Who’s “They”?

Silence Is a War Crime (photoblog.msnbc.msn.com)

Dmitry Medvedev made an interesting prediction onTuesday about the turmoil in the northern African continent and the Middle East, saying that the events that are unfolding right now could lead to developments that would bring fanatics to power and would make the situation very volatile.

Speaking in Vladikavkaz, in Caucasus region, Medvedev said that the crumbling of the similar systems in the Arab world would make way to different fanatic groups that could throw the zone into chaos for decades, which is a very interesting piece of information, though not entirely confirmable yet, for those who want to know who is behind all this development in this part of the world.

The Russian president did not make any reference to some countries in particular, but he reminded that the political change is having an impact on regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, Algeria and Morocco, and attempts have been made, without much success, to do the same in China.

Map of the Arab World (elearningexamples.com)

Medvedev decried the violent reprisals in Libya, that claimed the lives of more than 250 people, but reminded those present that Russia would never accept this kind of behavior in Russia.

“They have prepared such a scenario for us before,” the president said, adding that now more than ever “they” will try to make it work. He concluded that the scenario would not succeed.

Medvedev did not specify who were “they,” nor did he say whether the warning was addressed to terrorists like Doku Umarov, who dreams of establishing a Caucasus Emirate in the region of the little Muslim federal states Chechnya, Dagestan or Ingushetia.

From the warning, one can understand that Medvedev refers to those who wish to attack the integrity of central authority in Kremlin, which leaves us with a very interesting question one cannot elude when talking about what is going down in the Middle East: “Who is they?”

The first thing Medvedev alludes to is that “they” are not only focused on bringing down the regimes in the Arab world. That the states in this part of the world share the same system, rooted in oppression of the nations and the lack of freedoms and of good life conditions could have been no more than a common feature that brought them all down at the same time, in a domino effect.

At first, the whole thing seemed motivated by the fact that all these states shared the same culture, the same religion and the same zone with Israel, which is by far a very important stake in this issue.

Protest in Egypt (mynews24.net)

Iran attempted to take the credit for being the mastermind behind all these movements in the Middle East, and the ayatollah said it was an “Islamic awakening,” while Ahmadinejad said that the future for Middle East was bright, without the influence of Israel and the United States.

This assertions soon crumbled as the people in the streets of Tehran shouted “Death to the Islamic Republic.” So much for the Islamic awakening!

Iranian propaganda had more than one reason to be disbelieved, since except for the protests in Tehran itself, all the other protests happened in Arab countries, some of them, most of them, positioned on the other political side than the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Tehran.

Not to mention that some of these countries share a different kind of Islam (most of them are Sunni, while Iran itself is Shia), while others are secular states and will probably continue so, even after the riots are over.

Protest in Egypt (colinfarrelly.blogspot.com)

If Iran is behind these protests, there is no reason whatsoever to think “they” want to topple the leadership in Moscow, since they have no problem with it.

Since Iran cannot be “they,” as seen above, question still stands: “Who is they?” Who is trying to change the map of the world?

From what Medvedev is saying there is at least one thing for sure: Russian Federation is not “they,” given that it is more of a victim of the conflict, according to the president. But is it?

A WikiLeaks cable from the famous U.S. diplomats cable scandal shows some relations between Russia and Bahrain in the field of arms trafficking: Bahrain prepares to defend against Iran with Russian arms (if there is a country where Iran could have something to do with the protests, that is Bahrain, where the Shiite majority is ruled by a Sunni family).

Protest in Libya (colinfarrelly.blogspot.com)

The effect of the oil price would also favor Russia, not to mention the geo-political influence in the region, where Russia inherits some ties from the time of the Soviet. Could it all be about influence and control of resources? Are the superpowers recouping the world map?

The changes provoked in 1989 that brought down the Communist regime all over the world were the result of international arrangements made by the United States and the Soviet Union at Yalta.

Back then, the Russian Federation was a part of this international arrangement. Now, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but the Russian Federation is no longer involved in the chain of protests all over Muslim countries. At least that is what Medvedev is trying to make believe. What about the United States?

Kissing the National Flag (edmontonsun.com)

A few months earlier, U.S. State Department outlined the Obama administration doctrine on foreign policy, emphasizing the importance of exercising authority with the consent of the people.

Would the United States be behind the commotion in these states? What would it have to gain?

The United States can gain the dissociation of its own image with the image of some bloodthirsty tyrants that do not hesitate to send airplanes and helicopters to shoot their own citizen fellows.

It is no secret that most of the leaders that are now toppled share something in common: most of them are allies of the Unites States, especially Hosni Mubarak, who was even a close ally of both the U.S. and Israel.

With a few exceptions, all these leaders were installed with the consent of the Americans and have been partners in the Middle East for the last few decades. Many times the U.S. has turned a blind eye to their infringement of human rights because what they could offer outweighed what could have been gained if observance of human rights would have been enforced on them, like it was in Afghanistan for instance, where the tragedy is complete, and so is the failure of the Western countries.

So appealing were the countries in this region that many of the world leaders have photos with Qaddafi in his famous desert tents, although back in the 1980s he was considered a terrorist.

What would America gain from the change of the regimes in the area? Would the economic ties (more of a dependence) be so strong as to guarantee that whoever wins in Egypt, Tunisia or Libya will still be friends with America? Would the United States be willing to play with the existence of the state of Israel if this regime change proves to be a failure?

English edition of the famous Pravda publishes and editorial that argues in favor of considering that “they” are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muammar al-Qaddafi, and that the fact that their countries are now subject to riots as well is the result of instigation against them.

Pravda says that what happens in Libya and in Iran is not part of the overall movement, which, in their opinion, is not provoked by Americans. Then who provoked it?

If they is Libya or/and Iran, how does this affect Russia? What reason would Qaddafi have to want to plan bad things in Moscow?

The only major player left in the region is Israel itself. There are two outcomes that would favor Israel: the first, that the movement that engulfed all Arab countries would include Iran making possible, at the expense of loosing some trustworthy friends like Mubarak, for Israel to ease the burden of Iran’s nuclear program and fundamentalist Islam; the second, the decades of disarray in the surrounding countries could weaken all the neighboring countries to such an extent that they would no longer constitute a danger for the Jewish state.

What happens though if none of these two outcomes will become a fact? What if Iran, accustomed to this kind of crackdown on demonstrations, will continue to exercise influence in some states that no longer are under American influence?

What if Israel finds itself surrounded by enemy Arab countries, with regimes that would be more inclined towards Iranian influence than the Western one? And the most important question: If Israel is they, what would they have organized the same thing in Russia, as Medvedev said?

Probably the answer to the question lies ahead and is yet to be revealed, as we wait and see which direction this turmoil will take.

If they is a state, or many states, without a specific and or/exclusive interest in the Middle East, than we have every reason to expect to see this kind of movements in other parts of the world, like sub-Saharian Africa, South America or Eastern Europe.

What if they is all these above mentioned powers combined?