Reviewing American foreign policy over the last decades, one will discern that US decisions have been based on misconceptions and a poor understanding of international and regional events. This has resulted in serious damage to US interests in terms of material and human costs, not to mention its international image and status. When the Soviet Union collapsed, together with its socialist camp, the question in the US, under the George H W Bush presidency, was how America would deal with the situation. Bush, experienced in foreign relations, tried to placate the new Russian president, Boris Yeltsin. The latter did and said everything to prove that the new Russia would be a reliable partner to America and the West. Bush promised Yeltsin that America would not threaten Russia and would help it overcome its economic problems. The next US administration, under Democratic President Bill Clinton, reversed this policy. Clinton not only revived the NATO alliance, but enlarged it by including Eastern Europe and Baltic countries, bringing NATO to the borders of Russia. Together with severe economic and social problems, Yeltsin's position deteriorated. He was obliged to hand power to a former KGB colonel, Vladimir Putin, who at first extended a hand of cooperation to the US particularly on fighting terrorism. However, Republican President George W Bush continued the policy of encircling Russia by building a missile defence system in both Hungary and the Czech Republic. Bush Jr went further, encouraging what were called the “coloured revolutions” in the former Soviet republics, establishing regimes hostile to Russia. Amid an upsurge of Russian nationalism, Dmitry Medvedev and Putin reacted in defiance of America and the West by invading Georgia and the Ukraine and annexing the Crimea. What started as an effort to ensure Russia would not be a major power capable of threatening the West ended in confrontations reminiscent of the Cold War. The second US turn came when Bush Jr, following the 9/11 attacks, adopted a strategy shaped by neoconservatives, who penetrated all US administrative institutions. They convinced him that Saddam Hussein must be removed because he possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened his neighbours and Israel. But their major argument was that building a democratic regime in Iraq would provide a model for the region, ending the rule of authoritarian regimes that encourage radicalism, and even the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11. Saddam Hussein was indeed removed, but Iraq as a state and nation was destroyed and fragmented, creating a chaotic situation where religious and ethnic factions thrived. The reaction of the US towards the June 30 revolution in Egypt was negative, if not unfriendly. The US administration not only deemed the army intervention a “military coup”, but also suspended military assistance to Egypt, followed by hostile statements that criticised Egyptian authorities and their response to Muslim Brotherhood violence. Recent months indicated a willingness to mend relations between the two countries, but as President Obama said, these relations “will never return to what they were.” A number of US scholars and analysts now assess that Obama overestimated the power of the Muslim Brotherhood and ignored its failure to rule the country. It is surprising that with daily Muslim Brotherhood violence against the Egyptian people nationwide, the US State Department is still receiving Brotherhood leaders, on the incorrect assumption that the Brotherhood represents “a political force.” Any objective observer of the reality in Egypt will conclude that millions of Egyptians rejected the Muslim Brotherhood on 30 June 2013, and that every day that passes deepens the Egyptian people's hatred and refusal of this movement and its members. Reviewing these American misconceptions, objective observers will wonder how a power with hundreds of think tanks, scholars and analysts issuing assessments of regional and international events could adopt such misconstrued policies that are contrary to the national interests of the US. The threat of terrorist groups culminated with the emergence of the Islamic State (IS). For 40 years, Egypt was an ally and partner of the US. Following the 25 January Revolution, things started to change. This was due to US perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Dating from 2005, the US influenced by its experience in Iran, when it gave full support to the Shah and ignored the Islamic opposition started a dialogue with Brotherhood figures that focused on presenting the movement as moderate and non-violent. When the 25 January Revolution erupted and the Muslim Brotherhood assumed power through elections, an idea started to prevail within the US administration that the Muslim Brotherhood could help contain radical Islamists in the region. The Brotherhood reinforced this idea when they succeeded in reaching a truce between Hamas and Israel in 2012. In retrospect, the US administration was not fully apprised of the political forces in Egypt, as well as public opinion, which was dismayed with the way the Brotherhood was governing, its failure to tackle Egypt's economic and social problems, together with its determination to change the identity of the country. The 30 June Revolution was the product of these grievances, inaccurately assessed by the US administration as well as other US institutions, particularly the US Congress and think tanks. Correcting American perspectives needs active diplomacy, as well as active non-governmental organisations, to counter the active Muslim Brotherhood that has penetrated US official and public institutions, as proven by their visits to US academic institutions as well as the US State Department. Misconceptions inevitably lead to contradictions and inconsistency in policies. That explains American reactions to Egypt's air strikes against the terrorist IS organisation in Libya. In a brutal action, IS slaughtered 21 Egyptians. The Egyptian response was clearly an act of self-defence, according to the UN Charter and international law. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki expressed support for the right of all states to defend themselves but the Pentagon's spokesman, John Kirby, opposed the Egyptian strikes and focussed on the need for political solutions in Libya. This despite the fact that the US and other allies have for more than three months launched daily air strikes against IS bases in Iraq and Syria. Adding to this contradiction, US Secretary of State John Kerry, together with a number of European foreign ministers, declared that what happened in Libya regarding the slaughter of 21 Egyptians underlines the need for a political solution. The question not answered is how to seek a political solution when there is a terrorist organisation on the ground and its brutal behaviour negates any possibility of a civilised dialogue and negotiations. To create an environment conducive to a genuine political solution, you have to root out these terrorist factions and support the legitimacy of the legal government and elected parliament, together with arming the Libyan army. The writer is executive director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
