A.

Uniqueness- There is a growing unrest in Egypt as riots in the streets have

increased tensions in the middle east

France 24 News Wires 2011 http://www.france24.com/en/20110205-egypt-dominates-key-

munich-quartet-meeting

Top defense officials and diplomats warned Friday that growing unrest in Egypt and elsewhere
could affect Israeli and European security, although it may provide new impetus to the Mideast
peace process. On the sidelines of a meeting of the world’s top security officials, NATO
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance wouldn’t interfere in other
countries’ domestic affairs, but it was watching developments closely.“I’m concerned about the
global power shift - I’m concerned about the evolving security situation just outside our doorstep
in North Africa and the Mideast,” he said. “My warning is against too deep and uncoordinated
defense cuts in Europe.”Rasmussen said he recognized the need for a democratic solution in
Egypt, and suggested it was inevitable. “In the long run no country can resist the will of the
people,” he said British Foreign Secretary William Hague told The Associated Press that the
international community was concerned about stability, and would not make a specific demand
on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to quit immediately.“What we’ve called for is an orderly
transition to start now, we haven’t said anything about a specific day, or what it means for the
president,” Hague said.“There are clearly major differences of opinion in Egypt, but we want the
Egyptian people to be able to sort those out in a stable, open, democratic way,” he said. “That is
why we want to see an orderly transition to a more broadly based government, to free and fair
elections, to real and visible and irrevocable change in Egypt.”Hague said that leaders across
the Arab world must meet the “natural human demand for more open and flexible political
systems,” and added that protests which have stretched from Tunisia to Yemen were an urgent
reminder of the need for progress on Middle East peace.“It underlines the need to drive ahead
with the Middle East peace process. I hope that it underlines to Israeli leaders the need to do
that, because events may complicate still further the politics of the Middle East.”German
Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg opened the three day-conference telling
delegates that no matter what comes of the upheaval in the region, Egypt and Jordan must
respect peace treaties with Israel.“These treaties must remain,” he said. “Europe has influence
in these countries, we should use it.”He also urged the government of Egypt to protect
demonstrators, and said that human rights have to be respected. Though the Egyptian situation
is not on the formal program of the annual Munich Security Conference, events there have
forced their way to the top of the agenda. The high-level, three-day conference, in its 47th year,
is renowned as a setting where top officials are able to address policy issues in an informal
setting. Already, the so-called “quartet” of Middle East peacemakers - the U.N., the U.S. the EU
and Russia - have called a meeting on the sidelines of the conference for Saturday. The
conference brings together U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, and high-powered
delegations from the Mideast and other regions around the world. Clinton has been pressing for
measures that would ease tensions on the streets of Egypt and set the stage for democratic
elections, and has condemned “in the strongest terms” the pro-government mobs that beat,
threatened and intimidated reporters in Cairo. Heading in to the conference Friday, World Bank
President Robert Zoellick told Associated Press Television News it was still too early too say
what the effect of the turmoil will be on world markets.“You have seen the energy prices
increase, but a lot will depend on what happens in the following days with the Suez canal,” he
said. “People are watchful, and there is obviously a lot of concern about what happens with the
political process.”A key foreign policy goal for U.S. President Barack Obama will be realized
Saturday, when Clinton and Lavrov meet on the sidelines of the conference to exchange signed
1
copies of the New START treaty - a cornerstone of Obama’s efforts to reset U.S. relations with
Russia.

B. Internal Link- the Obama administration must take a stand to help the Egyptian government
reform to democracy during the reconstruction of Egypt since Mubarak has stepped down if he
wishes to have stability in the middle east, and still receive crude oil from the Suez canal

Rubin, Barry 2011 http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-must-back-egypts-regime-or-face.html

