So Cheney might be trying to persuade the largely-client government in Egypt to help pull the Bush administration’s burning chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq?? [That’s an Arabic-language link; hat-tip for it to Juan Cole.]
Or, is the story that Cheney is trying to set the conditions for a large-scale conventional war inside Iraq between Iranian and Arab armies?
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that troops deployed on so-called “peacekeeping” missions have actually been sent to further sordid political interests, or that such troops have themselves become embroiled in the conflict they were allegedly trying to peacekeep.
I remain pretty confident however that despite the many ways in which the Mubarak government in Egypt is dependent on Washington, and the many means of leverage that Washington has over it, the Cairo regime is not about to fall for such a scheme– even if it does come dressed up in the guise of “saving the Sunnis of Iraq from being over-run by the Shiites”, or whatever.
It is possible– though by no means inevitable– that the day may come when the Sunni Arabs of Iraq might need some major physical protection, and “saving”. If that day comes, then it should of course be the legitimacy of the United Nations that is brought to bear on the issue, not the Machiavellian maneuverings of imperial Washington.
However, we are still some what distant from that day. As this Reuters piece yesterday noted, the country’s politically dominant United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) list is still locked in internal negotiations over who will represent it at the prime ministerial level. This, contrary to so many recent expressions in the western media (including Juan Cole’s blog) of the assumption that SCIRI’s man, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, would easily win the job. As I have noted since Dec. 20, that hasn’t necessarily been true.
The outcome of the intra-UIA struggle will have a huge impact on the approach pursued by the next Iraqi “government”. If SCIRI wins, we can expect an exacerbation of Shiite-Sunni hostility. If Jaafari wins, we can expect much mor weight to be given to the approach of followers of Moqtada Sadr– which is still one of building active alliances and coalitions with the Sunnis, rather than seeking only to settle past scores (real and imagined) against them.
That’s why I have always said that one of the big narratives inside post-election Iraq is the question of what happens inside SCIRI. (Self-correction, Friday: Oops, sorry, I meant “inside the UIA.”)
That is why I say, too, today, that there may well be a chance for an inter-sect entente inside Iraq that can save the country and the region from all-out sectarian war.
A couple of other quick points:
(1) Most Egyptians, though devote Muslims, and Sunnis, are not particularly hostile to Shiites. Indeed, some of their country’s most intriguing and powerful history was tied up with various Egyuptian rulers who were Shiites; and artefacts and expressions of Shiite popular culture are widespread inside Egypt.
(2), It may or may not be true, as Juan says, that most Arab states fear Iran’s development of a bomb. (What are they going to tell the Americans, anyway?) But recent polling of public opinion in the Arab states of the Gulf region showed a high and fairly surprising level of support for the Iranian nuclear program there, with respondents seeing it as the best way to achieve some “balance” in the region with Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal.
34 thoughts on “Egyptian troops for Iraq?”
Comments are closed.
“(2), It may or may not be true, as Juan says, that most Arab states fear Iran’s development of a bomb. (What are they going to tell the Americans, anyway?) But recent polling of public opinion in the Arab states of the Gulf region showed a high and fairly surprising level of support for the Iranian nuclear program there, with respondents seeing it as the best way to achieve some “balance” in the region with Israel’s existing nuclear arsenal.”
Helena, you’re getting at one of the longstanding and most fundamental elements of Arab thought in the Middle East. That is “Bad for Israel good for Us.” Of course, alot of this is based on rising frustration and tension with the US presence in Iraq. Many Iraqis were quite willing in the weeks just after the fall of Saddam to give Americans second chance and third chance and fourth chance.
However there were many elements of course saying “The US is a proxy for Israel, they are coming to steal our oil, they don’t want to help Iraq.”
One thing I have tried to explain to folks is how, although Iraqis do not necessarily make a direct connection between the occupations of Palestine and of Iraq, this has impacted the direction of the occupation and the strength of the Resistance.
