Who Is Mohamed Elbaradei?

Last week, few Westerners knew the name Mohamed ElBaradei. Today, this calm, genteel-sounding, Nobel laureate has suddenly emerged as the face of the protest movement in Egypt. But who is he really, and is he a force for genuine, positive change? The New York Times reported this morning that U.S. officials are trying to assess this very question.

At first glance, ElBaradei’s credentials suggest he could be a leader the West could support. Born to a middle-class family in Cairo in 1942, ElBaradei was largely educated in the West. After receiving his bachelor’s degree from the University of Cairo, he went on to earn an advanced degree in Switzerland and later a Ph.D. in international law from New York University. He is fluent in English, French, and German, aside from his native Arabic. He lived in the U.S. for some fifteen years, and more recently has resided in Vienna. He has served in various capacities for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, as a United Nations diplomat, and as a speaker and lecturer in the U.S. and Europe.

However, the closer one looks at ElBaradei’s career and public statements, the more troubling the image becomes. Indeed, three clues tell us the answer is “no,” ElBaradei is not someone we can trust, and certainly not someone we want running Egypt. To the contrary, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and we must not let him gain power.

First, Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran. As head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, from 1997 to 2009, the Iranians repeatedly lied to ElBaradei’s face, and he either let them or didn’t know the difference. The Iranians dramatically accelerated their nuclear enrichment program in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law during those 12 years. But ElBaradei never seemed bothered. Iran built three secret nuclear facilities during this time, yet ElBaredei never seemed to notice (until other intelligence agencies called his attention to them). On Monday night, CSPAN ran a presentation ElBaradei made at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in April. Those who watched it saw him say yet again that he opposes economic sanctions on Iran and even opposes the last case scenario of a preemptive strike against Iran, saying he things “building trust” and more “negotiations” will actually stop Iran from getting the Bomb. Foolish and shortsighted though these positions are, at least he is consistent. ElBaradei has opposed economic sanctions on Iran for quite some time. What’s more, he actually thinks the whole notion of the Iranian nucleaer “threat” is hyped and is neither particularly severe nor urgent. For more on ElBaradei and Iran, consider the following articles:

• 
  

• Iran nuclear “threat” hyped: IAEA’s ElBaradei

• ElBaradei advises West not to impose sanctions on Iran - a useful summary of ElBaradei’s disastrous term at the IAEA.

• ElBaradei’s Real Agenda – excerpt: “Mr. ElBaradei’s report culminates a career of freelancing and fecklessness which has crippled the reputation of the organization he directs. He has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.”

• Hoenlein: ElBaradei Distorted, Lied and Covered Up for Iran

Second, ElBaredei has demonstrated he is anti-Israel. During his tenure at the IAEA, Iranian leaders publicly and consistently called for the “annihilation” of Israel, denied the Holocaust of six million Jews during World War II, said that the Jewish State was doomed to destruction, that the fall of Israel was “imminent,” as was the coming of the Twelfth Imam which would coincide with the destruction of not just Israel but also the U.S. At the same time, the Iranians feverishly developed their capacities to accomplish the destruction of Israel and our regional allies, including building and deploying ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and Europe. Yet in 2009, ElBaradei actually declared that Israel was the greatest threat to the peace and security of the Middle East, not Iran. Moreover, up through 2007, ElBaradei completely missed the fact that the North Koreans were helping Syria build a nuclear reactor and nuclear research facilities in violation of international law, facilities that could have led the Assad regime to build atomic weapons. Yet when Israel took decisive action to neutralize the Syrian threat since the IAEA was doing nothing, ElBaradei condemned Israel, not Syria.

• ElBaradei: Israeli occupation only understands force: Former IAEA chief expresses support for Palestinian resistance, calls Gaza “world’s biggest jail”

• ElBaradei: ‘No comment’ on Israel as Jewish state

• IAEA chief criticizes Israel over Syria raid

Third, ElBaradei is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. For starters, in recent days the Brotherhood has begun opening supporting ElBaradei and saying that they want to form a “unity” government with him, and he is welcoming their support. What’s more, in an interview on CNN on January 30, 2011, ElBaradei flatly denied that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist Islamic organization, claiming that this was “a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime.” He went on to deny that if the Brotherhood gained control of the Egyptian government they wouldn’t create a Radical Islamic regime that would be similar to what happened in Iran in 1979.