It is morally good for the US to speak about support for protesters, but it is also quite dangerous. Mubarak
may go, but his regime is necessary for US and Israeli security, regional stability, and keeping at bay the
Islamic extremists that would rise in its place. Obama must support it. There is no good policy for the
United States regarding the uprising in Egypt, but the Obama administration may be adopting something
close to the worst option. It seems to be adopting a policy that, while somewhat balanced, is pushing the
Egyptian regime out of power. That situation could not be more dangerous and might be the biggest
disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution three decades ago. Experts and
news media seem to be overwhelmingly optimistic, just as they generally were in Iran’s case. Wishful
thinking is to some extent replacing serious analysis. Indeed, the alternative outcome is barely presented:
This could lead to an Islamist Egypt, if not now, then in several years.
There are two basic possibilities: the regime will stabilize (with or without President Hosni Mubarak), or
power will be up for grabs. Here are the precedents for the latter situation: Remember the Iranian
revolution of 1979, when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad is now president. Remember the Beirut Spring of 2005 when people poured out into the
streets to demand freedom? Hezbollah is now running Lebanon. Remember the democracy and free
elections among the Palestinians in 2006? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip. Remember democracy
in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war that begin in 1991 and
endured over a decade. It doesn’t have to be that way, but the precedents are pretty daunting. And what
did Egyptians tell the Pew pollsters recently when asked whether they liked “modernizers” or
“Islamists”? Islamists: 59 percent; Modernizers: 27 percent. Here’s the problem. On one hand, everyone
knows that Mr. Mubarak’s government, based on the regime that has been running Egypt since the
morning of July 23, 1952, is a dictatorship with a great deal of corruption and repression. But this
Egyptian government has generally been a good ally of the United States, though it has let Washington
down at times. Its loss of power to an anti-American government would be a tremendous defeat for the
United States. Moreover, a populist and radical nationalist – much less an Islamist – government could
reignite the Arab-Israeli conflict and cost tens of thousands of lives. So the United States has a stake in
the survival of the regime, if not so much of Mubarak personally, or the succession of his son, Gamal
Mubarak, now reported to have fled to Britain. This means that US policy should put an emphasis on the
regime’s survival. And this regime might be better off without the Mubaraks, since it can argue that it is
making a fresh start and will gain political capital from getting rid of the hated dictator. On the other
hand, the United States wants to show that it supports reform and democracy, believing that this will
make it more popular among the masses in the Arab world, as well as being the “right” and “American”
thing to do. Also, if the revolution does win, the thought is that it is more likely to be friendly to America
if the United States shows, in advance, its support for change. This “pro-democracy” approach is based on

2
the belief that Egypt might well produce a moderate, democratic, pro-Western state that will then be more
able to resist an Islamist challenge. Perhaps the Islamists can be incorporated into this system. Perhaps,
some say (and it is a very loud voice in the American mass media) that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t
really a threat at all. Of course, it is possible to mix these two positions, and that is what President Obama
is trying to do. On paper, this is an ideal policy: Mubarak should reform; the opposition should not use
violence; and everything will turn out all right. Unfortunately, it has little to do with reality. If the regime
doesn’t what Mr. Obama wants it to do, it will fall. And what is going to replace it? By his lack of
outright support for Mubarak, the president is demoralizing an ally. No matter what the United States says
or does at this point, it is not going to reap the gratitude of millions of Egyptians as a liberator. For the
new anti-regime leaders will blame America for its past support of Mubarak, opposition to Islamism,
backing of Israel, cultural influence, and incidents of alleged imperialism. This is not the first time this
kind of problem has come up. The most obvious precedent is Iran in 1978 and 1979. At that time, the US
strategy was to do precisely what Obama is doing now: announce support for the government, but press it
to make reforms. The shah did not turn to repressive measures, partly because he didn’t have US support.
So the revolution built up, and the regime fell. The result wasn’t good. There is a second part of this story
as well. Experts on television, consulting with the government, assured everyone that the revolution
would be moderate, the Islamists couldn’t win, and even if they did, this new leadership could be dealt
with. That didn’t turn out too well, either. Even more forgotten is how the situation in Egypt came to be in
the first place. Back in 1952, US policymakers supported – it was not a US-engineered coup, but they
were favorable to – an army takeover. The idea was that the officers would be friendly to the United
States, hostile to the Soviet Union and communism, and more likely to enjoy mass support. The pattern is
for US policy to believe that getting rid of a corrupt regime – the Egyptian monarchy in 1952; Iran's shah
in 1978; Mubarak now – and supporting a new, popular regime with a seemingly appealing ideology will
produce stability and benefit US interests. In fact, the last two times, this strategy resulted in the two
biggest disasters in the history of US Middle East policy. And this is the strategy policymakers and
experts are endorsing today.
No organized, moderate opposition Mohamed El Baradei, leader of the reformist movement, makes the
following argument against my analysis: “Mubarak has convinced the United States and Europe that they
only have a choice between two options – either they accept this authoritarian regime, or Egypt will fall
into the hands of the likes of bin Laden’s Al Qaeda….Mubarak uses the specter of Islamist terror to
prevent a third way: the country’s democratization. But Washington needs to know that the support of a
repressive leadership only creates the appearance of stability. In truth, it promotes the radicalization of the
people.” This is a reasonable formulation. But one might also say that nothing would promote the
radicalization of the people more than having a new radical regime in power – the Islamist regime that
would probably rise in the absence of any other organized opposition. That is not to say that there aren’t
good, moderate, pro-democratic people in Egypt, but they have little power, money, or organization.
Though opposition leaders have now formed a loose coalition backing Mr. El Baradei, this backing
includes leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact that they are dependent on the Muslim Brotherhood
is shown by ElBaradei's negotiating with that group for a coalition. Much of his past support has also, in
fact, come from the Brotherhood. And he himself has no governing experience, no independent base, and
limited abilities to govern. This hardly constitutes an organized, moderate opposition. Even the most
important moderate organization of the past, the Kifaya movement that emerged in 2004, has already
been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in
Egypt’s parliament, proves that you don’t have to be moderate to run in elections: "From my point of

