Analytical program "However" with Mikhail Leontiev

Against the background of the revolutionary fire spreading throughout the Arab East, the comments of official Washington are particularly odd and confused.

“President Mubarak is our important ally in the Middle East. But in conversations with him, I repeatedly stressed that Egypt absolutely needed political and economic reforms. And now pent-up discontent broke out into the streets,” said Obama. As Secretary Clinton explained, "we don’t want a radical ideology to prevail in this large, important country in the Middle East. We want real democracy to be established there."

That is, we want to be the queen of the sea, and a broken trough is categorically not acceptable. How all the same these guys are ideological! Mikhail Andreevich Suslov is resting. In fact, when there is nothing to say, it remains to utter ideological spells. By the way, this is in some sense an alibi. The current administration - Obama is here, in any case, nothing to do with. It was not he who fanned the fire "on the mountain to all the bourgeois" in Egypt and Tunisia. However, when you set fire to your neighbors, you should not be surprised that the whole village burned down.

In the process of democratization of the Middle East, the Americans almost destroyed the statehood of Afghanistan and Iraq, turning them into uncontrolled territories. Revived the civil conflict in Lebanon. They are still trying in vain to destabilize Iran and Syria.

Now Obama is cursing from the television screen that real democrats will win in Egypt, and not evil Islamists. They even have for this purpose a specially trained Democrat who faithfully served them as head of the IAEA.

Mohammed al-Baradei, positioning himself as the leader of the democratic opposition, an international official, an Egyptian career diplomat. For twelve years, until the end of 2009, he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency - the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), working on the nuclear disarmament issues of North Korea, Iraq and Iran. For which in 2005-m earned the Nobel Peace Prize.

Baradeas - a symbolic figure for the current situation. His for the Western public and an absolutely alien person for the Arab street. Professionally helpless, while infinitely ambitious type, systematically reproducing the individual leaders of our floral revolution. Man, in principle, is not able to retain power in Egypt with any external support. This is some kind of straightforward tendency in the American personnel policy, "dwarfization", one can say of its puppets.

By the way, it is surprising how today “true Islamists” and “true Zionists” absolutely agree with the assessments of the same Baradea and political processes in the region in general. Because both of them do not see any reason to deceive themselves. True, it inspires some, but it upsets others. But the truth is that if this is a revolution, but it looks like a revolution, then only radical Islamists can retain power. Only they can satisfy an Arab street.

A report prepared by the NATO Defense College states that "the most suitable model for Egypt is Turkish." This means that in Turkey, where the Islamic Party came to power, at the same time democracy and pro-Western orientation are preserved. According to NATO experts, their sympathy for the Turkish model is shared by some "public opinion of the Arab world."

The fact of the matter is that there was no revolution in Turkey. With the help of electoral manipulations, it is possible to bring pseudo-Islamists to power. Erdogan is such a mock Islamist in NATO execution. In a genuine revolution, not a flower one, only radicals can hold power: the Jacobins in France, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Islamists in Egypt, as in Iran. But radical Islamists are a war. And not because they are evil. And because they can give nothing but war to this Arab street. This is the answer to the question of who needs the Great Arab Revolution - the one who ordered the war.