And this seems to be just the beginning. It is worth remembering the recent civil uprising in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, mass protests in Algeria, Jordan, and Oman, and several other Arab countries - no one can predict what they will result in the near future. Nevertheless, there is every reason to suppose that the Islamic radicals and extremists come up there for sure to take the authoritarian regimes’ place.
All chronology of stormy events lately occurred in the Arabic Middle East, shows that Americans and their allies, by initiating a revolution in this region, have rouse the tiger. Desiring to establish there democracy regimes (by western standards), they have actually expanded the Arc of instability that stretches from now on from Afghanistan to the north-west Africa.
Moreover, the Islamists seem to seize power by the most democratic means – they win by popular vote. What is it – a discredit to the very idea of free expression of popular will, when reactionary and radical populists can come to power, or another demonstration that “East is East”, and it is possible to achieve some stability and peace there only through authoritarian or even dictatorial rule? ..
Say what you will, but Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for three decades maintained a balance of power both in the Middle East in whole, and in his country, brutally suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood. Also regimes in Tunisia, Yemen and Morocco provided primacy of secular values over of the Islamist ones. As well as Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who actively supported the terrorist organizations in years past, has recently collaborated with the West against al-Qaeda threatening him, too. Now, as a result of “the Arab spring”, whose scenario was developed either in Langley, or in the Pentagon, the West will have to deal with completely unpredictable regimes, which may be even more radical than the Iranian ones. Moreover, it may not be true that pro-American ones.
There is yet another logical question related to the selectivity of Washington’s and Brussels’ approach to authoritarian regimes. Why, for example, do they consider the Saudi Arabia, where the feudal system still reigns, its strategic ally, and, for example, Iran, where also radical though different kind of Islamists run the country, a source of global evil? Or what accounts for the loyalty to some of Central Asian regimes, which by reports of international law enforcement organizations are not notable for special commitment to ideas of human rights and other democratic values while on the other hand they are ready to stifle Syria which has also always held its people in leash, not only by means of sanctions but also physically? That is how the Western allies treated Iraq and then Afghanistan – they brought “convenient” regimes to power, but during a decade of occupation have brought neither peace nor prosperity to the land.
Now Iran’s nuclear military program seems to be next in turn, which supposedly gives the international community rise to intervention. But to which one: diplomatic or military? If, all the same, the latter is chosen, who will then ensure that this time it will not lead to the outbreak of World War III?
If we extrapolate the Washington policy of expansion into the future, we can also assume that in time Russia may become the next target too, because many things in its both domestic and foreign policies are unacceptable for the United States. Yet here the question is, of course, not about a military threat (after all it has to take into consideration our nuclear missile potential) but rather about the curtailment of weapons reduction programs, investment, joint projects and the reboot in whole...
In 1939, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said of Nicaraguan dictator: “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.” Later this phrase became not only a popular quotation, but the very essence of American politics. Washington is ready to fraternize with anybody, as long as it serves its interests.
True, now when the situation in the vast territory from Central Asia to the Middle East and North Africa has been developing quite unpredictably, we can with good reason doubt the correctness of this postulate. Actually, it may not be true that Washington strategists are able to weigh all the pros and cons, to count on those political forces they will be able then to negotiate with. To put it otherwise, to consider all consequences of their new geopolitical schemes, which are more suitable for ordinary adventures. Won’t they cause tsunamis able to sweep across the entire architectonics of the modern world and lead to irreversible tragic consequences from a historical point of view?
Not too long ago, a prominent Russian Arabist Georgy Mirsky asked questions such as: “Will there be a breakthrough towards a democratic pluralistic society at least in Egypt and Tunisia (few chances, though), will the Islamists prevail (possible but doubtful), will there be a rollback to the old system in a more modern form (strong possible), will in Syria, Libya and Yemen, reign chaos and intestine strife (practically certain)? And in general – where will these passionary Arab masses move? Or will everything burn out and there be no radical changes in world affairs? It’s anybody’s guess.
And now, in the course of recent events in Egypt and other countries of the region, these questions remain equally pressing, and forecasts - wide from being obvious. One thing seems to be clear only: geopolitical adventurism, the reckless policy not worked out in advance by some participants on the world stage, who imagine themselves a messiah and savior of humanity, can lead to irreversible consequences, it will take more than a decade to settle.