3
view, bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all
their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.…[On the other hand,]
he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must
call things by their proper names!" A study of the Brotherhood members of Egypt’s parliament shows
how radical they have been in their speeches and proposals. But it is also being said that the Brotherhood
is not so popular in Egypt. Then why did the party get 20 percent of the vote in a 2005 election, even
when they were repressed and cheated? This was not just some protest vote, because voters had the option
of voting for secular reformers, and very few of them did. The deeper question is: Why does the
Brotherhood not engage in violence in Egypt? The answer is not that it is moderate, but that it has felt the
time was not ripe. One deterrent has been the knowledge that it would be crushed by the government, and
its leaders sent to concentration camps and tortured or even executed. It is no accident that Hamas and
Hezbollah – unrestrained by weak governments – engaged in violent terrorism, while the Muslim
Brotherhood facing strong and determined regimes in Egypt and Jordan did not. Unfortunately, US
influence on these events, already rejected by Egypt’s government, is minimal. It is morally good to speak
about freedom and seem to support the protestors, but also quite dangerous. Such support will not reap the
gratitude of the Egyptian masses in the future. The Egyptian elite wants to save itself, and if it has to
dump Mubarak to do so – as we saw in Tunisia – the armed forces and the rest will do so. But if the
regime itself falls, creating a vacuum, that is going to be a very bad outcome. Consider this point: Egypt’s
resources and financial capital are limited. There aren’t enough jobs, land, or wealth. How would a new
regime deal with these problems and mobilize popular support? The more probable outcome is that a
government would win support through demagoguery: blame America, blame the West, blame Israel, and
proclaim that Islam is the answer. That’s how it has been in the Middle East in too many places. The
emphasis for US policy, then, should be put on supporting the Egyptian regime generally, whatever
rhetoric is made about reforms. The rulers in Cairo should have no doubt that the United States is behind
them. If it is necessary to change leadership or make concessions, that is something the US government
can encourage behind the scenes. But Obama’s rhetoric seems dangerously reminiscent of President
Jimmy Carter’s in 1978, regarding Iran. He has made it sound – by wording and nuance, if not by
intention – that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government

4
Link- The reform process must happen now. Any additional advocacy would shift the focus
away from Egypt, causing instability to spread throughout the region

Robinson, Dan 1/30/11 http://www.thetruthpursuit.com/focus/focus-feature/obama-egypt-needs-orderly-

transition

President Obama said late Tuesday afternoon that an "orderly transition" in Egypt "must begin now" in
the wake of widespread protests that have thrown the country into turmoil. The comments came on the
same day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced that he would not seek re-election in September
- a stance that fell short of the demands of protesters, who want their longtime leader to step down
immediately. Mr. Obama said he spoke to the 82-year-old Mubarak following the Egyptian leader's
announcement, a conversation that the White House said lasted approximately 30 minutes. A special U.S.
envoy had reportedly informed Mubarak earlier that the Obama administration saw Mubarak's presidency
-- which has lasted nearly three decades -- as essentially over. "After his speech tonight, I spoke directly
to President Mubarak," Mr. Obama said. "He recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable. And that a
change must take place. Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so
at the will of our people. Through thousands of years, Egypt has known many moments of transformation,
the voices of the Egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments. This is one of those times. "He
continued: "Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders. Only the Egyptian
people can do that. What is clear, and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an
orderly transition must be meaningful. It must be peaceful, and it must begin now." The president said
that the transition process must lead to free and fair elections and include opposition parties as well as "a
broad spectrum of Egyptian voices." He said it should "result in a government that's not only grounded in
democratic principles but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people." Mr. Obama also
said over recent days the American people have "borne witness to the beginning of a new chapter in the
history of a great country." He commended the Egyptian military for not using violence against protesters,
stating, "we've seen tanks covered with banners, and soldiers and protesters embracing in the streets, and
going forward I urge the military to continue its efforts to help ensure that this time of change is
peaceful." He added that the United States will always "stand for universal values," including freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech and the freedom to information. Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by
stating that Americans "stand ready to provide assistance to the Egyptian people." "Over the last few
days, the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people of Egypt has been an
inspiration to people around the world, including here in the United States," he said. "And to all those
who believe in the inevitably of human freedom. To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of
Egypt, I want to be clear, we hear your voices. I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your
own destiny. And seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren." He went
on: "And I say that as someone who is committed to a partnership between the United States and Egypt.
There will be difficult some difficult days ahead. Many questions about Egypt's future remain
unanswered. But I am confident that the people of Egypt will find those answers. That truth can be seen in
the sense of community in the streets. It can be seen in the mothers and fathers embracing soldiers. And it
can be seen in the Egyptians who linked arms to protect the national museum. A new generation
protecting the treasures of antiquity. A human chain connecting a great and ancient civilization to the
promise of a new day."

5
Reform must happen now to maintain peace between Israel and Palestine. A stable Egyptian
government is key to making peace between the two states. An Islamic uprising in Egypt tanks
peace talks and creates even more instability, then it leaks over to Iran and causes conflict

Canadian Press 2/2/11 http://www.middleeastwarpeace.info/2011/02/02/egyptian-crisis-throws-israeli-palestinian-peace-

efforts-into-disarray/

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has only recently and grudgingly accepted the idea of an
independent Palestinian state next to Israel. With Egypt in flux, efforts to bring this about may soon go
into deep freeze. Israel’s main concern is whether its peace agreement with Egypt, which underpins its
security in a hostile Arab world, can survive without President Hosni Mubarak at the helm. The tumult in
Egypt has plunged Israel into dismay, arousing fears that Islamic radicals, backed by Iran, are about to
score another victory, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — even though the anti-
government protesters in Egypt are led by secular activists. While Egypt’s main fundamentalist group the
Muslim Brotherhood has a role, it has no known links to Iran. At this point, Israeli leaders can only guess
what will happen in Egypt now that Mubarak has said he won’t run for re-election. Mubarak is Israel’s
bridge to the Arab world and a mediator with the Palestinians. Gaza borders Egypt’s Sinai desert, making
Egypt the guardian of its western border. Until the picture clears, Netanyahu is unlikely to rush into a deal
with the Palestinians that creates even more uncertainty on his doorstep by turning over territory to
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a man Israelis see as well intentioned but weak. “A peace on
paper does not guarantee peace in practice,” Netanyahu said in a speech to parliament on Wednesday.
Under the 1979 treaty with Egypt, Israel’s first with an Arab country, Israel withdrew from the Sinai
peninsula, which it had captured from Egypt in the 1967 Mideast war. A demilitarized Sinai allowed
Israel to slash military spending and troop levels along the border. The return of the massive, U.S.-
supplied Egyptian army to potentially just 65 kilometres (40 miles) from Tel Aviv would send shudders
through Israel’s military establishment. To the east is Jordan, where street protests forced King Abdullah
II to sack his Cabinet this week and promise reforms. Jordan, the other country with whom Israel has a
peace treaty, separates Israel and the West Bank from Iraq. Beyond lies Iran, which says Israel shouldn’t
even exist. Some analysts argue that now is the time to strike a deal with the Palestinians and take some
of the sting out of the turmoil sweeping Arab countries. But Israelis will prefer caution, said Aaron David
Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator who is now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, a Washington think-tank . “The logic for Israel will be ‘We need to be very careful with respect
to anything we do,’” he said in an interview. He said the best-case scenario foresees a “fairly lengthy
delay” in getting peace efforts restarted. “At worst, it will make it very difficult to hold serious
negotiations or reach any agreement any time soon.” Netanyahu warned his parliament that Islamic
radicals, backed by Iran, could exploit the chaos in Egypt, a common theme heard here since the unrest
erupted last week. He also repeated his call for peace talks with the Palestinians, but reiterated his security
concerns and acknowledged the gaps may be too wide to bridge. A Palestinian state, even if Israel got to
keep its largest settlements in the West Bank, would leave this country much narrower at its populous
waistline. “We need security on the ground, not only for peace, but also in case that peace falls apart. In
the Middle East nobody can guarantee the stability of regimes,” Netanyahu said. Among his demands is
that Israel retain a military presence in the West Bank after a Palestinian state goes up. The Palestinians
flatly reject this. President Barack Obama has made Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority, and the lack of
progress so far has hurt his credibility here. Israeli media are full of commentaries criticizing Obama’s
response to the Egypt crisis. They accuse him of abandoning an important ally and claim his push for
more democracy in the Mideast is naive. Netanyahu warned in his speech that Islamic groups have
already taken over by democratic means in Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a friend of
Mubarak and until last month a member of Netanyahu’s Cabinet, accused Obama of dumping a

6
“courageous” friend. He warned that elections in Egypt would likely bring the fundamentalist Muslim
Brotherhood to power. “I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the
Middle East into,” he told Israel Army Radio. However, Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath, while
acknowledging peace efforts will be go on hold, said a more democratic Egypt “will definitely help our
bargaining power.” In an interview, he predicted that when the peace process resumes, it will be “with a
more realistic American position and a more positive Israeli position.” Abbas seeks the West Bank and
east Jerusalem for a future Palestinian state, along with the Gaza Strip. But Gaza also figures heavily in
Israel’s nightmare scenarios. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Two years later, the Hamas militant
group overran Abbas’ forces and seized control there. Gaza became a launching pad for rocket and mortar
attacks on southern Israel. Netanyahu fears a repeat in the West Bank. Meanwhile, Israel worries that
militants will exploit the chaos in Egypt to smuggle weapons and fighters into Gaza. Some Israelis took a
different view on future peace efforts. Yossi Beilin, a one-time peace negotiator, said Netanyahu and his
hard-line allies will use Egypt’s turmoil as an “excuse” not to pursue peace with the Palestinians. But he
noted that Arab governments have a record of keeping their agreements with Israel, and expected
Palestinians would do likewise. Therefore, he said, if an agreement can be reached with a moderate
Palestinian government, it should be done now, before hostile forces take power in Egypt.

Iranian conflict causes extinction

Jorge Hirsch, a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego. He is one of the originators of the
physicists' petition on nuclear weapons policies started at the UCSD, 1/3/ 2006, America's nuclear ticking bomb,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060103/news_mz1e3hirsch.html

If only conventional bombs are used in an unprovoked U.S. or Israeli aerial attack against Iran's facilities ,
Iran is likely to retaliate with missiles against coalition forces in Iraq and against Israel, as well
as possibly a ground invasion of southern Iraq, that the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would not be able to
withstand. Iranian missiles could potentially contain chemical warheads, and it certainly would be
impossible to rule out such possibility. Iran has signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (in
1993 and 1997 respectively), however it is still likely to have supplies, as determined by the U.S. State
Department in August 2005. Early use by the United States of low-yield nuclear bombs with
better bunker-busting ability than conventional bombs targeting Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile
installations would be consistent with the new U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine and could be
argued to be necessary to protect the lives of 150,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and of Israeli citizens. It would
also send a clear message to Iran that any response would be answered by a far more devastating nuclear
attack, thus potentially saving both American and Iranian lives. However, the nuclear threshold is a
line of no return. Once the United States uses a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear adversary,
the 182 countries that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty will rightly feel at
risk, and many of them will rush to develop their own nuclear deterrent while they can.
A new world with many more nuclear countries, and a high risk of any regional conflict
exploding into all-out nuclear war, will be the consequence. The scientific community
(which created nuclear weapons) is alarmed over the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies. A petition to
reverse these policies launched by physicists at the University of California San Diego has gathered over
1,500 physicists' signatures including eight Nobel laureates and many prominent members of the U.S.
scientific establishment (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/). Scientists object strongly to the concept of
WMD, that lumps together nuclear weapons with other "weapons of mass destruction" and blurs the sharp
line that separates immensely more destructive nuclear weapons from all other weapons . An

7
escalating nuclear war could lead to the destruction of civilization. There is no fundamental
difference between small nuclear bombs and large ones, nor between nuclear bombs targeting
underground installations versus those targeting cities or armies.

8
9