Had the United States made a greater effort in the previous decades to bring a mutually acceptable solution to the Israel/Palestine issue, it would have been far more difficult for these naysayers to increase the tensions against the United States.
However, because the US has repeatedly appeared to support Israel without question, it became very easy for Iraqis to make the transition. They quickly began to say “Iraq like Palestine” and viewing it as “one struggle.”
This is a distinction that should be made between Iraqis and other Arabs, many of whom believed the two issues were connected long before Iraqis.
Alive in Baghdad writes –
Longstanding and most fundamental? Hardly, since the state of Israel has only existed since 1948. That’s recent history.
And what is “Arab thought”?
It shouldn’t need saying that Arabs, like any other group of people, are perfectly capable of holding a wide range of thoughts on a wide range of subjects, including Israel since 1948.
Ron, I guess I should clarify better. I recently returned from Iraq where I met and interviewed dozens of Iraqis and other Arabs during my time in Jordan.
I am simply attempting to suggest that, at the current time, Israel seemed, in my observation, to bear a pretty “fundamental” impact on what Arabs told me they thought(Arab thought, that why actually think!) about Israel.
I am not talking about the history of Arab civilization over hundreds of years. I am talking about what Arabs, who are actually alive today, who I actually spoke to and am friends with, have said to me.
I find this is a hard thing to explain to Americans who then think I am somehow supporting Israel or being pro-Zionist or saying Arabs are racist. I’m not intending to say this at all.
I do however think it bears constant repeating that, in my humble opinion and observation, if the United States had done more in the past 60 years(which I feel is long enough to say “long-standing”) to work equally for Palestinian rights, or perhaps even to do their duty as a member of the International communnity and help bring Israel in line with International Law, then the situation in Iraq would have gone much better.
Of course, perhaps it would be better to explain very bluntly for you. If the US government worked hard to bring about peace and reconciliation internationally in situations such as the Palestine/Israel situation, we probably would not have gone into Iraq in the same manner either.
Many Arab leaders fear an assertive Iran, especially if this agitates their Shiite minorities. They also know that Iran deters attacks by the US or Israel by its power to retaliate against UAE and Saudi infrastructure. This threat will remain Iran’s secondary “insurance policy,” with or without a Bomb, but the likelihood of such action could rise if development of a Bomb escalates frictions.
The “street,” meanwhile, may vaguely support the nuclear empowerment of any enemy of Israel.
Maybe Mubarak can be enticed to send an Egyptian force to Iraq. It’s hard to imagine, though, why Iraq’s Shiites or Kurds will accept, unless contingent on a US “redeployment.” It’s also hard to imagine the Egyptians arresting or shooting Sunni insurgents.
1. I just don’t think Egypt is going to intervene in Iraq. The story is probably just wrong. Somebody confused Gaza with Iraq. They’re on the same planet, after all.
2. Apparently the “Arab Masses” think the Iranians aren’t planning to start a nuclear war but to “Balance” Israel. This is nice. It’s also irrelevant. Iran has managed to persuade the US, Europe, China, Russia (and Israel) that Iran is a threat to world peace and may start a nuclear war.
The world will respond to this threat sooner or later, with fair means or foul, smartly or stupidly, without much regard for the foreign policy analyses of the “Arab Masses”. But with great regard for their own survival. The Arab governments (“Arab States”) will also continue to mostly ignore the geopolitical analyses of the “Arab Masses” on this issue.
Alive in Baghdad:
“if the United States had done more in the past 60 years … to work equally for Palestinian rights, or perhaps even to do their duty as a member of the International community and help bring Israel in line with International Law”
The US was the sole support of the Palestinians for decades. In any case, the US, for most of the past 60 years, has been obsessed with the Soviet Union, and not the Middle East.
The US became a closer ally of Israel when the Soviets began to heavily arm the Arabs in the 1970’s. Before that the US was more pro-Arab, and had a more “Balanced” stance between the Arabs and the Israelis. The US never thought, in the 50’s or 60’s, to get ahead of the Arabs and to champion “Palestinian rights” over the governments of Jordan and Egypt. This is hardly the fault of the US. That would be blaming the US for not inventing the State of Palestine. The Arabs would probably have called the idea US Imperialism. Or something.
One problem was the Yassir Arafat thought he was Ho Chi Minh and waged an “Anti-Imperialist” struggle on an anti-American basis. Another problem was and is the decades of total rejectionism towards Israel. Nobody now knows if the Palestinians will go back to a rejectionist stance (Hamas) or toward recognition and a two state solution (the PA). This ambiguity is an obstacle to peace.
It is hard to know what the US (in 1945!), absorbed elsewhere, could have done so very differently, that would have brought about a peaceful two-state solution…
The deeper problems were the totally misguided policies of the Arab leaders who have treated the Palestinians as cannon fodder in Palestine and the refugees on their soil worse than the Israelis.
International Law is a word game and does not really exist. It protects practically nobody. The Israelis found it did not protect them in 1948 even with a UN mandate and have since treated the idea with disdain. The Arabs are little different. Governments quote what they like and ignore the rest.
Warren W, yet again asserting as “facts” some propositions that have zero evidence behind them. E.g., The US was the sole support of the Palestinians for decades.
Why do you bother coming here and writing this nonsense, WW? I believe much of what you write is meant simply to distract people from serious consideration of world affairs.
Also, the topic of this post is Iraq.
The world will respond to this threat sooner or later, with fair means or foul, smartly or stupidly, without much regard for the foreign policy analyses of the “Arab Masses”. But with great regard for their own survival. The Arab governments (“Arab States”) will also continue to mostly ignore the geopolitical analyses of the “Arab Masses” on this issue. Posted by WarrenW at January 17, 2006 06:21 PM
Hmmmm… sounds all too familiar – like a mix between T.Friedman and FP Mag 🙁
Flying IEDs or SA-7?
Just recently, there was unforgettable crap on NPR: Iraqi rebels use artillery shells to shoot down the US choppers. Yes, I know, admitting the use of SAMs would be a too bitter pill.
1. Surface-to-Air Missile Downed U.S. Chopper in Iraq
2. SA-7 specs
No danger here, Egypt will not step up. Egypt had their debt forgiven by joining the 1991 Gulf War coalition, for which they did nothing. They are proving useless in securing the tiny Gaza border.
Who can take the idea seriously of Egypt performing any better in Iraq? Might as well send Sargento Garcia from El Zorro.
My opinion has always been that the party that should step up with manpower is India.
David
Helena
I commented recently that we might be about to arrive at a point where events take on a dynamic of their own similar to 1618 or 1914.
I find Dennis MacShane taking a similar view in today’s Independent. He is qualified to comment after five years as a minister in Foreign Office.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article339280.ece
I had a peep at the capabilitiy estimation of the Egyptian Army
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/egypt/army.htm
A 50% conscript army is unlikely to be suitable for internal security operations.
I agree that a review of the objectives and implementation of such a deployment might be worthwhile. Armies tend to be a lot easier to deploy than to withdraw.
Helena:
The US was by far the greatest donor to the UNRWA in its early decades. Perhaps “sole source” is a bit strong. But the US carried the burden almost by itself for years. This website alludes to that where it says “Traditionally, the USA has been the largest donor”.
In the 1950’s and 1960’s the US was by far the largest donor to the UNRWA. I don’t think you will dispute this if you check the facts.
If you still think I am misleading you let me know, I’ll dig up more data.
The US was by far the greatest donor to the UNRWA in its early decades. Perhaps “sole source” is a bit strong. But the US carried the burden almost by itself for years.
It is a well known fact that US is the main contributor for the UN budget, I don’t think anybody here needs any reminders of this.
The problem is, once UN is taken as world government rather than diplomatic forum, it just stops working in any meaningful way.
WarrenW wrote:
“International Law is a word game and does not really exist.”
It does exist. It’s not a word game. It doesn’t work in the Middle East, because the Powers That Be, the USA and Israel, consider themselves to be above the Law. Since no one can force the Americans to do anything they don’t want, including abiding by the law, the USA and its regional client, Israel, can ignore international law. That’s why the USA could illegally invade Iraq, illegally change the constitution of that country, and commit war crimes, like destroying Falluja. And that’s why Israel is allowed to have hundreds of nuclear bombs, and can continue its illegal occupation of Palestinian Land, built its illegal Apartheids wall, and can keep and enlarge its illegal settlements.
that’s why Israel is allowed to have hundreds of nuclear bombs
Menno, under what international law are Israel’s [and pakistan’s and india’s] nuclear weapons illegal?
Menno, under what international law are Israel’s [and pakistan’s and india’s] nuclear weapons illegal?
Well, I could remind that Israel has not signed NPT… yawn…
“I could remind that Israel has not signed NPT”
Yes, they haven’t signed NPT. So I can’t see how they or India or pakistan are in violation of any treaties having to do with nuclear weapons. Perhaps your claim is that international law doesnt demand ratification by participating states.
Well, now N.Koreans are not violating anything because they have left NPT. Happy?
“Well, now N.Koreans are not violating anything because they have left NPT. Happy?”
Happy that they’ve withdrawn? Of course not. Nor would I claim their actions were “illegal under international law’ – they weren’t. As you know article X of the NPT allows any signatory to withdraw for just about any reason. Your example shows that not only doesnt “[international law] work in the Middle East,” it also doesn’t work in East Asia. Perhaps you’re defending Warren’s claim.
Henry James
The UNRWA is under a separate budget from the UN, and was supported for its first few decades almost exclusively by the US. I remember first hearing about this “nearly sole support” from some Muslim co-workers in the early 90’s, and saw it again in print (somewhere credible) a few years later.
The UNRWA funding was supplemented or taken over by the Arab States (oil states, I’d assume) later on, I was told. However this website article from the UN Information Service says that the USA was the biggest donor in 2003, so maybe the tradition continues…
Helena claims I’m wrong but offers no facts or references. If indeed I’m wrong I’d love to be corrected. The truth is my friend.
Yes, Helena, the topic here is Iraq but “Alive in Baghdad” brought up the issue of 60 years of Palestinian rights vs the US so I ran with it…
Suppose that international law works like this and it is fine. Then why Krauthammer is so concerned about sanctions for Iran? Just bomb them, and look what will happen next.
إلى سعادة السفير الأميركي
سليم الحص
إن بلدكم العظيم ديموقراطي في الداخل واستبدادي في الخارج. تمارسون الحرية والديموقراطية على اوسع نطاق داخل اميركا، وتملون على الشعوب الأضعف في الخارج ما تشاؤون. إنكم تتدخلون في شؤون لبنان الداخلية. ألم تُملوا علينا موعداً محدداً للانتخابات النيابية وفرضتم علينا الأخذ بقانون انتخابات العام 2000 على الرغم من شبه اجماع بين اللبنانيين آنذاك على رفضه.
ثم إنكم تسخّرون الشرعية الدولية على هواكم، تنفيذاً لمآربكم الخارجية. والقرار 1559 مثال على ذلك. هل جشّمتم أنفسكم مؤونة استطلاع رأي اللبنانيين في هذا القرار قبل استصداره؟ ألم يكن هذا القرار، الذي كان من صنع ايديكم، إملاء على اللبنانيين ضد ارادتهم؟ لا بل ظهر بما لا يقبل الشك انه مشروع فتنة تراد للبنان بين أهله. أين هي الفتنة من قيم الحرية والديموقراطية التي تأخذون بها؟
http://www.assafir.com/iso/today/front/401.html
Ah yes – just what Iraq needs – Arab states joining in the occupation! Oh yeah, that’ll solve aaaaall the problems – if opening up a dozen new cans of worms can be seen as a solution!
