By Abdelrahim Ali
In the first episode of this three-part series, we discussed different aspects of the Western agenda in the region.
This agenda was not isolated from what happened on January 25, 2011 or the other events that happened in other Arab countries.
It was about the maps that were drawn to divide the region through what came to be known as the ‘Arab Spring’.
We explained some of the plans that were concocted against the region, starting from 1973, especially in the aftermath of the victory of the Egyptian army over Israel.
These plans sought to break Arab armies, especially the Egyptian army.
We also referred to Bernard Lewis’ famous project for dismantling the constitutional unity of Arab countries, the fragmentation of North African countries, the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and the fragmentation of Lebanon and Jordan, and the demolition of the components that can be vital for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
We also uncovered cooperation between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood in the light of an American research paper that acknowledges this cooperation, especially under former US President Barack Obama. This cooperation was only sabotaged by the June 30, 2013 revolution against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Recognizing Sisi’s strength
The June 30, 2013 revolution caused a total change of course in the region.
A clear disagreement emerged between the US Congress on one hand, the security and sovereign agencies, and the White House, on the other hand.
This disagreement was mainly over the way to deal with Cairo.
The main question was would these parties move ahead with the plan prepared for the division of Egypt, one that started after the October War of 1973?
The same plan was updated in 2004 through the ‘creative anarchy’ theory.
The same parties also asked about whether they would accept the status quo and coordinate with Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, as the new leader of Egypt.
They asked about whether Sisi would be viable for leading the region.
American intelligence reports described Sisi as similar to the late revolutionary leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.
However, it believed that the new Egyptian president is more realistic than Nasser.
Sisi had received part of his education in the US. This was why the US intelligence believed that he was a person it could communicate with.
The American position was a bit confused. The Zionist lobby stepped in by arranging a meeting between President Obama and the heads of the largest ten American banks.
The bank heads carried with them a message from then-Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, urging the man to resume the implementation of the old plan.
In his message, Netanyahu also reminded Obama that 41 years had already been wasted since the October war.
The plan to divide the region was similar to the old Sykes-Picot plan. The old plan, according to which the division and demarcation of the borders of the region was carried out, was implemented in the light of the post-World War II tension.
Nerves were tight then and differences were sharp.
Now, however, relations between the Americans and the European Union are strong. Therefore, the time was very appropriate to redraw the region in the manner agreed upon.
The new Sykes-Picot began in 1973, after the defeat of Israel, when the US began studying this war and wondered about the reasons behind the Egyptians’ victory. They also asked about what would have happened if the war had raged on for longer.
Here, the triangle theory appeared. It was based on the fact that if there is an event that angers the American people, it is necessary to search for an enemy, which makes the people pressure the government, so that the government moves forces which make victories. The people will then salute the forces so the government will ensure the continuity of public support. This will also ensure that that relations between the triumvirate, the government, the people, and the fighting forces will continue all the time.
This relationship required the presence of an enemy. Al-Qaeda was ready as an enemy.
Agencies inside the US worked to bring danger to its territory. They introduced the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks to American borders with their knowledge. After carrying out the attacks that stunned the world, the US announced that it had found the enemy. It waged war in Afghanistan in preparation for the reaching the region. It did not take long until the US reached Iraq and toppled its regime. It also disbanded its army. Now, Iraq continues to disintegrate as a result of all this.
The US prepared for all this a long time ago when it built military bases in the countries of the region, specifically in Qatar, Kuwait and the Atlantic Ocean.
The US lost a lot in the Iraq war. Therefore, beginning in 2004, a new theory of wars emerged, the general philosophy of which was creative chaos, the cursed theory launched by former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This theory is based on the need to break up states through a new theory of war, namely the war of societies, where society is eliminated from within, without the need for external intervention.
In 2004, the Hosni Mubarak regime in Egypt was monitoring well what was happening.
Security and intelligence reports given to Mubarak notified him about the details of the American moves. However, Mubarak’s regime did not take any action and even underestimated what was happening.
The then Egyptian president probably believed that he could never be sacrificed because he provides great services to the Americans. Nonetheless, he did not know that the supreme interest of the Americans exceeded Mubarak and his regime and all regional agents.
This might have been the reason why what happened in January 2011 was surprising to Mubarak and his regime, even though he knew that the matter was prepared beforehand.
The map of the division of the region was completely ready. It was published by The New York Times in December 2013. Those interested can search for it.
It was necessary for the US and the forces that wanted to divide the region to have a tool to help them implement their plan. The plan contained several basic elements, the most important of which were the following:
First, extensive presence in more than one country in the region
Second, the possibility of presenting this tool as an alternative to those systems
Third, this tool has an illegitimate ambition that can be exploited by hinting at the possibility of achieving it
The international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood was selected to be this tool. This was done for those reasons previously mentioned. It was also done in the light of historical ties between the Americans and the organization and direct interaction between the organization and Washington since the Afghan war until now.
Washington began intensifying contacts with the group’s leaders immediately after the September 9/11 attacks.
At the beginning of the new millennium, specifically in 2002, the American embassy in Cairo began to intensify its contacts with the leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This happened especially after the movement’s candidates won 17 seats in the parliamentary elections in 2000.
The waves of turmoil that followed the events of 9/11 had already subsided down then. The US decided to improve its image and relations within the Islamic world. The most prominent manifestations of those contacts in this regard were crystallized as follows:
The late Mohamed Morsi sought to meet the US ambassador after the events of 9/11 to inform him of the group’s rejection of terrorist operations.
