More

WikiLeaks: U.S. Concerned For Years Over Power Succession In Egypt After Mubarak

Mubarak Obama

TOM RAUM   02/ 1/11 07:41 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The protests rocking Egypt could change the political landscape of the entire Arab world and beyond. Possible outcomes range all the way from pro-democracy forces taking charge in Cairo to – in a worst case – an all-out war bringing in Israel and Iran.

In between, there could be a long period of instability that could breed economic chaos across the region and derail economic recoveries in the U.S. and Europe.

In Cairo, embattled President Hosni Mubarak declared to his nation in a televised address Tuesday night that he would not stand for re-election but wouldn't leave office either, determined to stay in power until elections in September. Mubarak declined to rule out his son as a candidate.

Later, President Barack Obama talked by phone to Mubarak for 30 minutes and said in brief remarks at the White House that the Egyptian leader "recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place."

But, Obama emphasized, he indicated directly to Mubarak that it "is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now." That appeared to imply that the president was not particularly enthusiastic about Mubarak's decision to wait until September.

Mubarak made his half-way concession as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians gathered in a major square in Cairo to demand an end to his 30-year rule.

Egypt, the world's largest Arab nation, is critically important to U.S. foreign policy and to major goals the Obama administration is pursuing in the Middle East: the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, containment of Iran's influence and nuclear ambitions, counter-terrorism.

"Right now you've got a thousand people in government writing policy memos trying to figure out what's going on," said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Mideast peacemaker who is now at the Woodrow Wilson Center think tank. "The three-option memo is standard. Option one is Armageddon. The world is falling apart. American interests will be completely threatened

"The third option is: Don't worry, boss, this isn't such a big deal.

"It's the middle option, with respect to American interests, that we have to pay serious attention to," Miller said.

The worst case envisions a rise in extremist Muslim factions in Egypt, Tunisia and even Jordan. The Suez Canal and an adjacent pipeline could be closed, the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord renounced, the U.S.-Egyptian diplomatic and military relationship ended.

Iran could move in to fill the vacuum. That could trigger war between Israel and Iran, perhaps involving nuclear weapons. American influence throughout the region would be greatly diminished.

Most Middle East experts and analysts don't think such a doomsday scenario will happen, particularly with encouraging signs of a peaceful transfer of power in Egypt and with the so-far nonviolent nature of the demonstrations.

But there are still many signs of stress and potential problems ahead. And, it's clear, there will be no return to the status quo: The U.S. role in the Middle East has probably been altered forever.

"The consequences of instability in Egypt to the United States are really important," said former diplomatic troubleshooter Nicholas Burns, who was the Bush administration's point man on Iran from 2005 to 2008. "The strategic interests of the United States are on the line."

Mubarak's course of saying he won't seek re-election but won't step down immediately or rule out his son as a candidate "guarantees that the demonstrations will continue," said Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "Their demand is that Mubarak go now, not that Mubarak go in seven months." However, she said, if Mubarak had made the offer earlier that would have defused the crisis.

In his remarks, Obama emphasized that "it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders."

Shibley Telhami, a Mideast scholar at the University of Maryland, said it was important for Obama to "lower our tone" and not appear to get directly involved in the leadership change – for fear of creating an unwelcome backlash. "The less we make this about America, the better," Telhami said.

Any period of governmental uncertainty, if Egypt goes through a succession of leaders, or if extremist factions gain the upper hand, could keep tensions across the region high for a long period.

Also adding to the uncertainty: The protesters are varied and often have conflicting agendas, ranging from students and grass-roots organizers to online activists to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood that generally wants to form a state governed by Islamic law.The brotherhood is currently banned, but it could gain power in any period of political upheaval. While the Brotherhood claims to have closed its paramilitary wing long ago, it has fought politically to gain power. It has also built a nationwide charity and social network that much of Egypt's population depends on for survival.

"You have to be very careful about instability for a very long period because this is a country where you just have critical problems in food supply and feeding people," said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on the Middle East at the Center for Strategic and international Studies.

All nations in the region, in fact, that aren't big oil-producing states, have problems with poverty and hunger, worries that could be worsened by any destabilizing event, he said. And instability in Egypt could spread to its neighbors.

"In terms of the worst case, the obvious one is that, over time, you see some kind of violent Islamic extremist takeover. The second worst case is that you see the government survive in a form so repressive that basically every passing month creates even more pressure for change and even more anger at the regime and at the United States," said Cordesman, a former director of intelligence assessment in the Pentagon.

A confidential June 2005 U.S. government diplomatic cable, posted online Tuesday by the WikiLeaks organization, showed that the U.S. has long been concerned that Egypt faced a succession crisis.

