Middle East liberals and national armies versus Puritans, Zionists and Jihadists

One thing the US dreads more than tired old Arab dictators with nationalist and pan Arab aspirations are populist Arab leaders with nationalist and pan Arab aspirations voted into power by Arab populations weary of divisive Islamist dogma.

What events in Egypt have shown us beyond any doubt is that the wishy-washy hodgepodge of secularists and liberals has found common cause with the country’s armed forces. Call it a coup or a popular uprising, either way without the army and its visible presence on the streets Mursi would still be President. In fact, a show of military force soon turned into carnival-like celebrations across the country with jets flying in formation pumping multi-colored smoke, helicopters lit up with green laser beams and officers celebrating with anti-Mursi protestors in the streets.

Some would argue that these events and the arrest of Muslim Brotherhood leaders have served to alienate Islamist parties in the country, pushing them to the fringes of politics where the line between peaceful protest and violent retaliation tends to blur. In Sinai, Jihadists are already on the war path a worrying turn of events which has already led to the closure of the border with Gaza, a vital life line. The ripple effect from the toppling of Mursi and the rule of the Ikhwan will likely be seen impacting many more Arab and Muslim countries.

It’s a delicate matter for the US. Whoever comes to power in Egypt they will have to deal with one way or the other, preferably on amicable terms if only to secure Israel’s southern border and keep the Suez Canal open to their warships. Alienating Egypt by denying funding or military assistance would throw it strait into the welcoming arms of other powers with regional ambitions. Should that happen it would be an unmitigated disaster for US foreign policy and its strong presence in the Gulf would be compromised.

In Lebanon, where the armed forces are seen as the last bastion of national cohesion, army commanders are often popular choices for President of the Republic. Following recent events in Saida in which the army decisively defeated the Salafist Sheikh Ahmad Al Aseer, the army’s popularity has soared. Those receiving the laurel wreaths of victory were the Special Forces known as Maghawir. Already the commander of the Special Forces, Brigadier-General Chamel Roukoz, is being tipped as the next army commander to replace General Qahwaji who’s term is about to expire.

The Syrian regime is riding the wave of anti-Islamist sentiment emanating from Egypt to cement its legitimacy, buoyed by victory in Al Qusair and reassured by the persistent divisions within the ranks of the Syrian opposition. The GCC and Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar are understandably worried as they see the tide beginning to turn. Turkey’s own Islamist party has seen unprecedented protests opposed to what protestors view as increasing Islamization of Turkey and intolerable restrictions on personal freedoms, namely the freedom to drink alcohol! Worried most of all is the US under the lack luster leadership of President Barak Obama who’s actions have so far failed to come close to measuring up to his high minded, inspirational oratory.

Today, the Islamist current in Egypt is poised many speculate to unleash a campaign of violence aimed at the country’s military, going underground, choosing instead of demonstrations and running battles with the army pin prick tactics, like ambush and terrorist attacks. The fear is that the tense situation might even evolve into an all out civil war. I doubt, however, that Egypt’s strong military institution will allow the situation to deteriorate further and they will likely crush any violent tendencies.

At least the US position in all of this has been made clearer: It opposes the coup in Egypt, it opposes the toppling of Mursi, but not for the reasons they say, that he is a democratically elected President. The US supports Islamist currents in the Arab world because they are the best guarantee of Israel’s safety, unlike more popular and nationalist currents that may be swept to power on a wave of popular approval. Political Islam for the US was the answer all along, it was in Afghanistan in the 1980s in fighting the Soviets and it is today in the Arab world in helping to defeat Arab nationalism. In many ways political Islam served to dilute the Palestinian struggle, splitting Hamas and Fatah and dividing the Palestinian house in two.

In a way the US follows the Saudi lead in the Middle East and not the other way around. US policy makers seem convinced that supporting theocracies in the Arab world is the surest way to guarantee Israel’s safety and territorial integrity as most Islamist movements tend to look inward, seeing the real battle not one against Israel but against liberal and secular currents in a country. The Wahhabi Movement founded by Mohammed ibn Abd el Wahhab in the 18^th century did the same in the Arabian Peninsula, it looked inward, it enforced a strict interpretation of Muslim doctrine, it imposed Sharia law and punished any hint of ‘shirk’ (worshiping of saints or forms of idolatry) wherever they found it. To that end Ibn Abd el Wahhab found a staunch ally in Mohammed ibn Saud, the emir of Diriyyah, an agricultural settlement near modern day Riyadh. It was this alliance that was to help Ibn Saud’s descendent Abdul Aziz Al Saud to unify at the tip of the sword the Hejaz, Nejd and the eastern provinces of what has become known as Saudi Arabia.

It is fitting that US policy makers, the spiritual inheritors of the persecuted Puritans, today align themselves with two out of three theocracies in the Middle East: Israel and Saudi Arabia. The third, Iran, appears to have a more modern and moderate outlook for a new Middle East, possibly one that speaks fluent Persian, or maybe just one where the once marginalized Shia claim their rightful place at the table.