Clinton stressed that the U.S. had been "on the side of the people" as it had been for more than 30 years of cooperation with Cairo while advocating greater democratic and civil rights. "We're not advocating any specific outcome," she said. The claim is of course patently false. We propped up a pro-Western dictator and now when diplomacy and the moral influence of the U.S. could bear weight the Obama regime is flummoxed into inaction and indecision.
The U.S. should hold out the annual $1.3 billion in military aid sent to Cairo as a means of influencing the outcome of the crisis. Yet, the Obama regime is sending mixed signals, as is its wont, to hedge its bets and indicative of how unclear its policy is in regards to Egypt. While straddling the fence, as if the $1.3 billion in aid is insignificant, Obama is missing a prime opportunity to positively influence the outcome.
All that military aid in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood would be a game changer. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to his infamous “speech to the ummah” in June of 2009.
In addition, he is bearing the fruit of his inattention to Iraq and the possibility that fuel supplies could be transported unhindered, and the possibility of a free, democratic, and representative government in a Muslim-majority nation.
Lastly, in 2009, Obama's silence about the brutal, murderous repression of its people by the Iranian mullahcracy amount to his tacit support of that offensive, and spoke volumes. Obama became part of the problem, not part of the solution. He gave religious barbarism the free hand. In response, Iranian protesters had a direct message for America’s president: “You’re Either With Us or With Them.”
If an Islamist regime rises to the fore the Egyptian-Israeli accord will be be set back to square one. The outcome in Egypt has profound implications for the flow of oil and Middle Eastern relations.
Posts
