EGYPT’S DANGEROUS ROAD AHEAD – KRAUTHAMMER
Friday, February 4th 2011,
not moved by the renunciation of fear and the
reclamation of dignity in the streets of Cairo and
Alexandria?
The worldwide euphoria that has greeted the
Egyptian uprising is understandable. All revolutions
are blissful in the first days. The romance could be
forgiven if this were Paris 1789. But it is not. In the
intervening 222 years, we have learned how these
things can end.
The Egyptian awakening carries promise and hope
and of course merits our support. But only a child
can believe that a democratic outcome is inevitable.
And only a blinkered optimist can believe that it is
even the most likely outcome.
Yes, the Egyptian revolution is broad-based. But so
were the French and the Russian and the Iranian
revolutions. Indeed in Iran, the revolution only
succeeded – the shah was long opposed by the
mullahs – when the merchants, the housewives, the
students and the secularists joined to bring him
down.
ruthless and ideologically committed – the radical
Islamists.
This is why our paramount moral and strategic
interest in Egypt is real democracy in which power
does not devolve to those who believe in one man,
one vote, one time. That would be Egypt’s fate
should the Muslim Brotherhood prevail. That was
the fate of Gaza, now under the brutal thumb of
Hamas, a Palestinian wing (see article 2 of Hamas’
founding covenant) of the Muslim Brotherhood.
We are told by sage Western analysts not to worry
about the Brotherhood because it probably
commands only about 30% of the vote. This is
reassurance? In a country where the secular
democratic opposition is weak and fractured after
decades of persecution, any Islamist party
commanding a third of the vote rules the country.
Elections will be held. The primary U.S. objective is
to guide a transition period that gives secular
democrats a chance.
The House of Mubarak is no more. He is 82, reviled
and not running for reelection. The only question is
who fills the vacuum. There are two principal
possibilities: a provisional government of
opposition forces, possibly led by Mohamed
ElBaradei, or an interim government led by the
military.
ElBaradei would be a disaster. As head of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, he did more
than anyone to make an Iranian nuclear bomb
possible, covering for the mullahs for years. (As
soon as he left, the IAEA issued a strikingly tough,
unvarnished report about the program.)
Worse, ElBaradei has allied himself with the Muslim
Brotherhood. Such an alliance is grossly unequal.
The Brotherhood has organization, discipline and