In an interview last week with the German publication Der Spiegel, ElBaradei said: “We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood,” adding that “they have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.”

Is he kidding? The Muslim Brotherhood has been one of the most anti-Western, virulently jihadist organizations in the Middle East for decades. They have believed and taught that Islam is the answer, and violent jihad is the way. This was true of its founder Hassan al-Banna. This was true of its intellectual leader Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s. This is true of its most famous and deadly disciples, including Usama bin Laden (who was recruited into the Brotherhood by a Syrian high school teacher), and his deputy, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian national who was also part of the Brotherhood until he joined bin Laden to build al Qaeda as an even more violent and radical Islamist group. It remains true with the Hamas terror movement in Gaza, which is an offshoot of the Egyptian Brotherhood.

For ElBaradei to go on worldwide television and publicly deny the Brotherhood is an Islamic fundamentalist group that wants to build an Islamic caliphate along similar lines to the mullahs in Iran suggests that he is either an idiot, or a liar. Personally, I don’t believe he is an idiot. The question is whether the Brotherhood is latching onto ElBaradei’s suddenly stardom, or whether their relationship goes back longer than most realize. Are they using each other for tactical purposes right now, or did ElBaradei choose some time ago to become the kinder, gentler face of a movement that would bring great oppression to the Egyptian people, destroy the U.S.-Egyptian alliance, abrogate the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and seek to make Egypt part of some new Islamic caliphate.

Unfortunately, there is not a genuine, sincere and widely recognized and popular leader of the Reform movement in Egypt right now, someone who passionately believes in advancing free markets, free elections and the protection of human rights and the rule of law. There is no one visible in Egypt at the moment who can convincingly take Hosni Mubarak’s place, build on the country’s pro-Western recent heritage, maintain peaceful ties with Israel and robustly oppose the mullahs in Iran and their bloodthirsty quest for an Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Bomb.

Mohammed ElBaradei is definitely not the guy. He is a false prophet in bed with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. We must keep looking for a true Reformer. In the meantime, we must do everything in our power to prevent the Radicals from seizing Cairo, and the rest of the Sunni world with it.

———————————–

Here’s the transcript of the stunning interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and ElBaradei (or watch this video — this portion begins at 7:12 minutes into the clip):

CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA: Mohamed, one of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian revolution, where a dictator, pro-American dictator, was replaced by an even worse regime that was even more anti-American and more threatening to the region. People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

MOHAMMED ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime, that it’s either us, the ruthless dictators, or above them the al Qaeda types. You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because all the other liberal parties have been smothered for 30 years. They are in favor of a federalist state. They are in favor of a wording on the base of constitution that….every Egyptian has the same rights, same obligation, that the state in no way will be a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here. I think this myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime has no – has no iota of reality. As you know, Fareed, I’ve worked with Iranians, I’ve worked here. There is 100 percent difference between the two societies.

ZAKARIA: If there were a democratic government with Muslim Brotherhood participation, do you believe that Egypt would still be at peace with Israel?

ELBARADEI: Of course. I mean, I – again, the whole issue of peace in the Middle East is an issue which everybody – nobody wants to go to war, Fareed.

United States Playing with Fire - Egypt

The Obama administration is playing with gasoline near an open flame. With violence and lawlessness spreading rapidly throughout Cairo and nearby cities, senior White House and State Department officials are inexplicably signaling a willingness to work closely with the Muslim Brotherhood to reshape the political future of Egypt, now that President Hosni Mubarak has signaled he won’t run for re-election later this year.

* The Los Angeles Times reports, “The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government…..White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that a reformed government ‘has to include a whole host of important nonsecular actors that give Egypt a strong chance to continue to be [a] stable and reliable partner.’”

* The New York Times reports: “White House staff members ‘made clear that they did not rule out engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood as part of an orderly process,’ according to one attendee [to a meeting of Mideast experts with three officials of the National Security Council], who like others interviewed for this article spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to talk publicly about the meeting. The Muslim group had been suppressed by Mr. Mubarak, and Bush administration officials believed it was involved in terrorist activities. It renounced violence years ago. Several times, two other attendees said, White House staff members said that Mr. Obama believed that Egyptian politics needed to encompass ‘nonsecular’ parties: diplomatic-speak for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Few moves could be more disastrous. Does the administration not understand who they are dealing with?

