Is it “too late” for Egypt?

By Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of pan-Arab al-Hayat

Wednesday was a long and gory day. All Egypt-lovers wished it would be sidestepped.

But all Egypt-watchers saw the day coming. Slamming the door shut tempts people to break it open.

It was difficult for two authorities to cohabitate in Egypt -- one headquartered in the palace and the other in Adawiya.

It was tough for the interim administration to tolerate a scene suggesting a face-off between two “legitimacies.”

The sit-ins were eroding the mandate sought and won by the interim administration.

At the same time, it was far from easy for the Muslim Brotherhood to consider Mohamed Morsi’s tenure a closed chapter. The defeat was more spectacular than the Brotherhood could bear. Its response was a mixture of bitterness and anger.

It reacted as if a tank storming the palace brought down Morsi. It did not try to understand that Morsi fell under the weight of a quasi-revolution and a quasi-coup.

It refused to notice the millions who gathered to give someone else authority to act. On that day, it only noted the portrait of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The Brotherhood did not perceive the decision to clear out the sit-ins as part of the authorization decision. It chose to break the will of both the mandated and mandating sides – namely, the millions of its detractors and the Military Establishment.

The Muslim Brotherhood dealt with internal and external mediations by setting the greatest possible demand. It never accepted anything short of Morsi’s reinstatement, meaning a full defeat of its opponents.

The Brotherhood behaved as an injured person so overcome by his wound as to refuse anything liable to alleviate his pain or cut his risks.

The Brotherhood could have embarrassed its opponents if it had capitalized on the mediations to propose a solution that would have made it hard for the interim administration to clear out the sit-ins.

It speculated that the price of disbanding the sit-ins would be so prohibitive as to deter the interim administration from implementing it.

The Brotherhood gambled when it insisted on recouping the presidential palace.

It left the interim administration no choice other than to crack down on the protest camps.

It let pass the fact it had clashed with most Egyptians before clashing with the police and the army.

It closed the eyes to the fact Sisi would not have asked directly for the peoples’ authorization if he, and the Military Establishment, did not feel the majority of Egyptians were intimidated by the Brothers’ rule. So much so that most Egyptians were willing to accept any measure to end their governance, even at the expense of dispersing an elected president’s administration.

The Brotherhood shut its ears to voices that spent months warning against exclusion, empowerment, Brotherhood-ization, reshaping the Egyptian citizens’ characteristics and manipulating Egypt’s spirit.

Any observer of developments in Egypt since the last days of Hosni Mubarak’s administration is aware that risk-taking by the Brothers started before Morsi.

The first gamble was when the decision was made to field a Brotherhood candidate in the presidential race and discounting chances the move would overburden Egypt and exceed its tolerance capacity.

This is due to the clout of revolution-breeders and makers, the Military Establishment’s deep roots and Egypt’s commitments resulting from its geographic position and economic conditions.

The degree of risk-taking deepened when the Muslim Brotherhood chose to singlehandedly share with the government of Hesham Qandil the burden of an extremely thorny transition.

Morsi found no effective partners and the Brotherhood didn’t help him unearth them.

He looked like dancing solo and dealing unattended with such files as the constitution, the judiciary and the rapport with the Military Establishment.

This risk-taking also led to loss of the compass, poor performance, a lack of perception and a dearth of cadres.

In politics, the Brotherhood or an individual has no right to push people to commit suicide and self-destruct the country. In politics, it is imperative to manage losses in the absence of profit.

Pictures of victims might serve a purpose. Numbers of martyrs and funerals might delay questions being asked and temporarily put off accountability for gambles made and responsibilities assumed.

But fact is the Brotherhood crossed swords with millions of Egyptians before coming under police fire.

Going forward, the greatest danger for Egypt is the Brothers’ acting with the “too late” mentality; that they have no choice other than confrontation, unrest, fires and other civil war practices; and that they can count on American and Western condemnations of the crackdown on protest camps.

Despite the inflamed feelings, the current leadership should avoid a victor’s arrogance, the “too late” approach and the politics of force.

The mandate that allowed the interim administration to clear out the sit-ins also demanded a constitution embracing all Egyptians, a revisit to the ballot box and free and transparent elections.

A return to the “too late” dictum is impermissible.

The priority now is to prevent a civil war and shut out Algerian scenes.

