The US Secretary of State knows very well that the expansion of the hijab is like a stepping stone for the rise of traditional Islamists in the region and a path that leads to their ascension to power.
“Jeffrey Goldberg”, the American journalist of “Atlantic” magazine, as an expert on Middle East issues, has been writing articles in prestigious publications such as “New York Times” for many years, and his analyzes are noticed by various authorities.
In his latest article, by analyzing the latest conditions of revolutions in the region, he predicts the consequences and effects of the uprisings of the people of the region.
Goldberg writes in the continuation of his article published in the Atlantic magazine:
* “Salafis” lurking in the Tunisian revolution
The same day, a few hours later, I was talking to one of my Tunisian acquaintances, who informed me of the creation of the local Salafi party. I was very surprised. “Salafi” are medieval leftists – they are much more extreme than their Muslim brethren, although Muslims themselves are not examples of moderation. (For example, prominent Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia are “Salafi.”) Meeting the Salafist party in the seemingly secular Tunisia is like meeting a friend from a Berkeley City Council dinner party. But this kind of chaotic situation is becoming normal in the Middle East.
In the early days of the Arab uprisings, Obama and his administration, engaged in other wars at the same time, were trying to make light of the situation. At a time when policymakers are grappling with what Obama implicitly called a furious incoherence with the current state of affairs, the administration must create the conditions to marginalize anti-modern, anti-Western, and Islamist parties while remaining undisguised. That was their real goal. It must constantly decide which governments in the Middle East deserve American support and which governments it should leave behind.
This question leads us to an important and main contradiction in this era: At the same time that the United States is seeking lasting and significant democratic changes in some Middle Eastern republics, hundreds of years after its liberation from the clutches of autocratic monarchy, it is caught in a despotic business that has prevented kings, rulers, and swashbucklers who, although they may be bribe-takers. Even though they are Ben Ali, Gaddafi, and Mubarak, they have the oil that the West needs, and they establish a balance with America’s biggest threat in the Middle East, which is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
* People in the Middle East distance themselves from America
Creating a comprehensive doctrine that is appropriate for the current situation is almost impossible, especially during a crisis that demands humility in analysis, doctrinal calm, and tolerance of contradictions on the part of American policymakers. Modesty of analysis is necessary because the results of the Middle East revolutions are not yet discernible, and because it is not yet clear whether dictatorial rule is actually declining.
Ideological complacency, which is a neutral approach, can be called hypocrisy, and its existence is necessary because it is true that Obama, despite the surprise of many, has shown himself to be an interventionist liberal rather than a neutral realist, and it is also true that the United States maintains its fixed and vital interests in the Middle East. , the interests that force America right now to support the autocrats who rule over the masses of people, tolerance of contradictions is also vital not only because the democratically elected government of America is looking for a way to keep these autocrats in power, but also because people in the Middle East believe They embrace the American ideal—free speech, transparency in investment, leaders the people can choose and rely on—while simultaneously distancing themselves from America itself, rejecting American assumptions about what freedom really means.
Clinton: If you don’t use the potential power of half of your country’s population, you cannot progress
As it happened the day before the demonstration in support of the hijab, when Hillary Clinton made a short visit to Tunisia, to close their revolution, she met with the leaders who came to power during the revolution; And he listened to ordinary citizens, including women, whose place in the world is one of his concerns during his tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The first public appearance of the meeting was in a television studio outside Tunisia, in front of his mostly young audience, who appeared to be traditionalist Muslims.
* Demonstrations to support the hijab in Tunisia were a shocking blow for me
Clinton’s campaign for women’s suffrage is, of course, well-known around the world, and even a small nation’s briefly inept prime minister (especially one who sought to increase American aid) knew she could be motivated. Clinton outdoes her deep feminist sensibilities by valuing them. But experience has rightly proven that Tunisia is an exception in the Arab world when it comes to women.
In Cairo, it is very strange to see a woman without a veil, but in Tunisia it is normal. That’s why the demonstration in support of the hijab in Tunisia was such a shock to me, and that’s why I brought it up when I saw Clinton at the State Department office a few weeks ago. He was very reasonable about wearing hijab and related issues. She only noted that her main concern is for lawmakers to make wearing the hijab mandatory.
* Many Muslim women are not satisfied with America’s support for the hijab issue
This claim, particularly in the Cairo speech, did not sit well with some of the women’s rights activists I spoke to, women who believed that America should not encourage people to wear the hijab – something many Muslim women hope they can do by moving to America. put aside
Clinton: I disagree that in some countries they have laws forbidding women from doing certain jobs
However, when Clinton spoke to me about the hijab, she made it clear that any attempt to force women to cover up—anything in the “range of coercion”—is a red line for her: “When people start talking about things that women shouldn’t be allowed to do, and the only way we can stop them is by law, like the law banning women from driving in Saudi Arabia, or not having the right to vote… that’s a red line. , and this means a violation of women’s rights. So I am against it. In any society in the 21st century that seeks modernization, and certainly [any society] that claims to have democracy, it must support their right to choose in this regard.
* According to America, the spread of hijab is the starting point of the rise of Islamists
Obviously, this message directly addressed the conservative religious forces; The Minister of Foreign Affairs knows very well that the expansion of the hijab is like a stepping stone for the rise of traditional Islamists. Then I asked about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and parties that support an ideology similar to the Brotherhood.
Like when winter gives way to spring, it is clear that in Egypt the “Brotherhood” acted as a means to crush the ruling power, an issue that many Western commentators underestimated in the early days of the Egyptian rebellion.
* “Muslim Brotherhood” is a global organization that believes in the supremacy and sovereignty of Islam
“Muslim Brotherhood” is a global organization whose branches are independent of each other, and some are more extreme than others (for example, “Hamas” in Gaza, which is a branch of “Muslim Brotherhood”). They have different opinions, but those who belong to the Brotherhood all believe in the rule of Muslim laws and the supremacy of Islam, and they are of the opinion that men and women should play their traditional roles in society. They also believe that the West (Israel, which they see as the West’s military base in the Middle East), is seeking to undermine their way of life, albeit secretly. American analysts have spent a long time researching and studying the Muslim Brotherhood, whether in Egypt or elsewhere (the Jordanian branch of the Brotherhood, the Islamic Struggle Front, is the country’s strongest political opposition force), and debates in governmental and non-governmental circles about the real views. This organization was especially in Egypt. Since the start of the Arab uprisings, the Muslim Brotherhood has shown signs of splitting along ideological lines, but its leaders have proven adept at playing politics, especially those aspects of politics where they avoid addressing problematic issues.
In a recent conversation with “Mohammed Morsi”, one of the high-ranking leaders of the Brotherhood, he humorously rejected the discussion on two important questions: Is it possible that the Brotherhood supports the presidency of a Christian person in Egypt? Can they support the candidacy of a woman?
* We still do not have enough information about the beliefs of “Brotherhood”.
I asked Clinton if she is not worried about the spread of “Brotherhood” ideas, especially in issues related to Arab women in the Middle East? answered: “Well, I don’t think we have enough information yet to know exactly what they’re morphing into. In my opinion, it is still too early to decide.
I think that some of the Islamic elements that have been used in Egypt even on the surface are an obstacle to democracy, or freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, which was the desire of the people in Tahrir Square – as if they are escaping from prisons, as if from Darkness has come to light, they are just being seen.
* With strong criticism of America, “Muslim Brotherhood” can attract some people’s support.
This answer is exactly the logical answer one would expect from someone like Clinton. But in this era of changes, there is a reasonable chance – although it is not a very big chance, but it is reasonable – that the “Muslim Brotherhood” will break up and become a group, or maybe it will find that it has to compete hard with parties with more secular ideas. Clinton and Obama recognized that the “Brotherhood” could turn strong criticism against America into an advantage for its campaigns, especially among rural, less educated, and traditionalist voters.
* America: Our enmity with the “Muslim Brotherhood” does not harm them, but helps them.
In the past few months, Obama administration officials have talked more about establishing a global red line (Obama condemns parties that advocate violence, for example), as well as helping all parties in the process of achieving democracy, and about the ideological dangers of party uprisings. They did not bring Islamists with them.
Benjamin J. Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser, told me: “It is in our interest to make sure in these changes that a set of diverse and inclusive parties are able to organize and manage powerful militant groups. “
He also added that the Obama administration does not want to worry about the rise of Muslim parties, as long as it does not affect its policies. The president’s view is that we should not be afraid of change, especially as change is happening.
