Has Washington chosen to wager on political Islam rather than military generals?

This is a serious question that needs an accurate answer…it does not require the usual twisting and turning from the Arab political elite.

We all remember the role of the US in the Middle East during and after the Second World War, led by John Foster Dulles, the famous Secretary of State. At that time, America was seeking to inherit two empires that the sun was setting on, namely the British and the French.

The idea was based on the US entering areas where a vacuum was emerging between the end of colonialism and the establishment of independent regimes led by army officers and nationalists.

Perhaps the secret dialogue that took place between the American military attaché in Cairo – in the weeks that preceded and followed the 1952 coup – and the young officers Ali Sabri and Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf, to secure a new relationship between the Americans and the Revolutionary Command Council, is the best example of this.

As a result, the US embarked on half a century of gambling on military institutions in the Arab world. This depended on relations that allowed for arming and training, and intelligence and strategic cooperation.

This background military channel was – and still is – one of the strongest channels in relations between Washington and many of the regimes in the Middle East.

However, it seems that in the post-9/11 world, there is a growing trend to change from a reliance upon generals to a reliance upon the turbans instead, moving from a dependence on military institutions towards parties whose popularity is based upon political Islam.

There is now a firmly established conviction that instead of using tanks in order to curb political Islam, America has begun to use political Islam parties to curb the role of the tank!

This can explain Washington’s current behavior in the region and for many years to come, through a strategic shift in the political stakes.