounds that have come out of the protests, there is still a growing concern shared by many who are wondering whether or not these protests pose a major threat to the U.S. And although much of the public's anxiety is due to their concerns about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran, there is another, more influential player in the Middle East that poses the biggest threat. But the public and the media seem to be ignoring it.
Egypt is the birthplace of the Islamic Brotherhood which justifies the speculation of the role the Brotherhood will play in the new government. But the Brotherhood has spoken out, assuring that it will have nothing to do with the new government.[1] But that does not mean that they have relinquished their power in Egypt. They do not need a say in government processes. Like their Near-East neighbor, Saudi Arabia, they only need a government willing to provide them with geographical petri dishes. That is, a place where they can recruit and train volunteers without outside influences. And there is somewhat of a reason to be concerned about the Brotherhood in Egypt. Their move to passively defer any influence within the new government, is out of character for a group that successfully assassinated one president and conspired to do the same to Mubarak.
The impact of the uprisings in any of these countries is absolutely dependent upon whether or not extremist groups operate in those respective countries. Although many in the extremist movement do not want to admit it, the U.S. government will know right away whether or not a newly established government is indifferent toward extremists operating in the country. And if this is something that can be proven, those governments will eventually be sanctioned by the U.S. This could possibly leave out the much needed assistance those countries need from the U.S.
The most significant revolution in recent years happened in Iran in 1979. But the current protests differ from the Iranian revolt. Whereas both are radical and Islamic, the Iranian movement sought to establish a Muslim theocracy within the country of Iran. The rhetoric from the new movement, thus far, has yet to shift a focus to the religiosity of the uprisings. That is, a shift to talk about tightening rules and regulations in order for the population to better adhere to Muslim Law, which is what happened in Iran. In addition to enacting laws to better reflect the Muslim belief, Iranians were also concerned with the growing presence of Western Culture within their society. Therefore, the Iranian revolution was guided by the push for the implementation of a theocracy as well as the goal of becoming a nation that is both more sovereign and more Muslim.
But this is not the case with the most recent protests. Many within these new movements, including those in Iran, are seeking liberation from extreme Muslim rule. Because of this, there is not much of a reason to expect a regime change as drastic as Iran experienced during its revolution. This is true because part, if not all, of the causes for the 1979 Iranian revolution centered upon the fact that the West had such an influence over their government officials, economic means and natural resources. Moreover, it was believed that the infiltration of the U.S.’s ideology of modernity was threatening Iran’s ideology of traditionalism, thus the reasoning behind the Ayatollah inheriting the duty of supreme ruler.
Despite this push against corruption and for liberalism (which may be used as “bait” for the more liberal Muslims), there is a way that it can be seen as a push for Islam. This is the reasoning behind Iran supporting the protests. But the Iranian view is not always made clear because many who try to keep up with Iran assume that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the ruler of Iran, but he is not.
He is a puppet. He does what Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’I tells him to do. To understand Iran, ignore Ahmadinejad, he is just a pawn. It is best to listen to the Ayatollah. Keeping that in mind, it is not surprising that the Ayatollah supports these protests. This is true because a movement for Islam could very well unite the entire Middle East, establishing a powerful Muslim nation which could very well become a nation with the potential to hurt the U.S., primarily economically, but also militarily. If this is the case, Iran would become more of a concern. But it still would not be the primary concern.
There is no doubt that Iran is a threat. But its threat can only be realized if they mobilize the protests in a way that maintains the protesters' sentiments while successfully shifting the cause of the movement from “a better life” to “Islam versus Modernity.” But this can only happen with the cooperation of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi’s experience a successful revolution the U.S. is in trouble and there will be some kind of war.
The Saudi kings make most of their money off of the U.S. And they do like their money <cue party music>. Therefore, the key is to keep the Saudi population from revolting - which is quite a moral dilemma, considering the oppressive nature of the Saudi Arabian government. Saudi Arabia, though, has a very tight grip on their population. Their intelligence agency virtually has complete control of the country's internet and communications capabilities. If there were a chance of a revolt, the Saudi government has the capability of foreknowing any protests that could pack significance, ultimately stomping them out before they have any chance of catching on. BUT! The reasoning behind the financial dynamic between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Muslim extremism is quite perplexing and might very well lead to the U.S.’s demise.
The Saudi kings make most of their money off of the U.S. And they do like their money <cue party music>. Therefore, the key is to keep the Saudi population from revolting - which is quite a moral dilemma, considering the oppressive nature of the Saudi Arabian government. Saudi Arabia, though, has a very tight grip on their population. Their intelligence agency virtually has complete control of the country's internet and communications capabilities. If there were a chance of a revolt, the Saudi government has the capability of foreknowing any protests that could pack significance, ultimately stomping them out before they have any chance of catching on. BUT! The reasoning behind the financial dynamic between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Muslim extremism is quite perplexing and might very well lead to the U.S.’s demise.
The U.S. buys the majority of its oil from the Saudis. This has happened for a while. It is not new news. The Saudis take part of the money and allot it to the respective recipients including themselves. The other part of the allotted money goes toward the evangelization of Wahhabism, a fundamentalist sect of Islam, by paying for the building of schools, mosques, etc…. So, the model, accounting for Saudi support for terrorism, looks like this:
As the picture and its preceding explanation shows, the U.S. is not only dependent upon the Saudis for their oil, but they are also inadvertently manufacturing the terrorism they are combating. Although this is a highly simplified model, it still represents the truth that the U.S. knowingly supports regimes that fund terrorism. If these revolts continue to topple government after government, Iran is not the U.S.'s greatest concern because they face the task of switching the protesters' sentiments from 'liberation' to 'Islam versus modernity.' The greatest threat is with Saudi Arabia because of its influence on those factors that play such a vital role on the everyday life of the average U.S. citizen. If Saudi Arabia goes, American prices explode with the influence it once had over the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment