As the Mubarak regime’s patron and armourer, the Americans have had a tricky balance to strike. They could not be seen to abandon a longstanding ally at the first whiff of tear-gas. That would scare other loyal Arab allies, such as the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and risk ruining relations with Egypt if Mr Mubarak were somehow to hang on. Nor, though, could Mr Obama be seen to take the dictator’s side against the people. That would offend American principles and hurt relations with a successor regime if the people prevailed.
As the Mubarak regime’s patron and armorer, Mr. Obama could not be seen to take the dictator's side against the people -- this would offend American principles!
This is significant in light of the fact that for 30 years the United States acted as the Mubarak regime's patron and armorer, but was not "seen" to take the dictator's side against the people by the standards of liberal US commentary.
Only by authoring the headlines themselves could Egyptians temporarily relieve Western editors of the responsibility for recording what has for three decades been plainly in front of their face, but that they refused to "see."
1 comment:
Later in the article we find that Mr Obama’s painstaking efforts to build a regional alliance to contain an Iran suspected of seeking nuclear weapons might then be left in disarray. The people in Egypt and Israel know that western headlines will change as the western editors "see" the true nature of nuclear power in North Africa and the Middle East. The expensive efforts to foil a regional alliance to contain a nuclear armed Israel might then be left in disarray.
drip
Post a Comment