Obama, president of Lebanon?

"No winner and no loser" image from www.aljazeera.net

The White House readout of U.S. President Barack Obama’s call with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia:

President Obama spoke by phone today (July 12) with King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia.

The President relayed his warm wishes to the King on the occasion of Ramadan.

The leaders reaffirmed the strong and enduring partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and discussed regional issues of mutual interest.

The President and the King shared their perspectives on the situation in Syria and expressed their strong concerns about the impact of the conflict on the region.

The President emphasized the United States’ continued commitment to provide support to the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the Supreme Military Council to strengthen the opposition.

The President and King also exchanged views on recent developments in Egypt.

They agreed that the United States and Saudi Arabia have a shared interest in supporting Egypt’s stability.

The President expressed his serious concern about the violence in Egypt and underscored the urgent need for an inclusive political process that will enable an early return to a democratically elected civilian government in Egypt. 

The leaders pledged to continue close consultations between their two governments.

Separately, Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of Saudi Arabia’s leading daily Asharq Alawsat, writes today of Obama seeming like a president of Lebanon:

A watcher of the U.S. president’s approach to our regional files does not perceive Barack Obama as leader of the world’s most powerful nation, but as the president of Lebanon, where the mantra is “no winner and no loser.”

In Egypt, the Obama Administration is still at a loss whether to describe the June 30 “corrective movement” as a military coup or a response to popular demands, despite saying Mohamed Morsi’s government “wasn’t a democratic rule.”

While confirming plans to send four shiny F-16 fighter jets to Egypt’s military, the Obama Administration formally puts U.S. aid to Cairo under review. It urges the Muslim Brotherhood to renounce violence and at the same time warns the interim leadership against Brotherhood arrests.

Worse still, the Obama Administration calls for Morsi’s release just as the White House says, “We’re not taking sides in Egypt.”

Can you imagine a worse muddle?

As concerns Syria, the fumbles are greater, more serious and profound.

Obama had asked all sides to wait for his reelection campaign to end, but nothing changed thereafter.

He did zilch despite Bashar al-Assad forces killing more than 100,000 Syrians and disregarding his “game-changer” threat that moving or using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus.”

When Iran and Hezbollah intervened in Syria to defend Assad, Obama remained passive.

And after he undertook to arm Syrian rebels, he failed to deliver.

His administration cites broad-based concerns the weapons could fall into wrong hands of hardline Islamists. Strangely, the administration has no such concerns about Egypt’s hardline Islamists, despite the Egyptian Army being targeted in Sinai by terrorists loyal to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration’s fumbling and dithering is countless.

The president’s rash exit from Iraq turned it into an Iranian springboard to attack Syrians and defend Assad through the Baghdad government and armed Shiite groups.

Also we’re now into the fallouts from the planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, not to mention American heedlessness to Libya.

President Obama doesn’t want to do anything anywhere, despite all the security threats, risks to U.S. political interests and the violations of laws and principles such as in Syria.

The Obama Administration has also disconcerted other regions. European countries are demanding that Washington immediately stop its eavesdropping on European Union officials and diplomats.

There too, Obama is trying to circumvent the issue à la Libanaise – “no winner and no loser.”

Obama has the earmarks of a president of Lebanon, instead of the president of the most powerful nation on earth.

Egypt in the grip of “madness and bloodshed”

Scenes from Cairo's bloody Monday

Egypt's interim administration has formed a judicial committee to investigate a deadly clash in Cairo at dawn between the army and Muslim Brotherhood supporters in which dozens were killed.

A statement by the transitional administration said the deaths were the result of an attempt by protesters to storm the Republican Guard headquarters where President Mohammed Morsi was being held after his dismissal last week.

At least 50 people were killed in the clashes, which Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators blamed on the military.

There are two opposing versions of the incident.

The military claims there was an attempt to storm the compound by "armed terrorists" at dawn, forcing the guards to return fire to repel the attack. The Muslim Brotherhood says a detachment of soldiers advanced from behind on hundreds of people performing dawn prayers outside the compound.

Liberal politician Mohamed ElBaradei said Egypt was in "dire need" of reconciliation and condemned all violence.

Former presidential candidate Hamdeen Sabahi, leader of the Popular Current party, told Reuters the transitional administration created when the army toppled Morsi in response to mass protests against him and the Muslim Brotherhood could not afford to wait.

