Hamas is Moving Toward War With Israel

By Barry Rubin

Two attacks by Hamas today signal an escalation in which Hamas, emboldened by the changed strategic situation and especially by Egypt's revolution, want to provoke a war with Israel. A huge crisis could result and Western governments are totally unprepared to deal with it. See here.

Mass Media on Egypt: Admitting in April What Was Obvious in February

What is the media telling us now about Egypt and what has it learned--and not learned--about the story it's been misunderstanding since the beginning? See here

An Important Announcement: Rubin Reports Moves to PajamasMedia

Dear friends:

I want to inform you of an important change in my writing activities. I have been invited by PajamasMedia--one of the world’s largest sites, with an estimated readership of one million people—to become one of a very few featured columnists for them. Everything I do for them will appear on my own page at Pajamas. The blog there will be called Rubin Reports.

I hope to be working more with Pajamas television and will also post links of any appearance there.

The Rubin Reports site will continue at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/ with a list of every article I write on Pajamas with the title, a link to Pajamas, and a brief description. Articles I write elsewhere—including the Jerusalem Post—will be on the http://www.gloria-center/ site, again with a link there from Rubin Reports.

So if you have a subscription to Rubin Reports you will get a daily digest with links to the Pajamas-based blog or to the GLORIA site. It will be a convenient way to follow my work. The Twitter announcement will also continue. I hope you will keep your subscriptions as this will be an easy way to see my writing.

If you have questions or suggestions I'm happy to hear them and you're always welcome to write me at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com.

The Middle East Score So Far This Year: Iran and Brotherhood, 8; Hamas, 6, U.S., -11

By Barry Rubin

Events in the Middle East have moved so quickly that one almost needs a daily scorecard to keep up. This article will try to give a basic picture of what has, and hasn’t, changed.

Have Iran and revolutionary Islamists gained in recent months? Yes, since Islamism is advancing at the expense of declining Arab nationalism as well as other reasons.

From the Muslim Brotherhood’s perspective gains have been made for its branches and allies in Egypt (which also helps their ally Hamas), Jordan, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia.

That doesn’t mean they will take power now but these groups are all stronger than they were at the end of last year.

Iran has benefitted by gains made in Bahrain (though Saudi intervention blocked its clients from taking power), Lebanon, and Yemen along with indirectly in all of the other places except Syria. Moreover, Tehran can take satisfaction in the removal of Egypt, its most important Arab foe, from the anti-Iran and pro-U.S. category to, at best, a neutralist stance.

And all Islamists can take pleasure in the dramatic decline of U.S. credibility and alliances, with Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and probably soon Yemen no longer cooperating with U.S. policy at all.

Let’s list the main aspects of U.S. policy:

--It is now in no way opposed to Muslim Brotherhoods or Hizballah being in government and has helped create a situation in Egypt where the Brotherhood is making a bid for leadership.

--Backing for all practical purposes Syrian repression of its own democratic upsurge because it sees dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer.” (Ironically, Mubarak was much more of a reformer than Assad, at least on social and economic issues.)

--Doing nothing about Lebanon, where Hizballah and its allies have gained power, making the country a satellite of Iran and Syria;

--Thinking that the Turkish regime is just fine, in fact a model for other countries (which is strange since the regime is now an ally of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah);

--Highly critical of Bahrain’s suppression of its opposition (part of which is pro-Iranian);

--Intervening in Libya, an operation to which none of the Islamists are opposed because they hope to benefit from it. In addition, the U.S. forces could get bogged down in there. Isn't the Libya war just another version of the invasion of Iraq except with less rationale, less to gain, and more to lose?

--Distancing itself more from Israel than any previous administration has for the last 50 years.

--Refusing to back the Saudis, having created the worst friction in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

What’s there for a revolutionary Islamist not to like? Obviously, they’d like an end to U.S. sanctions on Iran and other things but, generally speaking, American policy is terrific from their standpoint.

Let’s take a quick country-by-country survey:

Bahrain: The regime has used repression, Saudi intervention, and offers of compromise well to split the moderate (which wants a fairer share of power for the Shia majority) from the radical opposition (which wants a pro-Iran Islamist republic. Minus one point for Iran, no thanks to U.S. policy.

