Creating new perspectives since 2009

The US-Brotherhood "alliance"

January 27, 2014 at 12:36 pm

Nowadays, Egypt is witnessing the absurdity of the coup-backed media spreading lies to demonise the coup’s opponents and then calling on those who have been named to prove their innocence. This nonsensical situation is despite the fact that the law requires the prosecution to prove its case, not the defendant to disprove it. However, the arrogance of those in power leads some to believe that their claims are facts and that their opponents must work hard to disprove them.

One of the most prominent of these claims is the allegation that there exists a secret alliance between the US administration and the Muslim Brotherhood in the shape of Dr Mohammed Morsi’s regime. This assumes that America is the greatest supporter of the Brotherhood and that its support goes beyond politics to financial aid and intelligence coordination. Those making the claim believe that the July coup was, in a sense, a defeat of an American project.

Furthermore, they promote more theories than actual evidence on the assumption that the more attractive an explanation is, the more that it will compensate for the lack of proof. However, looking over the explanations provided in this regard show that they lack a logical foundation in most instances and that the allegation is inconsistent with reality in others.

The first theory used in this regard stresses that the basis of the alleged alliance between the US and the Brotherhood is the deal that dictates that Washington supports the movement and enables it to establish an ultra-nationalist framework in exchange for securing American interests in the region and eliminating terrorist organisations. This would establish a new regional regime that does not pose a threat to Israel.

The problem with this theory is that it includes two conflicting plans, as the Brotherhood is supposedly aiming to establish Islamic nationalism that goes beyond the concept of a national state and is closer to the traditional image of a Caliphate. However, America, meanwhile, is supposedly aiming to achieve the Greater Middle East project that is based on protecting Israel by providing a divide and rule environment around it. The simple laws of supply and demand don’t work in this equation, not least because its promoters themselves also stress that the “Greater Middle East” is nothing but another name for the “creative chaos” that the former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke about; it is dependent on the fragmentation of the region into small nation states. In this scenario, Egypt itself would be divided into four states (Nubia, Upper Egypt, Sinai and Delta) in order for none of them to be large enough to pose a threat to Israel. We all know that the greatest danger that Israel could be exposed to is the unity of the Arab and Islamic countries against it; how can the alleged deal stand up to scrutiny in the light of such a contradiction?

The second theory suggests that Morsi lacked the charisma needed to run the country, as was the case with Mubarak, and that he also lacked experience and brought in a group of amateurs to run the country’s foreign policy. Washington, it is claimed, decided to support him because he was easy to control and push in the direction it wants to protect US interests and those of its ally Israel. The problem with this explanation is that it is inconsistent with the reality after the coup, as inexperience is something that Morsi and the coup officials have in common. There is no evidence of Morsi being manipulated by anyone. Moreover, such manipulation was not reflected in the president’s decisions or actions, as everyone noted when he opened his foreign policy gambit by visiting China and Iran, which cannot be claimed to belong to the US axis.

Although some people are claiming that Morsi was “manipulated” and “persuaded” to hand over Sinai to the Palestinians in return for being allowed to become president, the evidence shows that this was something actually offered to Hosni Mubarak. Suggestions that Morsi was soft on Israel point to his letter to his Israeli counterpart which began with, “Dear Shimon Peres”; the fact that the president was simply following diplomatic protocol is overlooked.

Does the US administration support the Muslim Brotherhood because it has been infiltrated by the movement? Allegations to this effect add that President Obama is a member of the Brotherhood’s global organisation and has been from an early age. Failing that, some say that it is actually Obama’s brother in that position, or even the US ambassador to Cairo. Whoever it might be, that person has, it is claimed, arranged for the Brotherhood to launder its money through White House channels. As conspiracy theories go, it is rather wild and cannot be taken seriously by anyone except, perhaps, the degenerate members of the Egyptian media.

A more rational explanation is that newly-elected President Morsi was following his predecessor’s footsteps and traded stability for political recognition, which is a traditional choice of politicians the world over. It is true that is was not the best option for the post-revolution phase, but it did not involve anything that warrants the accusations of treachery now levelled at the president, nor did it involve complicity in actions which rode roughshod over Egypt’s national rights. In fact, the coup regime is doing exactly the same thing.

Finally, let us not forget that the people behind the coup were part of a regime which received US largesse for more than 30 years. The coup-government’s relationship is characterised by it being in complete harmony with Israel, once regarded as the enemy. More than anything else, perhaps, this proves that the allegations against the Muslim Brotherhood and its officials are entirely false and malicious in character. Believe them at your peril.

The author is an Egyptian writer. This article is a translation of the Arabic text published in Al Sharq Newspaper on 18 September, 2013

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.