Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

[CrowBat]

Crowbat is closer but even he's about eight years late (Google ArAmCo and look around). Franklin D. Roosevelt started diddling around in the ME in 1942, met Ibn Saud in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945...Allow me to repeat what I wrote:

Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.

So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.

"in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME."

Note the ME, for Middle East, which includes Iran. The Iraniha , some of them at any rate, were upset with us for moving in to their country, uninvited and supporting the old Shah in 1943.

They couldn't get more upset over what the USA were doing in 1943 than they already were over what the British and the Soviets did in 1941. Then, note that the Shah's son - Reza Pahlavi II - was placed on the throne instead of his father by the British, and already in 1941-1942: what the Americans did in 1953 was "just" to return the same Shah Reza Pahlavi II to the power - and this with help of the same clergy that later stole the revolution of 1978. As such, that was also no "ME provocation", but an US intervention and a provocation. The "payback" bill was delivered in 1978-1979...

Regardless of motivation -- and erroneous assumptions, the Persians led the ME -- again, as they had for centuries. They broke the ice, so to speak in attacking the Great Satan -a and getting away with it. The Arabs then piled on -- ME way of warfare...

I'm sorry, but you're really mixing two entirely different things here. If the "Persians" lead the way, then certainly not with their example of "attacking the Great Satan". Then, their biggest "attack" on the USA before 1979 was the Shah's drive to increas oil prices, in the early 1970s.

Quite on the contrary. What created the modern-day antagonism against the USA was a) Johson admin's decision to abandon the policy of neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict, after the 1967 War, and b) the Israeli victory during that War. This brought the al-Sauds and Wahhabists to the idea that a religiously motivated fighter can win wars, and from that moment onwards they began promoting and financing Islamist extremism all around the world. It's easy to follow this development on the basis of activity of various resistance/terrorist groups, (Palestinian as well as others): originally, they had nothing to do with religion at all (on the contrary, many were centrists or even leftists), nor were active against the USA. This began to change after the 1967 War.

And now watch the US reaction to this development: Al-Sauds became the "best friends", and their financing of the development of a major terrorist base in Pakistan was supported as well - with argumentation of the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Zia ul-Haq, who was instrumental in turning Pakistan into the Islamist quagmire as we know it today (with extensive Saudi financing), became Reagan's favourite and Pakistan was left to make its own nuke...

As a result of the Munich attack, Nixon directed...

I'm sorry to interrupt here, but Nixon did not wait for the Munich attack: Kissinger began his tenure with ignoring Sadat's peace-proposal from 1970. That aside, the US intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict was already going on since at least 1969 (see deliveries of F-4s, which started in 1969 and prompted the Soviet intervention in Egypt, in 1970). It was continued through 1970 (see Kissinger's development of the politics of "ignoring" the Israeli nuclear weapons, and his ignoring of Sadat's peace proposal) and later on, all well ahead of Munich.

One could draw similar parallels - once more related to Egypt - to Reagan's reaction to Sadat's assassination, in October 1981. That was the moment Egypt (plus Sudan at the time) was granted US$1 billion + in military aid for the first time, and the USA launched a host of military and intelligence operations against Libya (does "Early Call" ring any bells here?), which eventually lead to knocking out of that country, in the 1990s. Simultaneously, through all of this time, absolutely nothing has been undertaken to decrease the spread of Wahhabism by the Saudis.

The US is always more concerned with domestic politics than it is with the broader world. Nixon's effort produce some good results which were ignored. Carter totally mishandled the hostage crisis by actually sending the Ayatollah Ruhollah K. a letter saying he would not use force. Khomeini had been about to direct the Students (note that world, ponder Taliban and look at Tunisia and Egypt today...) at the Embassy to release the hostages but upon receipt of Carter's letter, told then to continue the march.

Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.

Reagan Failed utterly in first sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, second in allowing State to tie their hands and thirdly in doing little to nothing about the Embassy and troop billet bombings and latterly by withdrawing -- that merely encouraged everyone to believe the US had no staying power.

I never heard any Arab or Islamist complaining about this. I do recall, though, bitter complaints about the defeat of the "Arab issue" by the Israelis in Lebanon, and the Libyan deafeat (at the hand of a CIA-supported "liberation movement") in Tchad, in 1982. That's why I still find this analogy....well, without foundation.

All of which is off thread. So if you want to continue this, let's do it by PM.

Some of this is crucial for this thread. Particularly Reagan's "installation" of Mubarak and opening of the US military aid program for Egypt: without these two actions, who knows what would Egypt look alike nowadays...?