Egypt: The Brotherhood is far more powerful than ever, will win about one-third of parliament probably; will shape Egypt’s cultural, educational, intellectual, and religious atmosphere; and can now help Hamas. Egypt is no longer in the anti-Iran and pro-Western camp. Two points for Brotherhood, two points for Hamas, one point for Iran. Minus two points for U.S. interests.

Gaza Strip: Egypt has turned from enemy to ally. Arms and terrorists flow in freely. Two points to Hamas and one each to Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran. Minus two points for U.S. interests: Hamas and revolutionary Islamism get stronger; future Israel-Gaza or even Arab-Israeli war is more likely. 

Jordan: While the monarchy should survive, the Brotherhood there is more active and demanding. It also undermines another anti-Iran Arab state that is pro-Western. Two points to Brotherhood and one each to Iran and Hamas.

Lebanon: Everyone seems to forget Lebanon, which went from having a moderate government friendly to the West to being a country now largely controlled by Hizballah and other Syrian clients and in the Iranian-Syrian sphere. The moderates (Christian-Sunni allied forces) tried to build protests against the new regime but failed. One point to Iran. Minus one to the United States.

Libya: Hard to say since the opposition is complex. On the other hand, it is not clear that Western interests will benefit and the impact of the Western intervention is unclear. While Muammar Qadhafi was historically an anti-Western sponsor of terrorism, he hasn’t caused much international trouble in recent years. No points awarded yet.

Palestinian Authority/Peace Process: The Palestinian Authority knows that it will never face a rebellion from being too hard-line but only if it is perceived as too moderate. If the peace process wasn’t dead before, it certainly is now. One point to Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran. Minus one to the United States which has now sabotaged once again its own peace process effort.

Saudi Arabia: While the anti-regime effort in the kingdom hasn’t gotten far, the Saudis feel that their relationship with the United States and the West is undermined and that they need to appease Iran and Syria. Plus one to Iran. Minus one for United States.

Syria: This is also complicated. Syria is an ally of Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah. Thus, its destabilization is not in their interests. But what if an Islamist government comes to power, probably a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated one (though non-Brotherhood Islamists could also play a leading role Minus one for Iran and Hamas, but plus one to the Brotherhood.

Tunisia: While Islamists are weak in Tunisia, the fact that they can operate legally now and that Tunisia will probably move into a neutral-type stance is a gain for Islamists and a defeat for the West. Score one point for Brotherhood and Iran.

Turkey: The Turkish regime, which may well win reelection later this year, is now an ally of Iran, Syria, and Hamas. One point to each. Minus one for the United States.

Yemen: In Yemen, all politics is local But the destabilization of a country that has at least partly cooperated with the United States against terrorism is to Iran’s strategic advantage, whether or not it has influence on some of the domestic rebels. Score one for Iran. Minus one for the United States.

Extra credit: Tensions make oil prices rise, providing more money to Tehran. Score one for Iran.

 Obama Administration Factor: The United States has lost four friendly regimes--Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Turkey (some would add Yemen)--as well as the confidence of three others--Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (one might add Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates). With the Palestinian Authority seeing that it can--and in some ways must--ignore U.S. requests to do anything, that is another defeat. For general loss of credibility, minus one for United States.

For failing even now to understand the material in this article--and thus by not recognizing defeats or errors being unable to correct them, another minus one for the United States.

Totals:
Muslim Brotherhood: 8
Iran: 8
Hamas: 6

United States: -11

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Hillary Clinton Has a New Number Two

By Barry Rubin

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns is being promoted to deputy secretary of state, moving from the number three to the number two position in the State Department. Burns is a veteran Middle East specialist.

Why is this happening? The administration wants to show that it has someone with experience at the highest level. It is also signalling the importance of the Middle East.

Ironically, Burns has spent his three-decade-long career advocating things that are mostly the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration is doing. Will he be able to influence the White House to change its course?

Maybe. But Burns didn't get to where he is today by being a dissenter. Perhaps his final exam was the testimony he had to give last month in which he completely explained administration Middle East policy exactly the White House wanted.

