Benny Morris: Losing the Middle East (MUST READ)
Prediction is always risky or plain silly, but my guess is that when the dust settles, which it will, in a month or two or three’s time, one will see that Western—and Israeli—interests in the Middle East will have been substantially undermined and anti-Western—and anti-Israeli—interests substantially bolstered. Similarly, one will see that the regimes which are, by nature and tradition very brutal, such as Iran’s, Syria’s and possibly Libya’s, will weather the storm whereas those which are softer, more inclined to measures of liberalisation, partly because of attentiveness to messages from Washington, will either have fallen or will have given ground, and a large measure of power, to anti-Western, often Islamist, elements within each country.
George Friedman: Revolution and the Muslim World
If I were to guess at this point, I would guess that we are facing 1848. The Muslim world will not experience massive regime change as in 1989, but neither will the effects be as ephemeral as 1968. Like 1848, this revolution will fail to transform the Muslim world or even just the Arab world. But it will plant seeds that will germinate in the coming decades. I think those seeds will be democratic, but not necessarily liberal. In other words, the democracies that eventually arise will produce regimes that will take their bearings from their own culture, which means Islam.
Daniel Korski and Ben Judah: The West’s Middle East pillars of sand
The three pillars upon which Western influence in the Middle East was built – a strong military presence, commercial ties, and a string of dollar-dependent states – are crumbling. As a result, the region that emerges in the weeks and months ahead may become much harder for the West to influence.
Caroline Glick: Obama’s devastatingly mixed signals
BUT BEYOND the basic falseness of Rice’s statement, her condemnation of her own vote to veto the resolution, and Clinton’s similar statements, serve to send a series of messages to the states in the region that are devastating to America’s regional posture.
Elder of Zion: Muslim Brotherhood wants to build a satellite channel
The problem is that no Egyptian pro-freedom group could possibly hope to match the expected media onslaught from the Islamists. Even worse – no Western powers are even thinking in this direction.
Brian Fairchild: Egypt and Tunisia: Triumphs for the American Muslim Brotherhood
Out of all the people in the world, secular or religious, that could have been invited to lead prayers at the epicenter of the Egyptian revolution, the man selected and embraced was the banned jihad-mongering leader of the illegal Salafi-Jihadi Muslim Brotherhood.
If that isn’t bad enough, it just so happens that Yusuf al-Qaradawi — banned from entering the United States in 1999 because of his support for suicide bombings — is the esteemed chairman-in-absentia of the Muslim American Society’s Islamic American University.
IPT: Administration Deliberately Vague on Brotherhood
Statements by senior policy officials to the media and before congressional committees since Mubarak’s Feb. 11 resignation show that the Obama administration does not consider the Brotherhood to be an extremist organization, despite its written commitment to creating an Islamic state and its leadership’s history of threats and hate speech … Brotherhood officials, meanwhile, are more openly expressing their intentions for Egypt’s future. Kamal Helbawy, a leader of the group’s older guard, told Iranian media that the Egyptian revolution was an Islamic one. He also indicated the 32-year-old peace treaty with Israel was not something the Brotherhood accepts. “People of Egypt cannot accept an agreement which is based on injustice and has ignored the rights of Palestinians.”
Uri Goldflam: Thomas Friedman Sets Up Israel to Take the Blame for Egpytian Attitudes – New Post by Uri Goldflam
Once again, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has crossed all boundaries. In “Postcard From Cairo, Part 2” (Feb. 13), Friedman blasts the Israeli government for being “out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliché-driven.” Beyond the name-calling, Friedman’s piece is strewn with half truths and selected facts, disconnected from context and reality.