The representatives of five Islamist movements from five Arab countries, among them Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Tunisia's Ennahda (Renaissance) Party, visited the United States, having been invited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to participate in the conference “Islamists in Power: Views from Within”. The White House took advantage of the presence of members of the Muslim Brotherhood at this conference to hold meetings with them to better understand the direction they will be taking, after some of them have come to power, while others are preparing to do the same. The meetings held openly by this delegation in Washington are not the first, and they will not be the last. They were preceded by secret meetings over the past years, which intensified with the start of the Arab Spring and after the fall of the United States' allies in Tunisia and Egypt – i.e. after there was no more embarrassment with the former allies, and after it was confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood would be coming to power through the ballot boxes, and that it was therefore necessary to preserve the alliance through it – especially as a close ally, Turkey, could guarantee its orientation in foreign policy, and would be waging in collaboration with it a major battle in the Middle East to firmly establish the bases of its rule in the face of Iran and its allies. The truth is that the US Administration is basing its policy on the conviction that its foreign relations, i.e. its interests, will not progress if it continues to wage its wars. It also notes the growing influence of religion all over the world, including the Middle East and Europe, and the fact that it could be an “instrument of progress”. Indeed, contrary to what is widely believed, “modernization [does not] equal secularization”, as Andrew Preston writes (Foreign Affairs). Despite the fact that such a view of political and social development does not take into consideration the developments taking place within religion itself, as took place in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, this is what reality has been for successive US administrations. Bush Junior, for example, used to rely on his metaphysics and on his colossal arsenal to spread American values in the world, i.e. to secure the interests of the new empire. And that is what was done before him by President Ronald Reagan, who used to resemble a copy of the heroes of the Old Testament. As for Obama, who believes that American culture, and Western culture in general, is the product of a “Judeo-Christian civilization”, and that it is this civilization that has brought Western culture to where it is today, his view of politics is no different from that of his predecessors. Yet he has added to them seeking to spread these values though peaceful means if possible. Thus he stressed in his two famous speeches in Cairo and in Istanbul the necessity of finding space for dialogue between the three Monotheistic religions. This also explains the direction he and his administration have taken towards dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, considering them to be the contemporary version of the Muslims, who are the “traditional enemies of Judeo-Christian civilization”. The United States relies, in this “religious” approach, on its experience with the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, especially Poland, where Pope John Paul II played a major role in spreading the “revolutionary spirit”, which hastened the collapse of Communist regimes. Washington today is faced with a de facto situation. Its friends have fallen by the force of historical development, and by the alliance of secularists, liberals and nationalist parties. Yet the Muslim Brotherhood, which joined the Revolution late, as took place in Egypt, is the one that came to power. This is why it is returning to its faith, to renew its alliances on politico-religious bases.