He further said: “This is not surrendering to fate. We need to take a step back to acknowledge that people want the same rights we believe in, and that’s fine. Native democratic movements are what America wants, even if they present short-term challenges and complications. Another government official, who did not want to be named, expressed this issue more clearly and said: “Don’t you think that if we declare enmity with the Muslim Brotherhood, we will not gain anything except that we have helped them?” “
* The regime of the Kingdom of Jordan is governed in the manner supported by the United States
The regime of the Kingdom of Jordan is the same type of government that America has always defended. It’s not the hardest regime to support in the Middle East – in the early stages of the Arab Revolt, the Baraheen royal family was involved in suppressing the violence unleashed by the Shia majority, which is the least of the problems with an American-style monarchy – but Jordan is still being treated in a way inconsistent with They control the mood of Tahrir Square, the mood they like when President Obama and his Secretary Clinton talk about Arab democracy.
* Many in Cairo believe that Clinton is clearly playing the role of Mubarak’s nurse
As expected, Hillary Clinton doesn’t think much of the accusations that the administration is engaged in maintaining a divisive campaign. As the first person in the administration has raised the ire of the Middle East on many issues, he has been remarkably aware of many ways. In Cairo, many democracy activists believe that he openly nursed and supported Mubarak;
At the same time, the goal of exerting influence is the fierce campaign of the leaders of the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, who, according to the conversation I had with the ambassadors and ministers of foreign affairs, fear that it will spread some kind of propaganda for neo-conservatism. One of the Gulf officials I was talking to asked me earnestly if Paul Wolfowitz, the theorist and leader of neo-conservatism, was his adviser during the previous presidency. I told Clinton that in some circles he is seen as “Wolfowitz” with wild eyes. He said: “Not! Not this one! Call me a wild eye, but not Wolfowitz! “
* On the one hand, America supports the establishment of democracy in some countries, and on the other hand, it supports the incompetent rulers of other countries.
When I asked him how he reconciles these inconsistencies—working to establish democracy in some countries while keeping unfit rulers on the throne in others—he flatly denied such an issue.
Stated: “I do not accept this hypothesis at all. I think we all adhere to a set of values and principles, that’s all. We believe that countries should empower their people. We believe that people all over the world should have certain rights. We believe that a secure economic system that works better for the vast majority of people is superior to other systems. I think we are very compatible. “
America made many offers to Mubarak, but he ignored them all
Clinton said: “America must help the rulers survive the unrest that will soon break out within their kingdoms even if they do not heed America’s admonitions” – and he really kept his word (as the documents actually show) that many proposals Hosni Mubarak was congratulated for ignoring them all – the government will remain, although he does not see this as inconsistency.
* We have relations with all countries regardless of our differences in the economic or political system
Clinton said: “We live in a real world, there are many countries with which we have relations because we have common interests, and there are also certain security issues that we both look for. It is clear that in the Middle East, Iran is a big challenge for all of us. We have trade relations with many countries whose economic or political systems are not similar to ours. We consider everything as one. And we encourage reforms and protection of human rights both privately and in public. But we will not stop doing business with China because it does not have a good record in human rights. The same with Saudi Arabia. I stated that the Chinese are afraid that their forces will be affected by the suicide of a Tunisian salesman and that this issue will also reach Tiananmen Square. In response he said: “are concerned. They want to stop history, which means following black peas. They cannot do it, but they delay it as long as they can. “
*For people who only know dictatorship, democracy is a big bite
If this is true, as Obama’s favorite character Martin Luther King said, the circulation of morality in the world will take a long time, but it will move towards justice; In the same way that history will catch up with the Chinese Communist Party sooner or later, why isn’t it also true that history will soon catch up with a series of defunct autocrats? I got my answer indirectly when I asked Clinton if she was saddened by the disappearance of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
It was not long ago that Clinton was criticized for her proposal to Assad to become a reformist; Although he himself admitted that Assad is against America in many important issues (not only in his services to Iran). He said: “It depends on who takes his place. His response was a combination of disrespect for Assad and his high political understanding that things are happening, despite their promise to the Arabs to stay in office, because they pose a potential threat to American interests over some dictators. This is a big mouthful for people who have only known dictatorship and are now hungry for democracy. “
*A key principle in the Obama administration is finding the time to support hated leaders
Striking this balance—understanding when America should only support leaders it hates—is a key tenet of the foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration and perhaps his successors in the coming years. Just managing the royal family away from the modernization of Saudi Arabia is a difficult task. But America will surely fail if it forgets its primary responsibility to the people who live under the yoke of tyrants, the people who demand the freedom that Americans enjoy..
