CLUELESS ON CAIRO

What will happen in Egypt?  We don’t know.  But the consequences — for good or ill — could be enormous.

Egypt is the most important nation in the Arab world.  It’s population (80.5 million) is more than that of Iraq (29.7 million), Saudi Arabia (25.7 million), and Syria (22.1 million) combined.

If Egypt becomes a stable, Western-style democracy, it will transform the region.

But if Egypt becomes an “Islamic republic,” as Iran did after its revolution in 1979, war and depression are likely.

So it’s important to get the transition right.  We’re off to a rocky start.  The protests caught the Obama administration by surprise.

Was this an intelligence failure?  White House aides let reporters know the president told James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, he was “disappointed with the intelligence community” over its failure to predict the outbreak of protests in Tunisia and Egypt.

Though they didn’t predict the trigger (a Tunisian fruit merchant setting himself on fire), former CIA chief Michael Hayden said intel analysts “on numerous occasions briefed policymakers on Egypt’s dire economic and social conditions and how if they were left unchecked, the Arab Street would boil over.”

The policymakers weren’t paying attention.

To give the impression they’re on top of things, President Obama and his aides have spoken out frequently.  But the many shifts in their position are alienating both supporters of the regime and those who are protesting it.

“The official U.S. position is that (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak needs to go immediately, he needs to stay indefinitely, he needs to stay for a bit and then go, he needs to stay for a bit longer and then go sooner rather than later, unless he decides to stay until September,” summarized humorist Mark Steyn.

“The improvisational — critics say closer to schizophrenic — nature of U.S. diplomacy during the crisis leaves the administration in the unwelcome position of having to make amends with whichever side emerges from the Egyptian tumult as the governing power,” wrote Ben Smith in the Webzine Politico.  “The anti-Mubarak forces clearly will wonder whether the White House ever had their back — but Mubarak and those close to him also will question whether Washington was ready to throw him over the side.”

Mr. Obama appears to have backed away from his demand that Mr. Mubarak resign “yesterday” because under the Egyptian constitution, he would be succeeded not by Vice President Omar Suleiman, the administration’s preference, but by the Speaker of the House, and that new presidential elections must be held within 60 days, a timetable that would give the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood a big advantage.

I don’t expect the president or his aides to have the details of the Egyptian constitution at their fingertips.  I do expect them to familiarize themselves with it before they pop off in public.

Our news media have been of no help in understanding what’s going on.  The networks sent their big names to Cairo despite the fact that none spoke Arabic, knew the culture, or knew the players.

“Their being in Cairo was adding zero news value other than making the plight of western reporters the focal point of the story which was not the point of their being in Cairo in the first place,” said Rich Galen, who was press secretary for House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Few journalists have mentioned the protests were sparked by a doubling of food prices in the last year. But the greatest disservice they have done is to misrepresent the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). 

When ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and others tout the Ikhwan’s “moderation” because it has publicly eschewed violence, they fail to mention the Ikhwan’s goal is the same as al Qaida’s; that it grew to prominence because of its alliance with Adolf Hitler, and that — according to Kuwait’s education minister — it’s the father of all current terror groups in the Middle East.

The Ikhwan are bad guys.  How likely is it they could take over?

Not very, at least not right away.  The Muslim Brotherhood seems to have been as surprised by the protests as the Obama administration was.  They’ve been dominated by young people who seem genuinely interested in freedom and democracy.

President Obama should be providing the democratic elements among the protesters with more than lip service.  But its evident his administration has few contacts among them, and they have little regard for him.

The president has had kind things to say about the Ikhwan.  This is dangerously reminiscent of Carter administration policy toward Iran in 1979.  Carter’s UN ambassador, Andrew Young, described the Ayatollah Khomeini as “some kind of saint.”

So maybe it’s a good thing that neither supporters nor opponents of the regime are paying much attention to what Mr. Obama has to say.