The appointment of a prime minister has been held up for two days because the ultra-conservative Islamist Noor Party rejected both secular candidates for the post nominated by army-backed interim head of state Adly Mansour.

Sabahi said it was important to have Islamist participation in the transition but he believed that Noor might revise its position and either join the government or join in the rewriting of the constitution once a new administration was formed.

Asked about Monday's clash outside Republican Guard barracks, Sabahi said the only beneficiaries of such bloodshed were the Muslim Brotherhood and others who sought to polarize the situation and drive Egypt to civil war.

In anticipation of this early morning’s clashes, leading Egyptian media figure Emad Adeeb wrote for ElWatanNews this piece on “the logic of madness and blood” now gripping Egypt:

Each of the two Egypts is accepting no less than everything.

Muslim Brotherhood supporters feel their legitimacy was robbed. They won’t leave the streets and public squares before Dr. Mohamed Morsi is reinstated.

Masses opposed to the Brotherhood regime believe Dr. Morsi flouted the principles of his popular democratic mandate and reneged on his campaign promises. As a result, he lost his legitimacy and had to be removed.

Neither side can tolerate the other and it is difficult to imagine them sharing governance of the country.

I am certain normalcy won’t be restored and bloodshed won’t stop in beloved Egypt except when each of the two sides gets totally convinced it cannot manage the country’s affairs alone.

During Morsi’s rule, the Brotherhood did not believe the opposition existed and the opposition refused to cooperate with his administration.

Since June 30 and the emergency of a new regime, the Muslim Brotherhood refuses to play the role of a political opposition, while the liberal forces remain distrustful of what they perceive as the Brothers’ “malicious deeds and intentions.”

The central figures of (Mubarak’s) National Democratic Party were booted out after the January 25, 2011 revolution. The central figures of the National Salvation Front were sidelined by the Morsi administration. We’re now at the stage of sidelining the Muslim Brothers.

That’s a vicious circle that can lead us nowhere except to madness, death and ruin.

What makes the situation catastrophic is the decision by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters to resort to violence and street fighting as a counter weapon against the revolution, the army and the new regime.

A party to the current conflict that believes it can politically or physically finish off its opponent is misguided.

This sick mentality leaves no chance for a transition from utter disconnection to national cohesion.

Remember the army’s public and secret ultimatum to Dr. Morsi was meant as a goad to a political partnership between his administration and the opposition. But exclusivism pervaded the Brotherhood’s approach and the former president’s conduct.

The Muslim Brotherhood, heartened by the Americans, committed the memorable blunder of believing that taking to the streets to recoup the former regime is the only way to win this power struggle.

No one will be able to shut out the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Brotherhood has no chance of putting back the clock.

We will continue to destroy each other and the state of political folly and lawlessness will refuse to go away.

Morsi to quit or be removed today – al-Ahram

AhramOnline photo by Mai Shaheen

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi will either resign by the end of the day or be removed from office by the Egyptian Armed Forces.

Abdel-Nasser Salama, editor-in-chief of Egypt’s newspaper of records al-Ahram, writes this morning:

In the hours following 4.30 local time (3.30 GMT) deadline set by the Armed Forces, one of two things will happen:

1. The president stands down of his own volition, or
2. He is removed from office, in keeping with the roadmap set by the Armed Forces.

The said roadmap also provides for:

• Annulment of the Constitution and the appointment of constitutional experts to draft a new constitution that takes into consideration the demands of the broadest spectrum of public opinion. The constitution will be put to a referendum after its endorsement by al-Azhar
• Formation of a three-member Presidential Council -- chaired by the head of the High Constitutional Court and two other members yet to be named -- to manage the affairs of state during a transition period of between nine months and a year
• Formation of an interim government rid of all political currents and headed by one of the military leaders for the duration of the transition
• Preparations for presidential and parliamentary elections. The new Constitution shall determine which of the two ballots comes first.
• Throughout the transition period, the Army shall oversee these measures – set out in the “Roadmap for the Future” – to ensure their impartial implementation.

Al-Ahram says all Muslim Brotherhood key players are kept in check, all Brotherhood sites stocking arms are being monitored, a number of Brotherhood leaders have been placed under house arrest and the Brotherhood’s funds have been frozen. 