“there were many elements of course saying ‘The US is a proxy for Israel, they are coming to steal our oil, they don’t want to help Iraq.'”
“They quickly began to say “Iraq like Palestine” and viewing it as “one struggle.”
Let’s be clear about a few things:
1. While I would hardly go as far as to say that the US is a proxy for Israel, or that invading and transforming Iraq was all about Israel, Israel was certainly one of several major factors. In fact, one of the more idiotic assumptions made by the war-promoters (and one of Chalabis more outlandish promises) was that Iraq could be majically turned into an ally of Israel.
2. Israel and Israeli interests have in fact been very involved – though not as involved as they hoped – in the occupation and “reconstruction”. They have been particularly active in Kurdistan.
3. While the U.S. did not exactly invade Iraq to steal its oil, oil was certainly a big factor, and helping Iraq was not even remotely a motive. Whether Iraq was helped or harmed (or destroyed) in the process of achieving the Bush administration’s goals was and remains immaterial.
4. The similarities of the U.S. conduct of its occupation and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory – including specific methods of collective punishment, and torture – are hardly coincidental given the degree to which Israel has acted in an “advisory” capacity on these and other matters.
In short, it is hardly irrational or unrealistic to consider Israel a significant factor in the whole mess.
وأغلقت القوات الأميركية والعراقية معظم الطرق الرئيسية قرب الدجيل بعد إسقاط مروحية من طراز أباتشي في المشاهدة ومقتل طياريها. وقال زعيم قبلي في قرية النبيعي إنه شاهد عشرات الجثث مبعثرة على الأرض، مؤكدا احتجاز المسلحين مئات آخرين رهائن
http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/707B277F-7C24-44AA-B199-27D5BBF78BFF.htm.
“a convoy carrying Saddam travelled through the town of Dujayl, a Shiite village north of Baghdad, and was attacked by a small band of residents.”
So now US Army closed all the roads near Al Dujayl may be also Al Dujayl town after chop downed two days ago!!!
What a coincident I feel sorry for those peoples suffered under Saddam and now…….
May be the Arabic Army can fix this…
BTW, Syrian’s Army was one of the strong supporters of US tropes during Kuwait war, now seeing what are US appreciations for Syrians support four years ago….
Syrian’s Army was one of the strong supporters of US troops during Kuwait war
This was under Assad Sr, who, unlike his son, knew something about diplomatic maneuvering.
Iraqi electricity crisis and Iranian fund transfers
Numbers from /1/ look gloomy. First, they confirm that now certain important economic indicators, such as electricity production, are worse than under Hussein. Next, $20B for the Iraqi electric grid is simply too much! Apparently, Iraqi minister uses Western rather than Iraqi prices which must be much lower.
If occupation administration really cared about the Iraqi reconstruction rather than winning “the battle for hearts and minds” aka black PR and war profiteering, their economic policy would be completely different. Instead of promoting “the free markets”, most of reconstruction effort would be outsourced to local businessmen and specialists – who would do their best for the tiny fraction of the Western costs.
But now it is too late, most of reconstruction funds have already disappeared in the bottomless black holes of war time corruption. So, now pro-Western Iraqis use the Western price scale without any illusions on how all this will end.
Meanwhile, Iranians are doing real business. To avoid freezes, they transfer national assets to safe locations /3/. This, together with recent Cheney’s visit to Egypt and KSA, means that Iranians are preparing for sanctions and big war.
Yes, Iraqi Shiites have all grounds to fear the large scale Sunni assauIt – and vice versa. However, the real prospect of millions dead comes from the looming war on Iran.
1. Deborah Haynes. Iraq needs $20 bln to end chronic electricity crisis
Iraq needs 20 billion dollars over the next five years to solve a chronic electricity crisis after US reconstruction funds failed to flick the right switches, the Iraqi electricity minister said.
