Dec
29
2012

Muslim Brotherhood reaches out to Hezbollah.

Ah, the Arab Spring.

Tell me again how marvelous it is that we encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to take over in Egypt: “In a dramatic policy shift, Egypt will seek to forge “tight” relations with Hezbollah, Egyptian Ambassador to Lebanon Ashraf Hamdy revealed in a candid interview published Saturday in Lebanon’s Daily Star.” Such ‘tight’ relations will presumably include Hezbollah’s right to keep getting ready for that armed conflict with Israel that Hezbollah is supposedly not REALLY getting ready for. Because, of course, nobody in the Middle East has ever preemptively decided to try to attack Israel, ever.

…Anyway, first quote via the Jersusalem Post, and they’re about as jaundiced about this as I am, and probably you are. What makes this more than a bit worrisome is, of course, the fact that Hezbollah is also a stalking horse for the Assad regime. So at best this represents the Muslim Brotherhood attempting to acquire Hezbollah for its own before the Assad regime falls, and at worst it represents Egyptian authoritarians reaching out to Syrian ones. And if you think that THAT sounds far-fetched, I suggest clicking this link. I’m not predicting another Anschluss*, mind you: but there’s a history there.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Word chosen deliberately.

8 Comments

  • Freddie Sykes says:

    The Gaza Strip was administered by Egypt until 1993. They were glad to give it up. I doubt if they want to retake it since its GDP(PPP) is half its own.

    Syria is a madhouse too far removed.

    Egypt biggest problem is food inflation, which is predicted to become much worse than that which led to the Arab Spring, and its lack of foreign reserves. Egypt will depend on the kindness of strangers and most of the Big Spenders have money problems much closer to home.

    The situation calls for Tough Love.

  • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

    Of course this is a great thing. The more complete a dolchstoss is created, the better the Obama administration will pave the way to a Pat Buckman victory in 2016. A Pat Buckman Presidency would be a good thing, for certain values of good, with said values being so close to bad that I can’t find a difference.

    Under the Bush administration, we were in danger of hitting peak Salafi, and thus maybe running short of people we needed to kill. The Obama administration has made great strides in pioneering renewable sources of enemies.

    By careful mismanagement of foreign policy, we can remove the protection of compliant governments from populations whose slaughter might serve some of our long term interests.

    An imaginary gold star sticker to anyone, besides acat, who can point out the conflict between the first and second arguments.

    I submit that the President closest to Barack Obama is Jefferson Davis. We shouldn’t expect things out of Obama that would have been beyond Davis.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      The concept of a Pat Buckman is a spectre that I don’t like to even think about, let alone confront.

      • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

        Well, I don’t consider it all that likely. Yes, the election of Obama increased the likelihood very slightly.

        However, he was elected after Benghazi. Supposing that the GOP doesn’t mess up, given how the election went down, I think the Republicans are in a position to prevent the full course of the Buckman scenario from being able to run.

  • Occamstool says:

    sic: It is not Jefferson Davis you are thinking of: it is John Tyler. A man who severes as President who BECOMES an open traitor.

    Moe: it is a good thing that you are aware of Pat Buckman, as I have the exquisite honor of being a good friend of his creator, the magnificent Tom Kratman. Caliphate is rapidly becoming the most prophetic novel of all time, which is why I live in a small town far away from all of his expected Nuclear explosion sites.

    • Occamstool says:

      “serves.” Damn. At least Jeff Davis acted openly and honestly. Tyler was a scumbag.

    • sicsemperstolidissimum says:

      I’m pretty sure I meant Davis.

      First parallel is monetary policy. The dollar isn’t exactly confederate war script, but I do not credit Obama for that.

      Second parallel is diplomatic success.

      Third is related to value added to military endeavors while serving as president, and in decisions of grand strategy.

      I’d guess economic development is another.

      Furthermore, I can’t help but see parallels between the sanity of Obama’s green energy schemes, and Davis’ attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. That might just be me being a really obnoxious jerk over thermodynamics.

      Tyler did what he did long after his term, and the population which elected the ticket he was on could not have predicted this, or how events would fall out twenty years in the future.

      I do not think that there are any real surprises from Obama yet.

      Also, I have grave doubts that anything of enough magnitude could be proven well enough to stand up in court.

      I think calling Obama a traitor is premature, at the very least.

      Weakening the parallel between Obama and Davis, the polity that Obama is officially in charge of has yet to be extinguished.

      Another possible weakness is that if Davis had been elected 2008, he might have done a less poor job than Obama.

      Tom is great.

      I like the way he measures his words, and very carefully places them for effect.

      I also think he has a fairly accurate idea of human societies and systems.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com