The unmaking of the Arab world

Fahmi Howeidi is a leading Egyptian political and social scholar and author, and one of the Arab world’s most prominent columnists. Following is my abridgment of his syndicated think piece this week:

There is a sort of overlap in tuning in on the revolution and the government in Egypt.

That’s caused either by incessant media campaigns denigrating the revolution in the public eye or by the torrent of government crises news, which make people lose sight of the revolution’s achievements.

In effect, the Egypt revolution ended a reign of corruption and tyranny and returned the country to its people. It brought a Pharaonic era to a close, restored civil liberties, ended minority rule and empowered the masses to have the final say on their government.

But why did Egypt’s post-revolution administration stumble?

One explanation is that decade-long tyranny not only destroyed Egypt’s political and economic present, but its future as well.

The other explanation is the preclusion of all and sundry from Egyptian politics save for a restricted group of loyalists handpicked by the former president.

As a result, the political class was neither coached in managing state affairs nor shown the ropes of state administration.

This political class was also shut out from any communal endeavor to promote the national interest through state institutions.

Egypt’s post-revolution administration crisis can thus be blamed on a host of factors, including:

• The classic tension that dawns each time a revolution brings down a regime and tries to replace it
• The heavy legacy left by the deposed regime, such as the ruination of politics, the economy, state institutions and society.
• Mismanagement of state affairs by President Mohamed Morsi and his team and their reneging of election promises.
• Immaturity of opposition figures
• The tug-of-war among some nationalist camp components
• Lawlessness, which also undermines economic activity
• External pressures.

Everyone in Egypt is now aware that although it made good progress over the years in running its own business, the Muslim Brotherhood did not make the grade in reigning over and managing society.

That is the root cause of the current crisis, which led to the political stalemate in Egypt.

Overcoming the political deadlock requires a lot of wisdom, courage and foresight, all of which seem lacking – at least for the foreseeable future.

(2)

In the case of all four or five Arab Spring countries, revolt proved much more profound and far-reaching than actual or prospective regime change.

The new manifestations that are kept in the public eye day and night by the media touch only the surface of the spirit of rebellion, which drove ordinary citizens to protest loudly against oppression, corruption and social injustice.

The discrepancy made me distinguish between what I call the “tumultuous spring” and the “silent” variety.

“Tumultuous spring” came out in the open and called for regime change in some countries.

By contrast, the “silent spring” chose to express itself calmly through the social media.

Its aim is regime reform, but not regime change. It falls in the category of “reformist spring” as opposed to “revolutionary spring.”

The open letter calling for reform, which Saudi cleric Salman al-Odah posted last month on Facebook and Twitter falls in the latter category. Odah specifically called for ending the practice of media control, information censorship and the release of political prisoners.

Other reformists made similar appeals elsewhere in the Gulf.

(3)

From this perspective, I believe the pan-Arab nation is meanwhile facing an existential impasse that needs addressing.

While historic change looms on the horizon, a vacuum hangs on the Arab arena.

Observers fail to spot a leader or a plan the Arabs can rally around or defend.

When focusing on the Arab arena, all they spot are three endeavors: the Turks are expanding economically, the Iranian politically and the Israelis through land grabs to build settlements.

Moreover, changes on the ground suggest the region’s maps are being reconfigured and a new Sykes-Picot Agreement is being contemplated.

The pointers:

• Iraq faces partition after having been steamrolled by the United States invasion. Iraqi Kurdistan has almost seceded, and nothing keeps the lid on its independence other than the absence of a public declaration of self-determination preceded by a ban on hoisting the Iraqi national flag on its territory. A forceful call is also being made to divide Iraq into three regions – one for Kurds, another for Shiites and the third for Sunnis.
• Syria is poised to follow suit, especially that its regime seems on its last legs so far. Should the Assad regime fall, contingency plans are already in place to declare an Alawite state along the country’s coastline. In anticipation, Syria’s central bank reserves have reportedly been moved to Latakia, whose seaport and airport are being upgraded.
• The side-effects of the Syrian regime’s collapse would allow for (a) a shift in the balance of power in Lebanon at Hezbollah’s expense (b) a shot in the arm to the Sunni uprising in Iraq (c) a rekindling of the Kurdish issue, which explains Turkey’s recent preemptive peace deal with PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, and (d) rethinking and re-planning in Tehran, particularly that a blitz by Israel on its nuclear facilities is not off the table yet.
• The Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip remain in limbo and the risks of a third Intifada erupting mount.
• Sudan’s South has broken away from its North.
• In Yemen, calls are growing louder all the time for the secession of the South.
• Morocco is grappling with the Tamazight movement’s political demands shortly after recognizing the Tamazight language in its new constitution.
• Over and above the widening schism between its Sunnis and Shiites, the Arab world finds itself riven by rifts between the Salafi movement and Ennahda Movement in Tunisia, between Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and between Salafis and seculars in Algeria.

