Unrest in the Middle East: Innocent or Coerced?

Across the EU and much of America, countless individuals are cheering the protesters for their success in toppling governments in Tunisia and Egypt--and  all the while some other people are also pleased. Though unlike the happily blissful western denizens, these figures are all smiles because they understand the exact consequences which will come from the change of regimes in the region better than the average American or European will likely ever be enlightened enough to discover. And while the masses are celebrating, they are scheming, for the revolutions follow their train of thoughts and planning with more preciseness than they had previously believed. These joyful notables are Bashir al-Assad of Syria, Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and Hassan Nasrallah of Lebanon.

(Photo courtesy of Long Live Jacob! blog)

What do these men have in common other than geographic proximity? They all command anti-Western views and are influential in their countries, making them the perfect alliance to surround and crush the State of Israel with their coordinated assaults on moderate regimes throughout the Middle East.

In the loud results of the revolutions few have been ready to point out the key pattern of successful--and failed revolutions across the area while some still rage on. We hear chants of democracy and triumphant glee, yet the final reports seem to ignore the singular truth of it all: extremist leaders in the region are holding strong with an almost prepared resistance, while the dormant governments of Egypt and Tunisia easily fell to the shouting rebels. In the latter nation's unrest, President Ben Ali's dominance collapsed within a matter of days, yet his North African brother Qadafi has held strong in Libya through a determined radical Islamic policy and a brutal crackdown on protesters not seen in more moderate governments.

When Hosni Mubarak stepped down in February to quell protests, many felt this would lead to the peaceful collapse of other governments, yet neighboring Iran seems to defy this view. Before opposing activists could muster a force and demonstrate, the Iranian authorities launched a systematic suppressant strategy that curbed the growing flames of opposition to their power. So despite the common mindset of freedom in the Middle East, the radicals are coming out on top while the moderates fall.


With Syria in the anti-Western camp and Lebanon now controlled by Hezbollah, the State of Israel is progressively being surrounded by a powerful alliance in the molding of Gamal Nasser's Pan-Arabianism during the 20th Century. Only this time Egypt will have a military trained by the United States and Iran will not play the role of the moderate empire as it did under the Shah's leadership in the past.

It is understandable that people desire to embrace changes in age-old systems of power, yet each movement must be complemented by either a new centrist force or the toppling of a dictatorial regime. The truth of the current protests is that they threaten to realign the Middle East into a supremely anti-Western bloc, spelling considerable trouble for American and European interests in the near future. Understanding this threat means responding to it, and America must do so by helping to preserve the present moderates who hold power and seeking to topple those with views verging into the extremities.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

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