* The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission is as follows: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

* According to a blue-ribbon group of national security experts that include former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Delta Force commander Lt-Gen (ret) Jerry Boykin, and former Defense Dept. official Frank Gaffney, a group convened by the Center for Security Policy and called ”Team B-II”: “The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate). Therefore, al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.”

Note: A big post on Egypt's next possible leader will be coming soon. Stay tuned.

-Image from Al Jazeera.net-

Egypt Update

In the past several days, the dynamic of the protests in Egypt has changed rapidly, and not for the better. What started out as a genuine and positive pro-freedom movement is being steadily co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood and other violent and extremist forces. There is now a growing risk that the overthrow of the Mubarak regime could lead either to an authoritarian military regime, or a Radical Islamist regime. We must hope neither scenario comes to pass. The people of Egypt would be further oppressed. The U.S., Israel and the West would be endangered...

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (which began in Egypt in the 1920) had initially been caught off guard by sudden and intense rise of the protests and had not been involved in planning or developing these protests. But sensing an opportunity, they decided to move decisively and try to co-opt the movement for their own purposes. They mobilized their followers throughout the country and told them to take to the streets. That's when the complexion of the protests took a turn for the worse, characterized by:

* Violent attacks directed at the police -- an estimated 60 percent of Egyptian police stations have been set on fire
* Rioting, instead of mere protesting
* The emergence of gangs on the streets wielding machetes and knives
* Government office buildings being set on fire
* Cars being set on fire
* The looting of the Egyptian Museum, with vandals ripping the heads off of two ancient mummies
* Looting of shops, businesses and homes
* Muslim Brotherhood members escaping from prison -- example: some 8,000 prisoners escaped from a prison in the east of the country and one report said "prison guards have joined the protests allowing dozens of Muslim Brotherhood members to walk out of jail."
* A rising civilian death toll as the police have been forced to defend themselves and protect other citizens - as of Sunday, there were more than 100 people dead, and more than 2,000 wounded

These are not the actions of a true pro-freedom movement...President Mubarak's response to the protests has been badly overdone and typically authoritarian....

So I find myself in a quandary. I strongly support the right of the Egyptian people to have free elections and free markets and true opportunity in the 21st century. I do believe Mubarak has stayed too long. He has not responded to the yearning of the Egyptian people to be free. His day is coming to an end.

That said, however, I don't want to see the Muslim Brotherhood win. For all of Mubarak's sins, he is not a Radical. He doesn't want to launch a jihad against the U.S., Israel or the West. He has maintained the peace treaty with Israel. He has worked to counter the Hamas movement in Gaza. He is strongly opposed to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and has worked closely with the West to counter it.

The Obama administration needs to be careful to support positive change in Egypt and support human rights there, without cutting the legs out from underneath Mubarak precipitously, the way President Carter did to the Shah of Iran in 1979. The Shah had his many flaws, no question about it. But Carter's actions helped trigger the Islamic Revolution and led to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the loss of an American ally, and the rise of a terror-exporting country that has gained in lethality ever since. We dare not make the same mistakes with Egypt....

Turmoil In Egypt, is Jordan next?

Is Egypt about to erupt in a full-blown revolution that could lead to the fall of the Mubarak regime? Might Jordan's government be next?

One thing's for certain: no one predicted the demonstrations in Egypt would grow so big so fast. Momentum for the protests is growing. A Facebook page promoting the democracy protests grew from 20,000 members on Wednesday to 80,000 on Thursday. The government then reportedly shut down Facebook, and disrupted internet service in parts of the country. Twitter has been blocked. Police are beating protesters.

One key factor few are seeing at the moment: economics. Egyptians are suffering double-digit inflation and record food prices in recent years, and particularly in 2010. Most people are already dirt poor. Soaring food prices are causing them to fear they may not be able to feed their families. This is creating a "perfect storm" of anger against the Mubarak regime -- it's corrupt, authoritarian, anti-human rights, and resistant to all positive economic and political reform. It's been bad for the thirty years Mubarak has been in power. But with high inflation, especially for food, Egyptians are being pushed over the brink.