These are ample indicators of how the Arab world is liable to break up. The process of restructuring it is quietly moving ahead while it remains unfazed or unaware. 

Iran can’t just gobble up and Shi’ize Egypt

Political analyst Yasser el-Zaatreh, a native of Jericho, has been  freelancing for 27 years. He wrote this think piece in Arabic for Aljazeera.net

File pictures of Morsi and Ahmadinejad

Egyptian leaders are keeping nose to grindstone to mitigate internal disquiet.

They are less focused on recovering Cairo’s Arab and regional clout and role.

So before Egypt overcomes its internal travails, its leadership will find it hard to conjure up a clear Arab and regional vision.

Where events in Syria are concerned, Cairo remains as supportive of the Syrian people as it can be.

President Mohamed Morsi’s Syria statements and Cairo’s backing of the Arab League decision giving Syria’s seat to the Syrian Opposition Coalition corroborate this. The Arab League switch would not have been possible without Egypt’s full backing.

When discussing Egypt’s stance on Syria, we’re talking by implication about the position of Iran, which sees in Bashar al-Assad’s political survival the cornerstone of its strategy in the region.

After all, Iran effectively sacrificed its relations with the best part of the Ummah to preserve this immoral position. And the Islamic Republic’s loss on that matter is immeasurable by strategic standards.

Morsi would not have been supportive of the Syrian opposition had he been anxious to win Iran’s heart and mind.

He is aware that vexing Iran could tempt her to support and fund his opponents, if not tamper with Egypt’s internal security – chiefly in the soft areas of Sinai, where tribal groups and some Islamists are being led to believe they could challenge “Zionists” from that particular frontline.

On his February trip to Egypt for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not meet with Morsi except at Cairo airport, which is where Ahmadinejad offered him oil grants and financial support. Morsi simply ignored the offer.

Likewise, you can’t read much into the bilateral tourism promotion agreement between Egypt and Iran and the normalization of their commercial ties.

By comparison, tourism and commerce links between Turkey and Iran continue to prosper even though the two countries are exchanging blows in Syria and fighting a cold war across the region.

This is not to mention Tehran’s attempts to play the Kurdish card – a no-hoper since Recep Tayyip Erdogan made his historic peace deal with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

While Egypt has yet to resume diplomatic relations with Iran and bilateral tourism and commerce is just beginning, Arab Gulf states and the Islamic Republic share a wide range of diplomatic, tourism and trade links. For instance, hundreds of thousands of Iranians travel to Saudi Arabia annually to perform the Hajj and Umrah. Tens of thousands of Iranians also visit the UAE, Kuwait and Oman.

So can Morsi and his government overlook Egypt’s economic interests and shut out Iran? And is Egypt’s national security so porous as to be easily compromised by Tehran?

This takes us to the preoccupation of many people with Shi’ization (or the “missionary-style” spread of Shiism).

In truth, the obsession with Shi’ization is an insult to the Sunni branch of Islam, depicting it as vulnerable and easily pliable, which is far from being the case.

Inasmuch as Alawites are part of Shiite Islam, did 40-plus years of Alawite rule in Syria convert the country’s Sunni majority to Shiism?

More importantly, was Shiite Iran able to Shi’ize its own Sunni population (of about 10 percent) over the years?

Iran’s occasional dabbling in Shi’ization drives is provocative, featherbrained and futile. But the Arabs’ problem with Iran is far from being sectarian. The problem is political par excellence.

Egypt, it must be said, is a regional heavyweight with an impressive cultural and historical legacy. It is also home to the millennium-old Al-Azhar University, the foremost institution in the Islamic world for the study of Sunni theology and Islamic law, and to Al-Azhar Mosque.

The future will show that whoever thinks Iran can gobble up and Shi’ize Egypt is hallucinating.