The problem is that when one listens to his explanations it is easy to understand how disastrously bad that policy has been.

Flash: American-Backed Egyptian "Moderate" (Next President?) Threatens War On Israel!

By Barry Rubin

Everything has been so predictable. Designated "moderate" and U.S.-backed Egyptian leader Muhammad ElBaradei has made a profoundly shocking statement that should change U.S. policy overnight, show how disastrous Obama Administration policy was, and mark the beginning of the coming electoral defeat for the president.

But presumably nothing will change.

ElBaradei, a presidential candidate, said the following:

“If Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime."

And he's the moderate! In other words:

--Despite repeated ridiculing of Israeli concerns, it is increasingly likely that the next Egyptian government will tear up the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

--Egypt will be an ally of Hamas, a revolutionary Islamist terrorist group that openly calls for genocide against Jews and the wiping out of Israel. (Samantha Powers, alleged anti-genocide champion, where are you?)

--By making such irresponsible and warlike statements, ElBaradei is encouraging Hamas to attack Israel to provoke such a war. As I pointed out, events in Egypt are making such a war inevitable.

--In his interview with Al-Watan,  ElBaradei also said:

"In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza--as the next president of Egypt– I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement."

Think about what that means! Muslim Brotherhood and other volunteers will flood into Gaza to fight the Jews. Arms from Iran and Syria will pour into the Gaza Strip including longer-range missiles, landed openly at Egyptian ports.

And that "joint Arab defense agreement"? That means Egypt would consult with Syria and other Arab states about joining the war, spreading it throughout the region.

Thank you, President Obama!

Of course, to be fair, ElBaradei might not get elected as president of Egypt. His opponent, Amr Moussa, is a radical nationalist who likes to play demagogue but seems preferable to the "American" candidate.

To make things even worse, such statements cannot be attributed to ElBaradei being a front-man for the Muslim Brotherhood since he is now quarreling with them, though presumably they will still vote for him to be president.

And, of course, it can be honestly said that he is just being demagogic to win votes. The problem is that Arab leaders are often demagogic to win support after they are elected to office or seize power.

Or maybe the Egyptian army will stop such a war? They will be pragmatic and say, "Look, if we fight Israel the United States will cut off our weapons and military aid. We might lose. And what about the waste of resources that we badly need at home?"

But believe it or not a lot of Egyptians think that they could defeat Israel and that only President Husni Mubarak and the Americans are holding them back. A lot of officers probably believe that, being too young to remember the 1967 war. Or they might be swept away by revolutionary, nationalist, and religious enthusiasm. And they might be afraid to seem like Israel's "protectors" and thus traitors to Egypt and the revolution.

That's how Arab politics works. But, of course, all the "best and brightest" in the U.S. government (the political appointees at least), those running American intelligence, the White House, the academic "experts," and the mass media don't understand it.

And to be fair once again, obviously President Obama and his administration is not responsible for the Egyptian revolution. But there is a long list of factors that do make it their fault:

They rushed the process of change; made it inevitable by demanding that the revolution succeed; acted so that it included the entire regime and not just Mubarak personally; preemptively approved the Muslim Brotherhood as a government party, didn't press the regime for guarantees to Israel; made the new rulers feel that they can get away with anything; among other things.

Then there are the broader mistakes made previously: acting so weak that it emboldened radicals and makes everyone assume that the United States can't or won't do anything to enforce its interests; pressed Israel to minimize sanctions on the Hamas regime; gave several hundred million dollars to the Gaza Strip; defined only al-Qaida as an enemy and all other radical Islamists as moderates-in-training; coddled rather than confronted Syria and--to a lesser extent--Iran; distanced itself from Israel; among other things.

What will it take for the United States and Europe to realize that they have uncorked the bottle and let out the genie? How's this sound as an election slogan: Obama got taken for a ride, millions died?

Turkey: Excellent Article on the Democratic Opposition

By Barry Rubin

Here's a great article on the CHP, the social democratic leader of the opposition in Turkey. On June 11, elections will determine whether Turkey will continue with the current repressive and Islamist-oriented regime or not. And if this government wins the election, Turkey might go beyond a point of no return for an anti-American and pro-Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah Islamist policy.