Total power production is lower than before the March 2003 US-led invasion, at about 3,700 megawatts, because of insurgent attacks and other reconstruction problems, according to a Western diplomat with expertise in the sector.
Pre-war production peaked at about 4,300 megawatts — well under half of Iraq’s potential capacity.
The United States earmarked 4.7 billion dollars for the neglected electricity sector in 2003, but much of the money has gone and there is little to show for it, Shlash said.
2. P.Krugman. The Ugly American Bank
3. Iran starts transferring foreign assets
Concerning you third point and the interview of the a Swiss banker. Well it sounds more like an advertisement for Swiss bank services than like a real analysis of the situation, because :
1) Switzerland is a member of the UN and if the sanctions were decided by the UN, then Switzerland would have to apply them, like all other states who are members of the UN.
2) However, since Switzerland is neutral, she will only apply sanctions ordered by the UN. So if US decides to call for sanctions out of this frame, then Switzerland will probably not follow.
3) Well that’s for the theory. In reality, Switzerland is a small country albeit rich country and as such, vulnerable to pressures. So it remains to be seen what would succeed.
Update…
Russian gazeta.ru confirms the guess /4/, they take Iranian money transfers as preparation for war. In fact, it is not necessarily true, reports on transfers may or may not be important. However, general esaclation of the crisis is quite obvious.
So, yes, Iraqi Shiites have all grounds to fear the large scale Sunni assauIt – and vice versa. But the most important risk of millions dead comes from the looming war on Iran.
4. Gazeta. M.Krasnov. Iran transfers money in preparation for war
I agree completely with Helenas sentiments that should the sadrist/dawa approach be given a go with regards to alliances to the sunnis then there is every chance civil war can be averted. I have been trying to push for this at Pray4iraq, and i hope the powers that be in Iraq take heed.
regards
Eisa Ali
Yes, Iranian transfers are confirmed.
Iran shift of foreign reserves not seen hurting Europe http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20060120-1243-europe-iran-assets.html
Helena
two comments
Salama A Salama supports your position that there is support in Arab countries for Teheran’s position
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/778/op4.htm
War: I agree that the article from Finanz posted by Henry James does say that the fund transfers are the Iranians starting preparations for war.
However none of the other Russian Newspapers and Agencies I have looked at mentions the word Voina. Neither Figaro or Die Welt whose countries have economic interests in Teheran mention anything other than the rise in the price of petrol.
FCO has a minor update on its Iran travel advice, Quai d’Orsay mention a number of assasinations in Qum and Teheran in the last minute news, and Berlin’s ausenwaerts-Amt doesn’t mention Iran.
The German site has however got some useful advice as to what to do in an Earthquake.
Tel Aviv however sounds belicose, and is swapping accusations with Damascus. Business as Usual then.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/673006.html
But it doesnt look like it is time to take the iodine pills just yet.
Helena
I thought you might like this from Jerusalem Times with the calm rational voices of Sir Michael Quinlan from IISS and Philippe Errera cooling the situation.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605891578&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Frank, thanks for that link. I found it really revealing. The story there is about a panel discussion being held as part of the ultra-prestigious “Herzliya Conference”, which I gather is now an annual affair. (They have a crap website, though.)
Anyway, all the “best and the brightest” of the Israeli security-political establishment tend to turn up there. Two years ago, it was the place where Ariel Sharon first announced his “Disengagement” strategy.
So this, according to that Jerusalem Post article was how that august Israeli audience behaved when their distinguished invited British guest expressed his viewpoint:
With members of the crowd hissing, Quinlan further suggested that if Israel wanted to seriously diminish future nuclear threats, it should be prepared to negotiate the status of its own nuclear program “once it existed in secure and settled borders, accepted by all neighbors in an agreement underwritten by the UN Security Council.”
As I said, thanks for the link.