Egypt will never fall in Iran’s lap, neither under Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood nor under anyone else. Politics, history and the balance of power won’t let this happen.

Let’s stop portraying Iran as an omnipotent sovereign when it is wobbling under the weight of its problems in Syria, in Iraq and at home.

Iran will revert to its original size once Assad is shown the door. The Arab world will then have no problem building good neighborly relations with Tehran as it now has with Ankara.

Damascus 2013 is more sinister than Baghdad 2003

By Ghassan Charbel*

“What is taking place in Syria,” he said, “is much more alarming than what was taking place in Iraq 10 years ago. The nature of the struggle is different and more complex. The area is more vulnerable than it was prior to the removal of Saddam Hussein. In Baghdad, America was spontaneous and determined. In Damascus, America is listless, hesitant and soft. In Baghdad, Tehran wanted to see Saddam removed and was preparing to reap the benefits of his eclipse. In Damascus, Tehran is so involved in the confrontation, as though it is defending its project and the fringes of its role and its prestige. Region change is dawning from Damascus, not Baghdad.”

He went on, “Arab safety valves are nowhere to be found. Morsi’s Egypt is sinking in unrest. Maliki’s Iraq is drowning again in a crisis of its components. Assad’s Syria is the theater of a brutal battle mixing together revolution, internecine strife, regional faceoff and international emasculation. With such givens, you can’t but expect the worst.”

I was startled by the Arab official’s words and asked him to elaborate further.

He said the most dangerous thing regarding Syria is the foreclosing of retreat. The opposition cannot backtrack after the fall of nearly 100,000 dead and material damages estimated at $100 billion. The regime too cannot do an about face after what it did. The regime also hinges on Bashar al-Assad. That’s why Lakhdar Brahimi returned frustrated from Damascus because he broached the taboo subject.

My interlocutor felt Brahimi’s last trip convinced Assad’s enemies at home and abroad that change was needed in the balance of forces on the ground. This simply means a new round of funding and arming. Damascus is heading to a major showdown liable to produce additional victims, ruin and refugee waves.

He said Russia, which went too far in its support of the Syrian regime, finds it difficult to backpedal.  Besides, the door key is in Tehran, which acts as though the Syrian regime’s fall is a catastrophe, not a loss. That’s why it is putting its full weight in the ongoing conflict. It believes its exit from Syria will perturb its presence in Iraq and Lebanon and dent its image at home. Ties with Assad are the biggest, longest and most costly Iranian investment in the region. Cutting the Syrian stretch of the line running from Tehran to Beirut via Baghdad means Iran losing its mission. And the mission is more important than the bomb that could defend a bigger undertaking.

Hezbollah too cannot go into reverse. Fall of the regime would downgrade Hezbollah from regional to local player and rub out the word “steadfastness” from its vocabulary.

The official drew my attention to a very precarious development. The chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army said the FSA would henceforth deal with Hezbollah fighters in Homs as “mercenaries, not prisoners of war.” Whoever looks at the map would appreciate the implications of such words i.e. that Syrian-Lebanese and Sunni-Shiite relations are likely to be severely tested once the regime falls.

The official said the “more difficult episode” of the Syria crisis is approaching.

If the regime survives in part of Syria, it means moving from regime risks to map risks. Fall of the regime by knockout means an unstable Syria for years. Al-Qaeda sinking root in Syria is very dangerous. All scenarios confirm Damascus is more treacherous than Baghdad was.

The official did not miss asking me about events in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley town of Arsal.

*Ghassan Charbel is the Lebanese editor-in-chief of the Saudi-owned pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. The original Arabic wording of his editorial appears in today’s edition of al-Hayat.

Iran, “Ayatollah Morsi” and Obama’s extended hand

Portraits of the writers by Tehran Times (top) and image grabs of their letter as published by Fars

While Barack Obama keeps his hand extended to talk Iran into scaling back its nuclear ambitions, Tehran is urging Mohamed Morsi to set up an Islamic theocracy in Egypt.

Some 17 Iranian Establishment figures have formally offered to help the Egyptian president duplicate the Islamic Republic of Iran’s system of governance in his country.

Their written offer, penned in Arabic, was made public today by Iranian news agency Fars.

