Dr Khalid Al Dakhil
On June 1, a remarkable event marked Saudi-Egyptian relations. On that day, Saudi and Egyptian newspapers published similar reports to confirm that there is no disagreement between Riyadh and Cairo with respect to Yemen and Syria.
On the contrary, the visions and stance of the two countries on regional issues are the same. This is what was reported in the newspapers Al Hayat, Egyptian Today”, and the Middle East.
The Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram waited until the following day to publish a similar report. Despite the difference in conveying the news between newspapers, it seems that the news source came from a press conference in Cairo between Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al Jubeir and his Egyptian counterpart Sameh Shoukry.
So far, there is nothing extraordinary. However on the same day, Al Shorouk, an Egyptian newspaper came out of the ordinary to publish a completely different and opposing story from what was published in the above newspapers. The report was headlined: “Escalating pressurised tension between Cairo and Riyadh due to Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen and Syria”.
On the sidelines, the paper said: “Saudi Arabia opens the door for the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Yemen, which Egypt considers a red line crossover”.
In the details, “Al Shorouk” reports from official Egyptian sources as saying that Cairo informed Riyadh its fears of what Egypt calls an exaggeration in open arms for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab countries, which are attempting to rely on the movement to end the crisis in Yemen or to heal the situation in Syria.
This will inevitably lead to serious consequences for regional stability, because once the Brotherhood has the rule of one Arab country through Saudi support, it will not rest until it seeks to control all the Arab capitals.
Which news is closer to the truth? The newspapers that quoted what the Saudi and Egyptian foreign ministers said in their press conference? Or what Al Shorouk newspaper said from official Egyptian sources?
Here, we face Egyptian mystery in another topic, dealt with when the two ministers met during their press conference, which is the foreign intervention in the Arab world.
Jubeir mentioned Iran by name saying it is the only country in the region intervening in Arab countries’ affairs. Shoukry stressed that Egypt refuses any external interference that threatens Arab security and rejects any attempt of imposing influence on Arab nations. Such interference and influence will be confronted firmly in defence of the national security framework. However, he avoided mentioning Iran and what it is doing in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, especially employing militias as a tool for a proxy war in the
Arab world.
What has changed? This brings us back to the question mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood that was reported by Al Shorouk as the main point of contention between Riyadh and Cairo.
What is more striking in the interview of official Egyptian sources with the newspaper is to say that the exaggerated open arms to the Muslim Brotherhood will eventually lead to the control of all the Arab capitals.
This suggests that the way in which Egypt has dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood problem at home did not lead to a resolution, but made it an Egyptian dilemma causing it sleeplessness and tying its strategic options regionally at such a critical stage in the Arab world.
Does that require preventing the Muslim Brotherhood in political participation, or access to power in any Arab country? If its participation achieves, in accordance with the agreed vision of the state, the desired goal in the framework of a constitutional political process that can accommodate all, and put an end to the devastating crises, namely in Syria and Yemen, then why not?
In such a case it becomes a local matter, not a Saudi or Egyptian one, as in Morocco and Tunisia for example. On the other hand, how to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen, at a time when everyone agrees that the solution must not exclude anyone?
It seems what was published by Al Shorouk is closer to the truth than what other newspapers have reported. There is an Egyptian concern about Saudi options without a vision or alternatives. It is a worrisome fear.
In the past, Saudi Arabia was wary of Egyptian options. Now these two countries have exchanged places, reflecting the absence of a shared vision.
This leaves an open gap allowing Iran and its militias, and terrorism to infiltrate the region.
The writer is an academician, columnist and political analyst.
The Peninsula