Calls for Mubarak to step down are growing. "Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog turned Egyptian reform campaigner, said he expected big demonstrations across Egypt on Friday, and that it was time for President Hosni Mubarak to go," reported Reuters. "ElBaradei, 68, left Vienna, where he lives, for Cairo on Thursday to join a growing wave of protests against Mubarak inspired by Tunisia's overthrow of their authoritarian president. He told Reuters he would not lead the street rallies, but that his role was 'to manage the change politically.'" On Friday, however, ElBaradei was placed under house arrest in Egypt.

Mubarak is decribed as a "classic Resister" -- he doesn't want real change of any kind. He just wants to retain power, keep things stable, keep wealth and power for himself, and pass the keys to the kingdom on to his son, Gamal. But such resistance to positive change is inflaming the "rank-and-file," every day Egyptians who feel increasingly desperate, and see others in the region (Tunisia, Iraq and the people of southern Sudan) as changing their governments and having more say in the affairs of state. They are yearning for something better, and now they've taken to the streets in hopes of getting it.

Meanwhile, protests have mounted in recent days in Jordan. Reports the AP: "The [Jordanian] economy saw a record deficit of $2 billion this year, inflation rising…to 6.1 percent just last month and rampant unemployment and poverty -- estimated at 12 and 25 percent respectively. 'The government buys cars and spends lavishly on its parties and travel, while many Jordanians are jobless or can barely put food on their tables to feed their hungry children,' said civil servant Mahmoud Thiabat, 31, a father of three who earns $395 a month."

In Egypt, I don't see the protests being driven primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood (which started in Egypt in the 1920s) or by radicals in general, though they're certainly trying to take advantage. This would be a nightmare scenario we need to pray never happens. We don't want this to be another Iranian Revolution where an Islamic Radical madman takes over. If Mubarak falls, we want to see a group of pro-democracy, pro-free market, serious reformers come to power. In Jordan, there is a very high risk that Islamic Radicals would take over the regime. It is precisely because the Jordanians have made such progress [with positive political and economic reforms in the past two decades] that I am worried by the Radicals' determination to launch a jihad there, seize the capital, and create a new anti-Israel, anti-Western base for Iran and al Qaeda. Therefore, I often hope for Jordan's peace, prosperity and continued progress. I hope for King Abdullah's health and safety, and the wisdom to know how best to move forward in such challenging times.

Monsters

That's all folks.

Massive Spending. It's not coming to an end.

The Perspective: The video says it all.

What Do Iran's Protests Really Mean?

The Perspective:

What now? Do the eight days of protest signal the beginning of the long overdue end of the 30-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran, or the start of a sustained, systematic repression? Put another way, is this another Velvet Revolution or Tiananmen 2?

Though it is still impossible to predict, my hunch is that in the short run what is being called the Twitter revolution in Iran is unlikely to prompt the immediate collapse of the regime. With so much money and power at stake, the mullahs who have run the country (into the ground) in the name of God will not easily give up as the exhausted communist regime governing Czechoslovakia did in 1989. But will the Supreme Leader and his apparatchiks prevail, as did China in its infamous suppression of the students and workers who protested in 1989 for more freedom? Again, power in the short run seems unlikely to shift to the Islamic challengers from the hard-line clerics in the most serious power struggle the regime has experienced since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 150,000-strong Revolutionary Guard and 300,000 Basiji vigilantes may well temporarily suppress the uprising with bullets, clubs and tear gas. But in choosing repression, the Islamic theocracy has lost critical legitimacy and become just another of the garden-variety military dictatorships so prevalent in the region.

Plus, the sclerotic regime is unlikely in the long-run to deliver the prosperity with which China rulers placated its rebellious people. Even if the mullahs win this round, the desire for change in Iran seems likely to grow along with the demographic bulge Iran own version of baby-boomers -- the 70 percent of the country that is under 30, many of whom are fed up and want jobs, lower inflation, and yes, more freedom.

The challenge for President Obama is the following: will this titanic power struggle be resolved before Iran acquires nuclear weapons? That, too, seems unlikely, which means Obama may have to choose among the best of several bad policy options.