The 17 Iranian scholars, ulema and politicians include former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, currently the senior advisor on International Affairs to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; former parliament speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, notable Shiite figure Ayatollah Seyyed Mostafa Mohaqiq Damad, and Farhad Rahbar, chancellor of the University of Tehran.

The gist of what the Iranians figures tell Morsi is this:

We witnessed the Iranian people successes ensuing from the Islamic Revolution’s victory under the late Imam Khomeini. We also witnessed the experiences Iran gained in its bitter struggles against Zionism and World Arrogance in the 34 years since the Islamic Revolution.

From such a perspective, we put forward the following:

• The developed world’s material successes have been innumerable, but it still faces countless crises for straying from the veracity of Islam.
• The West is now rediscovering the centrality of religion and the importance of upholding its role and values in society.
• The principles of Islam are a reference point to all problems whether at national or international levels.
• Faith and belief in divine power allow humans to be successful and happy in life and in their afterlife.
• Any system of governance that formulates its policies, builds its institutions and devises its plans under divine guardianship is bound to succeed.
• The Islamic Republic of Iran set forth on the basis of the centrality of Islam and its permeation of all government organs and affairs of its executive, legislative and judicial branches.
• The Islamic Republic of Iran’s system of governance was put to a referendum in April 1979, when a 99.2% majority approved it. Seven months later, an overwhelming majority endorsed the ensuing constitution.
• The Iranian people have not looked back in the 34 years since. They struggled against World Arrogance and Islam’s enemies, maintained their independence from Western and Eastern powers and supported the downtrodden all-over the world, chiefly the oppressed Palestinian people.
• Iran’s political, economic, cultural and building accomplishments have been spectacular. Despite the eight-year (1980-1988) war (with Iraq) and economic and political sanctions, Iran has eradicated poverty in its urban and rural areas and made impressive scientific and hi-tech advances. It stayed the course throughout – first under the late Imam Khomeini and now under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
• Official statistics -- by UNESCO on the eradication of illiteracy, by Science-Metrix on trade volume and science and technology productivity, and by UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) on industrial development -- attest to Iran’s sensational progress.

Iranian scholars, ulema and scientists reiterate their readiness to put the wealth of their knowledge and expertise at the service of your esteemed government and the honorable Muslim people of Egypt.

In light of the aforesaid, we urge Your Excellency -- as a wise doctrinaire at the helm of a country proud of its past and glorious Islamic civilization – to make Islam the underlying bedrock of running your state affairs.

Extended hand

Editorially, columnist Rajeh el-Khoury, writing today for the independent Lebanese daily an-Nahar, says he is astounded how U.S. President Obama is sticking to the policy of the “extended hand” to Iran without Tehran giving the slightest indication of “unclenching its fist.”

Obama has been trying to make diplomatic headway with Iran over its nuclear program for ages. The result has been a more defiant Iran.

Khoury suspects Washington and Tehran have been playacting all along.

“It is in America’s vital interest to keep the Iranian scarecrow in the Gulf and the region,” Khoury writes. Proof is a recent congressional report showing that weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Gulf Arab allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions.

When the P5+1 – the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany – meet next with Iran, “Saeed Jalili, the Islamic Republic’s chief nuclear negotiator, and Wendy Sherman, his American counterpart, will share a big laugh because the playacting continues with matchless success.”  

Azhar rebuke & Syrian shoe greet Iran’s Egypt foray

From top: Ahmadinejad greeted by Morsi, next to the Grand Sheikh and then gloomy after the upbraiding

It was not exactly “veni, vidi, vici” (ecclesiastical Latin for “I came, I saw, I conquered”).

It was more like “I came, I saw, I tried” for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he ended the first visit by a president of Shiite Iran to Egypt since the Khomeini Revolution in 1979.

He arrived in Cairo Tuesday for a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). But his priority was to try and thaw long, frigid ties with the Arab world’s most populous nation following the election of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi as president in June.

Morsi gave Ahmadinejad a red-carpet welcome on the tarmac at Cairo airport, shaking his hand, hugging and exchanging a kiss on each cheek.

In the days he was in Cairo, Ahmadinejad called for a strategic alliance between the two regional heavyweights to counter Western domination and promote unity in the Islamic world. He even offered Egypt a “big credit line.”

But Egypt's presidential spokesman Yasser Ali yesterday said an end to the Syria crisis is a condition to restore Cairo’s diplomatic relations with Tehran.