Questions about Mubarak's age and health, the cable said, "have made presidential succession a core national issue."

It isn't clear how much clout will be wielded by Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel-prize winning former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who has emerged over the past few days as the leading opposition leader.

"This is so complex because the Egyptian opposition has so many faces," said Peter Morici, a University of Maryland business professor and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.

For instance, Morici noted, while ElBaradei is a clear favorite of the West, he has been "quite critical of Egypt's support for the Israeli blockade of Gaza."

Morici said overhanging the whole issue of possible ramifications is the possibility of a tightening of oil supplies by oil-producing states that might be unhappy with the turn of events in Egypt's governance.

With just a 5 percent reduction in production, "you could hit $120 a barrel and that's $4 a gallon gasoline." That could torpedo a still fragile recovery, he said.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE: Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — The protests rocking Egypt could change the political landscape of the entire Arab world and beyond. Possible outcomes range all the way from pro-democracy forces taking charge in C...
WASHINGTON — The protests rocking Egypt could change the political landscape of the entire Arab world and beyond. Possible outcomes range all the way from pro-democracy forces taking charge in C...
Filed by Cara Parks  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 359
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
RumiSouth
Caerbannog!
06:50 PM on 02/04/2011
And yet three days later, Wolf Blitzer pronounces Egypt a "U.S. intelligence failure."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mondayboy
Rebel with a cause
05:25 AM on 02/03/2011
will Americans tolerate someone to rule them for 30 years?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
RumiSouth
Caerbannog!
06:54 PM on 02/04/2011
No. FDR only served fifteen, and that was enough to make Republicans push the 22nd Amendment through. They've spent the last six decades trying to undo all the "damage" Roosevelt did to America. So no, Americans won't tolerate a president being in office more than eight years; and it takes at least ten to do real damage.
11:03 PM on 02/02/2011
The US is only concerned about how this might affect Israel. That's it, the Administration couldn't give a hoot about the Egyptian people.
11:19 PM on 02/02/2011
One has to admit... all reports from the U.S. officials seem to indicate you are correct.
01:15 AM on 02/03/2011
Ok, I agree with you, but can you tell me why that is the case?
11:26 AM on 02/03/2011
Obama is an American president and all Americans presidents should always be concerned about Americans and American interest before anything else.
06:15 PM on 02/02/2011
I wonder, if a few hundred thousand folks showed up in Washington to demand Obama step down...what would he do?

I'm not advocating this but I have to say I'm extremely disappointed in his failure to live up to his promises, so to see him stepping in on another leaders turf is a little funny.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
11:59 PM on 02/02/2011
President Obama has a duty to err on the side of people's right to peaceably assemble and express themselves. Ultimately, a leader has an obligation to restore order. It appears that nobody has the status to relieve Hosni Mubarak of power.
11:26 AM on 02/03/2011
Why would he step down? The election is in 2012.
05:31 PM on 02/02/2011
I have faith in Egypt. They were civilized over 4000 years ago and the Muslim cult only came into being in 632 AD. I think they will move to become more like Turkey - some kind of secular state. Maybe not a state that agrees with the USA all the time but one that can be reasoned with and that looks out for its people!
08:05 PM on 02/02/2011
Muslim cult? So to which cult do you subscribe? Because thats what I see them all as..
11:30 AM on 02/03/2011
Are you talking about the Ancient Egyptians?

Because those people were slaughtered by the Romans, who were then annexed and defeated by the Ottoman Empire. Egypt, as it exists today, is inhabited primarily by descendants of the Ottoman Empire.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:44 PM on 02/02/2011
60 Minutes had a show with Assange this last weekend. Huff is not posting more in his defense. Shearer has been one of the defenders he's had on here. So much silence lately.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/01/31-1
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
03:41 PM on 02/02/2011
WOW!!!

So the option "Armageddon" is ok. It is us losing power in a nation we should not be involved in anyway that is the biggest threat.

Statements like this convince me that our feeling of superiority is on its way to destroy us as it did with every other nation on the planet that thought it had the right to rule the world because it was superior than others.