Here what happened over the weekend and what to look for in the days ahead:

- On Friday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Orwellian titled Supreme Leader, effectively declared war on his own people, by announcing in his Friday sermon, no less, that the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been duly re-elected and that the protests over alleged election rigging should end. (For a summary of key points, click here) Ahmadinejad 11-million vote lead could not have been rigged, he asserted. Those who protested to the contrary were riff-raff, ill-wishers, and spies, especially for Zionism. They would get what they deserved if their protests did not stop, and they would be responsible for the bloodshed. On Monday, the 12-man Guardian Council announced that while there was evidence of extensive fraud in the election, Ahmadinejad was still the victor.

- Iranians ignored the Supreme Leader orders not to march and turned out on the streets in numbers unseen since the '79 revolution. By Sunday, 19 martyrs had been killed (the government says there were only 10) in the hit-and-run battles between green wave protestors and the pro-regime Basiji vigilantes, as the government arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands of others. Writing in the New York Post, Amir Taheri estimated that around 3,000 people had been detained, among them, virtually all the key aides to Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's key challenger, and other opponents, the editors of two of Iran's leading newspapers, 16 officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, (charged with implementing the repression) and dozens of clerics and theology students who are backing the opposition. State TV said that 457 had been arrested in one day.

- Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister and the key challenger, a founder and card-card carrying member of the Islamic theocracy, has now found himself cast in the unlikely role of accidental leader of this uprising, which is now no longer just about an alleged stolen election, but about the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic. So far, he seems to have risen to the occasion. Announcing that he was ready for martyrdom, he demanded a new election and called upon his followers to conduct nation-wide strikes if he is arrested. Gary Sick, whose Internet site, Gulf 2000 -- along with Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish -- has provided indispensable updates from Iranian academics, journalists, experts, and Iranians on the front lines of this battle, said Sunday he was convinced that Mousavi was evolving into a true leader of the forces that had threatened to spin out far beyond his control. Noting that Mousavi called for a new type of political life in the country and free expression in all its forms, Sick concluded that Mousavi had issued a truly revolutionary statement.The repression and disdain of the government has brought the opposition to a place they probably never dreamed of going. And no one knows where any of the parties are likely to go next. But for outside observers, he said, it is like standing on the edge of a glacier and feeling the ice begin to crack under your feet.

- By Sunday night, the blood-stained face of Neda, a beautiful young Iranian woman who was allegedly shot by Basiji and died on the streets of Teheran with her philosophy professor hovering helplessly over her was being seen on Web sites throughout the world. Tributes to Iran's symbolic martyr and calls to mourn her have been deluging YouTube.

What should we be watching for in the days ahead?

-- A deepening split within the senior ranks of the clergy. As Ali Ansari wrote in the Guardian on Sunday, the silence of many of Iran's clergy suggests their alienation from the regime that now rules in their names. Ansari reports that Ayatollah Sanei, one of the most senior clerics in Qom who was a close companion of revolutionary founder Ayatollah Ruholllah Khomeini, complained that his protest was unlikely to have any impact on Iran's rulers. Even more worrisome to the Supreme Leader, he added, five senior clerics have protested the elections and the violence that has followed. And Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the former heir to Khomeini, who was pushed aside in an earlier political struggle after having criticized the lack of freedom in Iran, has now openly condemned the elections. Neither Ahmadinejad, nor his master's voice, Ayatollah Khamenei, are popular in Qom, notes Professor Ansari, who heads Iranian studies at St. Andrews College. The clerics may bide their time, but their intervention, which may come sooner rather than later -- especially if violence spreads -- could be decisive. The defection of the clergy could spell serious trouble for the Supreme Leader. In theory, notes Iranian analyst Hooshang Amirahmadi, the 86-member Council of Experts, all clerics, can unseat him.

-- Calls for a national strike could be as deadly, if not more so, to the regime than the bloody protests that have outraged Iranians and Iran watchers throughout the world. If the street protests end, this could very well be Mousavi's next step.

In the short-run, brute force is likely to overpower the protests, unless the regime fundamentally miscalculates and outrage spreads. But however this phase of the crisis ends, the Islamic Republic will not be the same. Now that Obama's rhetoric has finally caught up with Iranian reality on the ground and American idealism, his laser-like focus on negotiations with Teheran should factor in the broader struggle for freedom being waged by Iranian whose haunting images fill the Internet and airwaves day after day.