The movement of Arab protests is taking a course of escalation. And if some of them have been able to introduce change at the level of those in power, in Tunisia and Egypt, while some are still demanding change, in Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, and others are facing terrible bloody repression, in Libya, the features of the next phase in each of these countries remain vague, as they remain open to every possibility, including the worst. It is clear that those in power in all of these countries are trying to resist change, despite the particularities of each of them. It is also clear that the protest movement still has great power in terms of objections, of demonstrations and of proclaiming its demands, which are taking on more radical characteristics with time. Yet neither the authorities nor the protest movements have a clear roadmap for emerging from the crisis and resolving the difficult issues. This is why dialogue between the two sides has broken down, despite the fact that all demand it and declare their willingness to participate in it. Indeed, there are no common grounds for such dialogue that would make it start from a specific point. Moreover, there is a complete lack of mutual trust, in view of the long years of oppression and caution, voiding any promises of their content. Consequently, the situation in both Egypt and Tunisia is marking time. Demonstrations and protests continue in Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, recently joined by Iraq as well. Meanwhile, the situation in Libya excludes any dialogue, in light of the purely bloodthirsty tendencies of Colonel Gaddafi, whose delusions of grandeur are increasing as his collapse draws near. Thus the lack of dialogue represents the first characteristic of the current confrontation between Arab authorities and protest movements. And while the security situation remains under control, except in Libya, any slipup involves the danger of the outbreak of wide-ranging violence, which would do away with the function of any subsequent dialogue, as is the case in Libya. Another characteristic of the situation is the fact that only one side, that of the authorities, is subjected to the influence of foreign, and especially American, stances and pressures. Indeed, the United States, ever since the situation erupted in Tunisia, has been defending the necessity of meeting the demands of protesters, especially in terms of political change. Its role has become clear in the way former President Zine El-Abidne Ben Ali was toppled and former President Hosni Mubarak resigned. In other words, it is only putting pressure on the authorities. This kind of unilateral pressure is connected to a US strategy based on abandoning obsolete regimes for the benefit of what it considers to be regimes capable of containing their citizens' popular culture, on the basis of the desire repeatedly expressed by President Barack Obama to open up to Islamic culture. This is what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed when she spoke of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the possibility of their participation in government. In other words, the United States is interested in imposing concessions from the authorities for the benefit of the protest movement, according to a notion that assumes that ensuring US strategic interests goes through associating itself with a popular state of affairs, at the cultural, religious and perhaps sectarian (as is the case in Iraq) level, not facilitating dialogue between the authorities and protest movements, reaching common grounds that support democracy, peaceful alternation of power and heading towards sustainable growth that would ensure natural economic cycles. Washington's inspiration in this comes from non-Arab experiences, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan, without stopping at Arab experiences and at the conclusions one might draw from them. And as the movements of moderate political Islam advance to the forefront of the protest movement, by virtue of their ability to organize and also of US pressure on authorities, the radical trend that accuses others of disbelief, which seems detached from the popular movement and its direct concerns, is receding, even if temporarily, especially as the predominantly peaceful nature of the protests has shown an effectiveness terrorism has failed to achieve, despite all the ruckus and suicide bombings. This is to such an extent that Al-Qaeda, which holds the theory of “entrenchment” and “immersion”, has become concerned about the lives of civilians, as Ayman Al-Zawahiri recently advised.
