Although surprised by the speed of events, Thierry Meyssan celebrates the demise of the Muslim Brotherhood government which he had anticipated for a year. While the Atlanticist media supported Mohamed Morsi and decried Bashar al-Assad, he held the opposite view and denounced the “Arab Spring” as a manipulation. The Egyptian street has decided [8 July 2013].

Of 84 million Egyptians, 33 million took to the streets to celebrate the military coup. After five days of giant protests demanding the resignation of President Morsi, the Egyptian Army toppled him and appointed the head of the Constitutional Court as interim president pending new elections. To gauge the importance of the event, it suffices to place it in within its own narrative.

Political unrest seized a part of Africa and the Arab world, from mid-December 2010. The two major countries were Tunisia and Egypt. In the first instance, this phenomenon can be explained by underlying causes: a generational change and a food crisis. If the demographics were largely beyond human control, the economic aspect was partially willfully caused, in 2007-08 and again in 2010.

In Tunisia and Egypt, the United States had prepared the “changing of the guard” with new leaders in its service to replace those whose star had waned. The State Department had groomed young “revolutionaries” to occupy the corridors of power. So when it became clear that its allies were overwhelmed by the street, Washington ordered them to give way to the prefabricated opposition. It was not the street, but the United States that drove out Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and General Hosni Mubarak. And it is still the United States who installed the Muslim Brotherhood to succeed them. This last point is less obvious since the two countries have held elections, but holding a vote does guarantee its sincerity. A careful study shows that the dice were loaded.

There is no doubt that these events had been anticipated by Washington and were even steered by it, although they could also have occurred in other countries, such as Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire.

Indeed, turmoil did erupt in Côte d’Ivoire during the presidential election. But it was not associated in the collective imagination with the “Arab Spring” and ended with a French military intervention under a UN mandate.

Once instability gripped Tunisia and Egypt, France and the United Kingdom launched a campaign to destabilize Libya and Syria, under the Treaty of Lancaster. While some small-scale pro-democracy protests took place, which were magnified by the Western media, the disturbances were orchestrated by Western Special Forces with support from Takfirist leaders.

Using massive manipulation, the operation in Côte d’Ivoire was excluded from the “Arab Spring” (there are no Arabs in this country with a one-third Muslim population), while Libya and Syria have been included (although these were colonial operations). This sleight of hand was all the easier to achieve in that demonstrations were occurring in Yemen and Bahrain whose structural conditions are very different. Western commentators first included them under the “Arab Spring” label, but later evaded them, both situations not being comparable.

Ultimately, what characterizes the “Arab Spring” (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria) is not instability, or culture, but the solution envisaged by the imperialist powers: the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This secret, allegedly anti-imperialist organization has always been politically controlled by London. It was represented in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet through Huma Abedin (wife of Anthony Weiner, former pro-Zionist US Representative), whose mother Saleha Abedin leads the global women’s branch of the Brotherhood. Qatar has bankrolled operations for more than $15 billion per year (!) in addition to the media coverage of the Brotherhood, who in late 2005 was given charge of the Al-Jazeera channel. Finally, Turkey has provided policy expertise with communication consultants.

The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islam what the Trotskyists are to the West, a group of puschists working for foreign interests in the name of an eternally postponed ideal. After attempting countless coups in most Arab countries during the twentieth century, they were surprised by their “victory” in 2011. They had indeed no government program outside of Anglo-American instructions. They therefore clung to Islamist slogans: “The solution is the Koran,” “We do not need a constitution, we have the Sharia”, etc ...

In Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, their government has opened up their economies to liberal capitalism. They confirmed the treaty with Israel on the back of the Palestinians. And they sought to impose, in the name of the Koran, a moral order not prescribed in the book.

The Thatcherite privatizations of the Egyptian economy would have reached its climax with the Suez Canal, the jewel of the country and a source of income, which was to be sold to Qatar. Given the resistance of the Egyptian society, Doha funded a separatist movement in the region of the Canal, as the United States had earlier created the Panamanian independence movement in Colombia.

Ultimately, Egyptian society has rejected this shock treatment. As I wrote in these columns three weeks ago, Egyptians opened their eyes watching the revolt of the Turks against Brother Erdogan. They rebelled and issued an ultimatum to President Morsi. After confirming by telephone with US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, that the United States wouldn’t try anything to save agent Morsi, General al-Sisi announced his removal.

This point requires some explanation: Mohamed Morsi presented himself at his penultimate speech to the nation, as a “scholar”. He is indeed a space engineer who made a career in the US, having acquired US citizenship, having worked with NASA and having a secret US Defense accreditation. However, if Morsi was abandoned by the Pentagon, he was nonetheless supported, until his arrest, by the State Department, either by Cairo ambassador Anne Patterson, by spokespersons Patrick Ventrell and Jan Psaki, or by Secretary of State John Kerry. This apparent inconsistency demonstrates Washington’s disarray: on one hand reason dictated that it could not intervene, and on the other its too close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood left it with no alternative solution.

The fall of Mohamed Morsi marks the end of the Muslim Brotherhood’s predominance in the Arab world, all the more since the Army announced its deposition by surrounding itself with the life forces of society, including “scholars” of the al-Azhar University.

Morsi’s failure is a hard blow to the West and its allies, Qatar and Turkey. Therefore, it is logical to ask whether it does not mark the end of the “Arab Spring” as well as the new upheavals in Tunisia, Libya, and of course in Syria.

Translation: Roger Lagassé; courtesy Voltaire Network

http://www.voltairenet.org/article179282.html