And when I see that our acts are war, destrying democracies, installing dictators, supporting the rest of them, planting bombs anywhere the left seems to raise to power (look up Gladio), and corporations destroying everything in sight and reinventing poverty and slavery the world over that convince me it is high time the world stood up against so called US interests. because all we do is destroy and kill. As yet I know of not a single case where we actually helped without demanding something in return that would often do more damage than the catastrophe we pretended to help with.
03:27 PM on 02/02/2011
Why wouldn't there be concern, on many levels, with the successor of a man whose been in the same position for 30 years? Should not be allowed ever again.
06:19 PM on 02/02/2011
Well, if you're going to take that stance you might consider how many of the members of our own Congress are career politicians and have held office for a decade or more...we don't have to go all the way to Egypt to address issues like this we can start closer to home.
03:06 PM on 02/02/2011
Dont look for the USA to promote Democracy anywhere. Just look back to how the USA handled Honduras last year. We are a joke of a democracy. Your allowed every 4 years to pick 1 of 2 candidates who were first picked by and represent the wealthy 5%. What a choice. That is NOT a Democracy.
photo
CigarGod
What is your process?
03:27 PM on 02/02/2011
The process is more representative than that.
btw, an imperfect democracy is still a democracy.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
08:12 PM on 02/02/2011
Not on the presidential level. Look how the msm destroyed the people's choice, Howard Dean, in 2004.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phranquenstew
04:35 PM on 02/02/2011
You got it just about right. "The Greatest Generation" fresh out of a victory in WW2, and possessing an inflated sense of righteousness and a Cold War mindset, raised the Boomers to believe that ours was the ONLY PERFECT DEMOCRACY, and that the world owed us their undying gratitude for their salvation. Even worse, they taught us to believe that our unassailable ideals were destined only to improve, and with time, all other nations would envy and emulate us. HA! We've turned the "high road" into a "toll road".
As far as the reply to your post that "an imperfect democracy is still a democracy" shows an amazing degree of selective memory and a complete misunderstanding of the word.
Remember Hamas being elected? We support the election's losing party and back the army of occupation.
How about Chile? We assassinated the democratically-elected Allende and supported Pinochet.
In Iran, the US did the same for the Shah. Today, Iran is a democracy... "an imperfect democracy is still a democracy".
Most countries in the world have some element of "democracy" in their governments, albeit limited to a select minority in some cases, but the USA started out as a selective democracy for land-owning males'. While our own democracy has indeed become somewhat more inclusive, there has also been a tremendous backslide toward oligarchy, while "newer" democracies are leading the way in areas of human rights, education, health care and economic opportunity.
06:22 PM on 02/02/2011
Well said.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tlaltecuhtli
02:05 PM on 02/02/2011
Lie down with dogs ... get up with fleas! And do we ever need a flea bath and collar!
01:54 PM on 02/02/2011
It is sad that the US has supported Tyranns like Hussain and Mobarak. We like democracy,don't we?
05:23 PM on 02/02/2011
Do you remember the Shah of Iran? He held power for years and would still be in charge of Iran if not for Jimmy Carter. Jimmy wanted the country to pick their own leaders and be free to choose their type of government and look at what we have now. Let hope Egypt does not turn out like Iran!
11:32 AM on 02/03/2011
Carter had the best intentions in the world. Democracy doesn't always work for its people, which is why the US is not a wholesale democracy, but a republic.
11:32 AM on 02/03/2011
We are a republic that elects its officials through democracy. But primarily we are a republic first.
01:22 PM on 02/02/2011
Maybe if the aid we gave to Egpt had been designated for agricultural and economic development rather than support for the military, we would have averted a lot of this problem. We just don't seem to get that there are better ways to insure good will around the world than by sending in the bombs and guns.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Eleanor Ruby Moon
Writer, Air-race Pilot, Australian
10:27 PM on 02/02/2011
But don't forget, the US is a war-loving country. It was founded on war. It is a very violent nation. Of course, when it doles out moola, it's earmarked for weapons. That's the signature of America. Why be gentle when, with a boatload of weapons, you can kill and maim? Who else has used the atomic bomb?
11:38 AM on 02/03/2011
The aid we give to Egypt is tailored towards furthering a straegic interest, which in this case is the tended maintenance of Egypt's military forcesso that if and when the times comes for us, the United States, to call upon their forces, they are in a good position to support our wartime times. Giving taxpayer money to support any other cause with regards to Egypt, which is generally a rich one, is plain inappropriate. There are other nations, including African ones, that need agricultural and economic development more than Egypt does.
01:06 PM on 02/02/2011
Tunisia , Jordan, Egypt, it looks like the Arab version of 1848.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jason Hollis
12:22 PM on 02/02/2011
Because we totally needed WikiLeaks to tell us this.
No one figured it out on their own.
/sarcasm

*eyeroll*
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cynth
[Your ad here.]
12:45 PM on 02/02/2011
True for many of us, but this is new to many in the Middle East, including Egypt, where their government operations, policy, and news isn't so transparent. Whether or not we agree with the publication of the docs on Wikileaks, the fact is that some of the information contained in the docs, while not news to us, was news to citizens of many countries around the world. This awareness, combined with economic and social dissatisfaction, have triggered what we are seeing in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc.
11:38 AM on 02/03/2011
Many countries of the world need not by be privy to our confidential information.