Mohamed Hassanein warns that Egypt cannot afford to ignore regional developments as it debates the details of the current political transition. Dina Ezzat précis his points "What is unfolding ahead and around us is not just the Arab Spring. There is more happening than that. We are undergoing a political shift on both the international and regional fronts which will have a deep -- perhaps dangerous -- impact on the region and beyond." Such was the warning Mohamed Hassanein , Egypt's most celebrated political commentator, offered Friday's readers of Al-Ahram in the third, and final instalment, of his interview with the paper's editor. The Middle East, he said, is facing four possible scenarios, dictated by either Western, Turkish, Iranian or Israeli interests though the latter, he warned, is more looming nightmare than scenario. The Western, or rather American-European scenario, he argued, is working on two fronts. The first "is to inundate the region in an Islamic-Islamic -- or to be more precise a Sunni-Shia -- conflict". It began in 1979 with the fall of the Shah of Iran and the culmination of the Islamic Revolution which was in clear and direct conflict with US interests in the region. In its attempts to secure its interests the US has been promoting Sunni-Shia conflict across the region, to which end it has been aided by factions on both sides. For , Washington's sudden change of heart towards the Muslim Brotherhood following the collapse of Mubarak's rule is part of this process, an attempt by the US to strengthen its ties with a potential Sunni ally in the Sunni- Shia conflict though this is something of which the Brotherhood is unlikely yet to be aware. "To be honest, I don't think that the Muslim Brotherhood is conscious of the scheme. It is probably still too overwhelmed at having been recognised as legitimate to think the matter through and move beyond its joy at recognition to see the motives that lie behind it." The second front of the American-European scheme for the Middle East involves the redrawing of spheres of influence, a strategy that dates from the Sykes-Picot agreement when, following World War I, the territories of the failing Ottoman Empire were carved up between Britain and France. Today a new division is being hastily orchestrated, based on resources, particularly oil. Having failed to embrace pan-Arabism the Arab world now faces dissection, with Turkey -- the loser in the French/British care up of its empire -- now a partner in the scheme. This is possible, says simply, because the Arabs "did not learn the lessons of the past". They continue to count on Western promises without seeing that the West pursues its own interests with ferocity. When NATO was asked -- "in an illogical move" argues -- to help the Libyan rebels in the face of Muammar Gaddafi's "unacceptable" conduct, it acquiesced. But it came to stay and control the oil wealth of Libya for Western oil companies, particularly French and British, just as the West had already wrested control of Iraq's oil. For there is no end in sight to the Arab replay of past mistakes. Arab threats against Bashar Al-Assad could, he fears, be the prelude to yet another intervention by the West in the affairs of a failing Arab regime. The West's schemes for the Arab world, suggests, may well include a share for Turkey as Ankara seeks to up its profile in the hope of a more forceful regional role. Iran, which is seeking a similar leadership role, will be categorically excluded whereas Israel, long covetous to exercise its own fundamental hegemony, will be accommodated. Arab animosity towards Iran fuelled by apprehension against Shia Islam, and Arab scepticism towards Turkey, undermine stability in the region and serve to further the Western scheme, says . The best way forward would be for Arab capitals to lessen their antagonism towards Tehran and scepticism towards Ankara and display more openness towards both for the sake of a balanced regional set up. But if this is to happen Egypt must refocus its attention which is currently devoted to exclusively domestic concerns. "It is a matter of strategic interests," argues, though in pursuing its crucial regional role Egypt will also be promoting domestic economic development. "I am very concerned over the fact that at a time when the entire region is being redrawn Egypt seems to be concerned exclusively with issues such as the boundaries of electoral districts and which kind of voting system it should adopt." The 25 January Revolution, argues , repositioned Egypt as a leading regional power. Today, though, that positioning could all too easily be undermined if Egypt chooses to marginalise its role in determining the future of the Middle East. In the first two instalments of his three-part interview with Al-Ahram proposed that a national board of trustees be established to help the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces address domestic challenges. In the final instalment he makes a similar suggestion, suggesting a national security council be set up to attend to equally pressing regional developments.