The-secretary of the political department at the American embassy, Diane Kelly, who specialized in following up the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, met the Brotherhood’s Salah Abdel Maqsoud in 2002. Abdel Maqsoud assured the American diplomat that his group had a deep affection for the US. He asked her to invite the group’s leaders to review their orientations before the US Congress.
Mohamed Morsi, then the head of the group’s parliamentary bloc, participated in the annual meeting of Swiss Muslims that was held in Bern on December 13, 2002, during which he met the British ambassador and the first secretary of the American embassy. An invitation was then sent Morsi to him to attend the celebration organized by the embassy on the occasion of the visit by a senior American official to Egypt on January 30, 2003.
During a celebration at the Indian Embassy in Cairo on the anniversary of the establishment of the Indian Republic on January 26, 2003, Morsi met the political attaché of the US embassy, who asked him about the group’s position on the Palestinian and Iraqi issues.
The American University in Cairo sent a large number of invitations to Muslim Brotherhood leaders to participate in conferences held by several American institutions in some countries during the period from 2004 to 2006, especially in Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon, Germany, and Turkey.
Abdel Monem Abul Fotouh and Essam al-Erian participated in the majority of these conferences.
The Muslim Brotherhood used the international organization’s wing in the US, most notably Hassan Hathout, the head of the largest Islamic organization in America.
Hathout was the first to receive US President George W. Bush at the Islamic Center in Washington, immediately after the events of 9/11 as a representative of the American Islamic Political Coordination Council and the Islamic Public Affairs Council.
Hathout sent a message to the American administration confirmation about his organization’s ability to provide good assistance to Washington in the context of absorbing the anger of Muslim youth, and converting it into a positive activity away from the negative extremist groups.
In return, he wanted the US to support the group in the face of ‘dictatorial governments’ as the organization described some regional governments.
Collaboration made public
Meetings continued to be held, but in secret until the occupation of Iraq in 2003.
This was when the seventh general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Mahdi Akef, asked the branch of the international organization in Iraq to take measures to take part in the transitional government formed in the country at the time.
This caused a crisis within the Brotherhood organization in Iraq. Akef had to intervene to contain the crisis. He issued a tortuous decision confirming that the Brotherhood’s participation in the transitional government represented an internal affair for the group in Iraq.
Nonetheless, this resulted in the resignation of a number of Brotherhood figures. The same figures formed the Islamic Salvation Army. Other members formed the Muslim Scholars Front which was headed by Harith al-Dari, who met Akef twice in Cairo, and demanded that he intervene to end the relationship of the Islamic party with the new transitional government in Iraq.
Akef refused this demand, considering this matter an internal affair in Iraq.
In line with the group’s position in Iraq, the Brotherhood’s plans in Egypt continued to open dialogue with the Americans. The Brotherhood began to contact Saad Eddin Ibrahim. A group delegation visited Ibrahim at his home in Maadi in southern Cairo after his release from prison, especially since Ibrahim had established good relations with some Brotherhood leaders who treated him well in prison and convinced him of the necessity of playing the mediator to bring the Brotherhood and the Europeans closer together.
Ibrahim did this after his release from prison, when he arranged a meeting in March 2003 at the Swiss Club between some Western diplomats and some Brotherhood leaders.
Attending the meeting were diplomats from the embassies of Britain, Switzerland and Sweden, along with a high-level delegation from the Muslim Brotherhood.
The delegation consisted of Mohamed Morsi, Essam al-Erian and Mohamed Abdel Quddous.
Discussions during the meeting focused on the Brotherhood’s access to power, and the political agenda that they would implement when they reach power.
The discussions also focused on the Brotherhood’s position on the West, and issues of democracy, and freedom of opinion and expression.
The Brotherhood considered these meetings part of a general scenario developed by the group to open channels of communication with the US and the European Union to convince them to accept that Islamic currents have a pivotal role in the region similar to the cooperation that occurred between the Americans and Islamic parties in Turkey and Pakistan.
The group also wanted to achieve an important goal, namely obtaining pledges of American political support in the event of reaching power, and putting pressure on the regime in Egypt to accept the legitimate presence of the Brotherhood.
The same scenario was repeated with Saeed al-Najjar who received a number of the Brotherhood leaders who wanted to take advantage of his good relations and liberal orientations to hold meetings with officials in the US State Department. For some reason, the leaders meeting al-Najjar did not openly approach him on the subject after the dialogue moved to many controversial topics far from the goals of the meeting.
At the same level, another concept emerged within the group to expedite the conclusion of understandings with the American administration. This would have been done through coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood in America, especially Hassan Hathout.
Hathout was one of Hassan al-Banna’s loyal disciples who had good relations with American institutions.
He helped the Brotherhood make contacts with the Americans. A member of the Guidance Office of the group was scheduled to travel to America to meet some leaders, especially those responsible for the Middle East files. Nonetheless, the Iraq war caused those meetings to be postponed.
The group did not participate in any escalation to repel the American occupation in Iraq. Rather, it contributed to the instructions of its general guide, Mohamed Mahdi Akef, in consolidating its foundations by pushing the Iraqi Brotherhood to join the transitional government formed in their country.
Statements by Condoleezza Rice and others exposed Washington’s goals behind its dialogue with the organization.
The goal was clear, and it was to contribute to creating chaos in the region that would help implement the redrawing of the region on the basis of which the subsequent dialogue took place in 2010 and was completed on January 22, 2011 between Morsi and a representative of the American intelligence service in Istanbul.
Those communications were monitored by the State Security Service in Egypt, leading to Morsi’s arrest along with his companions. They were imprisoned on the night of January 27 in preparation for their referral to the prosecution.
However, the prisons were broken, causing Morsi to escape so that he could implement the scenario agreed upon.