Did we really need new evidence of American support for tyranny in the Middle East? Were we waiting for a new revelation to affirm Washington's pragmatic policy and its lack of any moral dimension? In fact, the answer to this question by the majority of Arabs is a big NO. However, the analysis published by TheNew York Times' David Kirk Patrick is important because it provides information confirming what the majority knows for sure, and answers the illusions of the counter revolution's elites and media.
Media affiliated with the counter revolution in Egypt and elsewhere kept saying the Obama administration supported the Arab Spring, while others who support this conspiracy theory said that popular Arab revolutions were made by America, especially after Syria witnessed a revolution that shook the pillars of Al-Assad regime. But information published by The New York Times confirms all that Obama and some of his advisers wanted was for Arabs to be free to decide who rules them, while the majority of the administration was pushing towards supporting tyranny and blessing the military coup in Egypt to achieve US goals in the area.
Obama was weak in the face of his administration, and he and his advisors were isolated as if on an island, as his advisor Ben Rhodes said, while Washington was able to impose its agenda on him, contacting leaders of the military in Egypt since March of 2013 to ensure their ability to intervene to displace President Morsi and maintain Egypt's stability. Of course, stability here means maintaining non-elected governments which Washington can deal with through mechanisms of the past that can be described as being submissive, and which can continue as usual to maintain the superiority and security of the Israeli occupation.
Things are not that different between the administration of weak Obama and that of popular Trump. The only difference is that Obama was not the leader of the chorus that supported tyranny in the region but was submissive to it, while Trump is leading that chorus by himself with his statements and his tweets, where some members of the Obama administration managed to keep their sensitive positions after Trump became president.
What this information reveals and affirms is that the United States and the West in general are still dealing with the Middle East with an orientalist, colonialist view. For them, the region is a mere oil well with people who are not ready for democracy, because at some point they might elect rulers who could rebel against the rules of submission to the West and to the occupation, and more importantly, it is an area that poses a potential threat to Islamic ideology, which is worrying for the West.
The New York Times report reveals the lie of Washington's support for the Muslim Brotherhood; a lie met by the irony of being believed by two antagonists – members of the counter-revolution and members of the Iranian-Syrian axis, who found in Islamists' support for the Syrian revolution an evidence of their dependence on the US agenda.
Contrary to the myth of American support for political Islam, it is now clear that members of the Obama and Trump administrations are governed by an orientalist, colonialist ideology that views anyone who favours Islamic ideology as a potential danger. It does not differentiate between terrorist groups that adopt violence to achieve their goals and those who reject violence and engage in elections, political work and democratic mechanisms. "They're all swimming in one sea," says Michael Flynn, a former Trump adviser and head of military intelligence under Obama. "They're all one thing," as John Kerry, Obama's foreign secretary, says.
Perhaps, in uncovering or confirming this American view of groups of political Islam, there is a message to followers of these groups, and it is that they must seek to satisfy their people and achieve the goals of their countries and their economic and national interests instead of getting preoccupied with sending messages and positions to please America, because Washington will not believe them and will not accept; to Washington, they are the same as Daesh.
There is another lie exposed by The New York Times, which is the Egyptian Army's independence in decision making, and claiming that the coup decision was purely an Egyptian response to the will of the people. Military leaders began in March 2013 orchestrating the overthrow with US military and political leaders, who in turn blessed the decision and gave the green light through direct statements from then Defence Secretary Chuck Hegel and Secretary of State John Kerry.
The New York Times report did not come up with anything different than what the majority of Arabs believe, but it exposed the selfish policies of Washington to some of those dreamers who believe there is a Western moral policy that will fight for democracy and human rights. It also exposed the complicity of the military in Washington and Cairo to overturn the first Arab experience that could have evolved over time to become an accomplished democracy that serves Arab citizens and achieves their priorities, not the priorities of the ruling elites and American and Israeli interests.
This article was translated from Arabi21 on 30 July 2018
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.