Published on Global Research.ca, by William Bowlesby William Bowles, February 12, 2011.
… So now the Empire will sweat it out and hope for some kind of ‘orderly transition’ as it keeps repeating ad nauseum, Goebbels-style, the various memes, one for every occasion. ‘Orderly’ of course means pro-Western in business and cooperation in running the Middle East. The last thing they want to see is the insurrection turn into a revolution. Everything is possible. The Israeli factor:
- “[So]…full blown democracy [in Egypt] might not be in [Israel's] best interests? ['news' announcer]
- “No, indeed not… [BBC Jerusalem correspondent]” — BBC TV News, 11 February, 2011
There you have it. The key to the US’s apparently vacillating position on events in Egypt is centred on the strategic triangle that is the US, Israel and Egypt. As long as the alliance holds, Israel is safe and the Middle East remains under Anglo-American control.
Thus the issue of Mubarak resigning is in a sense irrelevant to the central dilemma confronting the US (and Israel): how to maintain control of Egypt without appearing to do so? As the BBC acknowledges (on behalf of its master’s voice), it’s a real conundrum pointing to yet again how crucial the mass media is as to how events progress and are seen to be progressing.
As a piece in Ha’aretz states, the issue is, will a post-military regime will be anti-Israeli or not?
Washington frightened Israel even more than it did Mubarak, because Israel is an old hand at self-frightening. Netanyahu warned the administration that Egypt could go the way of Iran. And Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom warned of the danger of the rebels blocking the Suez Canal, and then where will we be? Which proves that Israelis don’t understand that the uprising in Egypt is not necessarily against the peace with Israel. Closing the Suez Canal would above all hurt Egypt’s revenues. We are the unrivaled experts in creating doomsday scenarios when the behavior of the United States is not to our liking. — ‘Israel needs to help the U.S. to stabilize the region’, Ha’aretz, 11 February, 2011.
I am of the opinion that US ‘advice’ to the generals was to ‘hang in there with Mubarak for as long as possible but make it look like you’ve issued an ultimatum to Mubarak and that he has to go.’ And this is exactly what happened. Handing over (unspecified) powers to professional torturer Sulieman (and powers that can be taken back at any time), meant nothing. It was a shell game that the Egyptian people rejected the moment they heard Mubarak’s speech last night, followed by an even more insulting diatribe from Sulieman.
It shows once again that puppets of the US are not renowned for their intellectual acumen nor for having their fingers on the pulse of whatever nation the US has installed them in.
It was a calculated risk as the army is obviously divided but no one knows exactly how. Is this a ‘Young Turks’ moment I wonder?
The leadership of the army are all Mubarak cronies, in their 60s and 70s but what of the younger officers and just as importantly the conscripts? No wonder the Empire is all over the shop and allegedly really pissed off with its Egyptian consigliori. I say allegedly because it fits the pattern of continuous delaying tactics, all the while trying to calculate the risks versus rewards of any particular approach to the crisis … (full text).