Several American foreign policy experts have told The Arab American News that the Obama Administration will not stop military aid to Egypt, after the army’s ouster of elected President Mohamed Morsi and crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood leaders and protesters.  

Michael Hanna, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, said the Obama Administration’s main concern in Egypt is stability.

“They are deeply and rightly concerned,” he said. “The country has crossed an important question. They don’t want Egypt to slip into the incurable cycle of violence and oppression.”

Hanna said the administration does not want to sever all military aid to Egypt, because of important interests the United States has with Egypt. 

However, he added that Washington might take a series of steps against Cairo, short of aid suspension, like banning the export licensing of weapons used in domestic oppression, such as tear gas cans.

“Egypt is an important piece of American foreign policy,” said Hanna, who was a Fulbright Scholar at Cairo University. “The American navy goes through the Suez Canal. There are flight rights and intelligence sharing. Interests create a bias to maintain the relationship with the rulers in Egypt.”

Dr. Graeme Bannerman, former Middle East analyst on U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff, echoed Hanna’s comments that the United States’ vital interests with Egypt are what protect the aid.

He said the ability to go through the Suez Canal, which connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, save America an estimated $5 billion every year, while the annual aid to the Egyptian military ranges from $1.3 to $1.6 billion. 

“There is a great reluctance in Washington to do something precipitous that would harm this relationship,” he said. “Obama clearly told Egyptians we are unhappy with the way things are going. Egyptians themselves feel the aid is not going to let them rethink their decisions. If you cut off aid, all you do is alienate Egyptians.”

Bannerman said the Egyptian army is struggling with what it calls terrorists and it is telling America: “If you cannot help us, we will get help somewhere else.” 

He added that the Egyptian military can do without American aid, because it has “cleverly put aside additional equipment spare parts” it needs for years.

Hanna said the possibility of the Egyptian army turning to Russia for help is unrealistic.

“It is not a real option,” he said. “It is a U.S.-equipped military. It is not a serious possibility.”

Dr. Nabeel Abraham, former director of the Honors Program at Henry Ford Community College and co-author of Arab Detroit, said the United States was “out-maneuvered by its regional client states –Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Israel — who conspired with the Egyptian military and old guard to affect the about-face in Egypt.”

Abraham said the United States seemed to accept the changes of the Jan. 25 Revolution that ousted Mubarak, as long as the army, which he described as a “step child of the Pentagon,” remained in power. 

However, he said that after Morsi’s ouster, the army’s violent crackdown hurts America’s image in the Middle East.

“The White House, with much at stake around the Middle East — Tunisia, Syria, Turkey, etc. would probably have preferred an evolution toward a fake democracy, so as to not lose the faith of the peoples of the region,” he said. 

Arthur Hughes, former director-general of the Egypt-Israel Multinational Force and Observers, said the aid to Egypt started as a part of the Camp David peace agreement with Israel. He predicted it will remain, because it is more dependent on observance of the treaty than Egyptian domestic policies.

He added that the Obama Administration, like previous administrations, want to see Egypt “at peace with itself and its neighbors.”

“America would like to see a more democratic, inclusive system, in which pluralism can develop,” said Hughes, who is a former ambassador to Yemen and a fellow at the Middle East Institute. “Ikhwan were unfortunately following a tradition of authoritarianism.” 

Hughes said the administration has not clearly picked a side in a conflict in Egypt to keep ties with the army and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of which are vital to stability in the country.

“Ambiguity is intentional to avoid having to make specific statements regarding one team or other. The U.S. is cheering for ideas,” he said. “It is maintaining a relationship with both groups, because they are among the most powerful institutions in Egypt.”

Despite reports, claiming that the U.S. approach makes Washington unpopular with supporters of both groups in Egypt, Hughes said the administration should keep sticking to ideas, not people, for the long term, adding that it is impossible to know what average Egyptians think, under the current circumstances. 

In contrast, Bannerman, who owns an international consulting firm, thinks that the Obama Administration is clear on Egypt. 

“They want the government to stop the crackdown on the Brotherhood, free recently jailed Brotherhood leaders and prepare for new elections,” he said.

Bannerman said the international media’s view of the events in Egypt is “fundamentally different” than the views on the street in Egypt.

“The average Egyptian wants his rulers to say they are Egyptian first, not Muslim first. He wants the government to have an Egyptian, not a transnational Islamic, identity,” he said. “Morsi was elected as an alternative to Mubarak. The Brotherhood said it was national and would not impose an Islamic government. People believed it. But Morsi imposed an Islamic-inspired constitution and alienated a large part of the population.”

He said Egyptians, minus Brotherhood supporters who are a minority, see the army as nationalistic and support it, but international media adopt the Brotherhood’s view.

“The brotherhood has done a terrifically good job in promoting its viewpoint,” said Bannerman. “But the majority of Egyptians support the military.”

He added that most opponents of the Brotherhood are good Muslims, who consider themselves Egyptian, and Arab, and Muslim and not only embrace a religious identity.

Since the army ousted Morsi, Saudi Arabia has provided political and financial support to Egypt’s new rulers. 

Hanna said the Saudi support to the Egyptian military stems from deep enmity and distrust of the Brotherhood. 

“Saudi Arabia sees Egypt as an opportunity to set back the ikhwan on the regional level,” he said. “It wants the Brotherhood dismantled. The U.S. doesn’t believe a stable sustainable future is achievable by pushing the Brotherhood out of the political circle”

Abraham said that the difference between Saudi and American policy on Egypt is due to differences in the way they perceive the Arab Spring.

 “The U.S. believes it can contain the democratic aspirations of the people, whereas the Saudi regime has a mortal fear that the winds of the Arab Spring will blow it away,” he said.

“The threat posed by Morsi was not ideological, but symbolic.  Morsi after all left the military alone, even upheld the treaties with Israel.  He was the symbol of the Arab Spring in the most influential Arab country.  Whether one agrees with the social and political agendas of the Muslim Brotherhood, they symbolized change in the region — the people having a say over the government.”