Dial R for Radicalism: the Case for Mubarak

It's become commonplace for the West to enjoy jumping up to side with revolutionary forces in nations without much grasp of the target nation's histories or its importance as a stable diplomatic and commercial acquaintance. As should be expected, a great number of Americans have seized unto the protests in Egypt as a positive sign of the country's progress while at the same time disregarding the usefulness of its current leadership to both Middle Eastern stability and their own personal lives. Americans and other westerners are on the brink of igniting a radical movement in Egypt which promises to provide the region with added strife both politically and militarily in the time yet to come.

Hosni Mubarak's concession of his power which may even devolve into resignation was welcomed with open arms by much of the West in the last 24 hours, including statements of favoring by leaders like former U.S. Governor Mitt Romney, who is readying for a presidential campaign. Unfortunately, his exit also leaves the country weakened and at the mercy of a perhaps worse force: the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohammed ElBaradei.

The latter has poised his movement as a democratic change ideological concentration attune to those prevalent across African states, yet his true intentions are veiled by a sketchy record of divided commitment to the West and his own ideological foundations. Best known for his work as an international nuclear power inspector, ElBaradei certainly has made a career for himself--though regrettably through means contrary to the good of the Egyptian people and Americans. When a missions directed him to Iran, he gave a vague report which seemed almost sympathetic to the Shiite power and its executive of questionable mental capacity. This activism has certainly ennobled him to minorities in the Middle East, yet it poses a threat if he becomes president and allies with the Persian nation to destroy Israel.

Perhaps this implication is in poor taste, but with the strictly fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood standing tall behind him, one must proposition to understand how a fiercely anti-West organization will refrain from implementing its own ideologies if immersed in the pools of government at the heart of Cairo.

Americans must consider the negatives of a non-Mubarak government as well. With control of the Suez Canal so critical to our shipping, one can only speculate at the severe cost should a fundamentalist government choose to restrict passage and play American companies off of our country's support for the State of Israel. ElBaradei by his own accord is hardly a pro-Jewish figurehead, and there is little reason to expect him to remain neutral should a conflict arise.

Possibly more unnerving is the coalition of theocracies which might very well form should Egypt fall to ElBaradei and his allies. Lebanon's Saad Hariri's government left office weeks ago and was replaced by Hezbollah-backed ministers of state, Jordan's government recently resigned, and Iran has been dominated by the Ayatollah for the better section of 31 years. Adding Egypt to that coalition is hardly wise, even if the prospects seem endearing from afar.

Countries like Egypt need change, but as the world witnessed back in 1979 with the Iranian Shah's defeat, revolutions have consequences which can remain for years on end. Progress must be gradual and wise, or it will likely turn into a new possessive and unrelenting nation of directorial government, albeit with a new flag.




Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Cultural Issues