Sunday, January 15, 2012

El Baradei Pulls Out Of Egyptian Presidential Race

Ex IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei announced today that he was pulling out of Egypt's presidential race and would no longer be a candidate. When he discusses why, as usual he's lying through his teeth.

El Baradei claims that he pulled out because of the military junta is still ruling Egypt. “My conscience does not permit me to run for the presidency or any other official position unless it is within a real democratic system.”

The real reason he pulled out is that he doesn't stand a chance of getting elected, and in the sort of country Egypt is going to become being a failed presidential candidate could be quite hazardous to one's health.

The Egyptian parliamentary elections are over, and the Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won 46% of the seats, with the even more hard core Salafist al-Nour Party winning about 23% of the seats, giving the Islamist parties a 70% majority.

El Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well as an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist and was thus seen as not hardline enough compared to Amr Moussa, an ex-head of the Arab League or other Islamists candidates in the field. El Baradei was associated more with the Facebook liberals in places like Cairo, who have proven to be political wash outs with little actual support.

The current military junta has been in place for almost a year,led by ex-President Mubarak's former defense minister General Mohamed Tantawi. While elections have been held, there's actually been little progress in heading towards a civilian government, although a civilian prime minister, Kamal al-Ganzouri was appointed by the junta two months ago and elections were held as promised.

That really points either of two scenarios; either the military cuts a deal with the Islamists and cedes power in exchange for a few perks or the military holds on to power with Tantawi or one of his junta mates in charge.

In either case, there's no place for El Baradei. Some western policymakers actually considered El Baradei the best possible outcome, which shows both how clueless they are and where Egypt is likely headed.


B.Poster said...

"El-Baradei was definitely anti-Israel and anti-Western as well an appeaser of Iran who consistently covered up for Iran's illegal nuclear program, but he's not an Islamist..." It appears that the only real difference between the Islamists and the most potent opposition to them is in strategy. Essentially the goals are the same. They only differ in how they go about trying to achieve them.

When we aay El Baradei is anti-Western, jus who is the "West?" I'm assuming we maen by "West" the nations of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Tawain, and Israel. This is so even though some of the nations mentioned are not geographically located in the "West." At least for the purpose of this post, that is what I'm assuming is meant by "West" when we say Mr. El Baradei is "anti-western."

We know this man is anti-Israel and anti-American, however, how do we know he is against the other nations mentioned as "Western?" With all due respect it is a mistake to think of the "West" as some sort of monolithic entity.

Each of these nations have there own separate interests which may or may not be compatible with the interests of the others. Also, there is the real possiblity of ideologies influencing the actions of all nations at any time. Often times this will cause these nations to behave in ways that run contrary to their interests.

Shuld war break out between America and Iran with the exception of Israel America will very likely get no help from any of the nations who are mentioned as "Western" above. The best we could hope for would be neutrality from these nations. In all likelyhood these nations would actively support Iran.

In the case of Western Europe they need Russian oil. In the case of all nations there is a powerful anti-Amrican sentiment that will be difficult to overcome. As it stands right now should an active war break out. America would be facing opposition from Russia, China, and very likely the "West" mentioned above. We could find ourselves out gunned and out manned very quickly. Again, just who do we mean when we say "West?"

Sara Noble said...

The West in my mind is the USA, Britain, and Israel - the rest will run for cover. Some might support Iran but not most of Europe - they will likely be neutral. You make a good point B. Poster but..

...the point of the article is accurate according to my research - Baradei isn't islamist enough and that scares the bejeebas out of me.