Additionally, Sunni-Shiite tensions dominated talks between Ahmadinejad and Egypt's most prominent cleric Mohamed Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar mosque and university, who gave the Iranian leader a dressing down on a string of issues.

Al-Azhar is the highest seat of religious learning in the Sunni-Muslim world.

According to a sum up of the talks posted on al-Azhar’s website, al-Tayeb told Ahmadinejad:

• Al-Azhar mosque and university have over a millennium-long history. Over half a million men and women students from 103 countries are enrolled at the university, which teaches all roots, branches and philosophies of Islam without exception

• Two of our ulema are among those attending this meeting. Their respective specialties are two Shiite philosophers, theologians and scholars, namely Sadr ad-Din Muhammad Shirazi (1572-1640) and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274).    

• “Allow me to say we are extremely disappointed to hear ceaseless insults hurled at the (Prophet’s) Companions and the Believers’ Mothers, God bless them. That’s totally unacceptable.” (Those figures are widely resented among Shiites because they are seen as having pushed aside Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb, the prophet's son-in-law, who Shiites consider his rightful successor. The dispute over succession is at the root of the centuries old split between Islam's Shiite and Sunni denominations.)

• “We absolutely reject the extension of Shiite reach” in Sunni countries and in Egypt.

• “Despite all what al-Azhar sees and hears of the insults hurled at the Companions and Aisha – God bless them – and Imam Bukhari, we don’t want to engage in a dispute we all can do without.”

• Iran must give its Sunni citizens their full rights. Citizenship is indivisible according to modern law and Islamic Sharia.

• A word about (Iran’s) meddling in the affairs of Bahrain and the Arab countries: The loyalty of Bahrainis should be to their homeland. No one should interfere in the Bahrainis’ internal affairs or in the affairs of Gulf Arab states.

• Immediate action is needed to bring a halt to bloodshed in beloved Syria.

As the Iranian president walked past the ancient al-Hussein mosque near al-Azhar, a man believed to be Syrian attempted to hurl a shoe at him.

Ahmadinejad in tears next to Sayyida Zaynab's tomb

Unperturbed, Ahmadinejad later visited the mosque and mausoleum of Sayyida Zaynab in the capital's Old Cairo district, where he cried beside the Muslim matriarch's tomb.

Sayyida Zaynab was the daughter of Imam Ali, the central figure of Shiite Islam and the cousin of Prophet Muhammad.

Ahmadinejad greeted the mosque's superintendents with hugs and kisses. After praying inside the mosque, he headed to the adjacent mausoleum where he shed tears and prayed next to Sayyida Zaynab's tomb.

Editorially, Mohammed bin Abdellatif Aal ash-Shaikh, writing for today’s edition of the Saudi daily newspaper al-Jazirah, says the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar must have “greatly embarrassed” Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

“He is a stumbling block hindering Egypt’s move away from its traditional political positions toward rapprochement with Iran. That’s what the Brotherhood’s Egypt is trying to do.”

Ash-Shaikh recalls, “The Brotherhood was the first Sunni group to applaud Khomeini’s takeover in Iran. It sent a delegation to congratulate him on his return to Tehran and considered his accession to power a triumph for Islam and Muslims…

“At the same time, the Muslim Brothers want to draw closer to Iran, the Number One enemy of Gulf Arab countries, to sponge off financial aid from them. The Brothers’ links with Iran, in other words, are meant to pump off cash” from the Gulf Cooperation Council partners. Except that the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Mohamed Ahmed el-Tayeb will continue standing in their way.

Egypt’s famed talk show host Imad Adeeb, writing for the leading Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, says al-Tayeb told Ahmadinejad in the face, “Stop persecuting the Sunnis of Iran. Respect the security of Gulf Arab states. Don’t back Bashar’s regime in his campaign against Syria’s Sunnis.”

Adeeb notes, “The Egyptian press and TV channels did not welcome Ahmadinejad. The masses did not crowd the streets to greet him. What was supposed to be a historic visit had nothing historic about it. The dream proved a nightmare. The signals from political and religious forces were disappointing…

“Ahmadinejad had hoped the Egyptian capital would compensate for the imminent exit of Assad’s Damascus from Iran’s sphere of influence. The Cairo visit dissipated that hope.”