Question:
Looking at the course of events, the facts have become turbulent and confusing to me:
We know that the actual influence in Egypt belongs to America. So why are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait financially supporting the new regime in Egypt, even though these countries are followers of Britain?
Furthermore, the UAE supported France in Mali and sent financial support there, even though the actual influence in Mali does not belong to Britain?
We also see a contradiction in the media positions between Al-Arabiya channel in the UAE and Al-Jazeera in Qatar, even though both the UAE and Qatar are agents of the British. By the way, does the recent change in Qatar affect British policy there?
We also notice that Saudi Arabia’s men in the Coalition, such as Al-Jarba, seem to have an active role, unlike Qatar’s men. Has weakness begun to seep into Qatar’s men regarding the ongoing events in Syria, while the influence of Saudi Arabia’s men has grown stronger?
Finally, does America’s abandonment of Morsi mean it has abandoned the idea of facilitating what it calls "moderate Islam" to reach power?
I hope you will "bear with me" regarding this long question, and may Allah reward you with goodness. I apologize in advance for its length and many parts, but we know the broad-mindedness of our Ameer in addition to the breadth of his knowledge; perhaps we will find with him what dispels our confusion and heals our chests.
Answer:
This, my brother, is not one question but a "heap" of questions!! In any case, here is the answer in brief without omission, Allah willing:
There are broad outlines regarding British policy that will help you understand what is happening:
Britain currently does not dare to stand openly in the face of America. Instead, it appears as if it is on America's side, while secretly obstructing and disrupting American policy through its agents, after perfecting action plans to appear in a deceptive manner...
Most of the roles Britain gives to its agents are to appear, like Britain itself, as if they are moving in the direction America is heading without clashing with it. For example, those who are not politically aware would think Jordan's relationship with America puts it on America's side, even though it is a solid pillar for Britain. The same applies to the UAE and other agents... However, Britain leaves some of its agents to stand in the face of America, such as Qatar, which is a different role from other agents. This means its agents have different roles: most of them smile at America, show affection, and annoy it from behind a curtain—much like Britain, the master of these agents, does—while a few of them have roles that cause America more obvious irritation...
Britain harmonizes with France in confronting American policy, within the framework of European policy, especially between Britain and France. The difference is that Britain acts with malice, cunning, and a deceptive soft voice toward America, while France acts with a loud and noisy voice... Britain often implements its policy behind France! There is a famous proverb: "Britain fights to the last French soldier," and even if this was from bygone times, its trace remains, albeit to a lesser degree.
Although the rule in Saudi Arabia is led by King Abdullah, who is a follower of Britain, America has influence over some other princes, and this influence gives its policy an entry point...
In light of this, the answer to your questions can be clarified:
a- Regarding Qatar, the former Emir of Qatar and his Foreign Minister managed to make Qatar a central hub for Britain in the Gulf. He began intervening in several countries through two effective means: the media (Al-Jazeera) and money (oil)... His movements were effective in annoying American policy in Syria and Palestine, and even in Egypt and elsewhere... America's annoyance was not hidden from Britain. Because Britain tries to appear in the picture in a way that is not annoying to America, it agreed to change that Emir. However, the replacement was not far from him; it was his son. This means British policy did not change, but this son needs time to become as influential as his father in annoying America. Thus, Britain calmed America's annoyance... What happened was a British style to satisfy America in form but not in substance!
b- Qatar's role has diminished slightly with this change because the men of the new government are less experienced in effective political work than those of the previous government. However, Qatar is still within the British policy, working with cunning and malice, but with a publicly declared role that is less active than the previous one. Consequently, its men in Syria have become less active than before.
c- As for the Saudi men, they are more effective and more acceptable to both America and Britain, because the King's loyalty is to Britain and because America works diligently with some princes in the royal family.
As for Al-Jarba, although he is close to Saudi Arabia, he is within the American policy and cannot deviate from America's obedience regardless of the support Saudi Arabia gives him. The Coalition as a whole is an American creation, and no one can continue in its presidency unless they are submissive to America.
d- Regarding Mali and the UAE's financial aid... You know that America was behind the first change in Mali that occurred on March 22, 2012, which was a painful blow to France. France worked diligently to restore its influence. Britain realizes it has no influence in Mali; rather, it belongs to France, and America is competing for it. Naturally, Britain supports France if the conflict is limited between America and France. The UAE's financial aid to the pro-French government in Mali is consistent with Britain's support for France.
e- As for the explanation of the British position regarding what happened in Egypt—the visits by the UAE delegation and the King of Jordan, and the financial support from British agents to Egypt—it does not fall outside the broad outlines mentioned above... The confusion arising from the difference between the role of the UAE and the role of Qatar is merely a distribution of roles according to British policy. One approaches and the other distances itself, waiting for the results of the events in Egypt... The UAE hosting members of the Mubarak regime also does not fall outside these broad outlines; the expectation of the return of Mubarak's men would be an entry point, even if narrow, for British policy through the UAE, if only as a gesture of returning the favor!
f- As for whether America abandoning Morsi means it has abandoned facilitating the return of those called "moderate Islamists" to power, the issue is not about abandonment or lack thereof, but rather about achieving stability for American influence in Egypt. American influence in Egypt has been established within most of the political class for decades. America is concerned that Egypt remains a center of stability for American influence—not for Egypt's sake, but so that America can use it as a safe base for its influence and projects... When the popular movements on January 25, 2011, surprised it, and Mubarak could not handle these movements or restore stability to keep Egypt a suitable environment for American interests, it cast him aside. It rode the wave of popular movements and then brought in Morsi after he guaranteed the implementation of its projects, especially the Camp David treaty with the Jewish entity. Consequently, it supported him... It expected him to achieve stability, considering that the Brotherhood was the President's party and the largest organized party after the dissolution of the National Democratic Party. It expected them to work on stabilizing the situation as the National Democratic Party did with the ousted president... But Morsi could not, so it abandoned him... It was behind the new regime on July 3, 2013, and was its supporter...
Accordingly, America's abandonment of the proponents of "moderate Islam" in Egypt was for a reason outside of America's policy in recent years of facilitating the arrival of so-called "moderate Islamists" to power. America adopted this policy to kill two birds with one stone, as they say:
First: To deceive the general Muslims who look forward to the rule of Islam... Even though "moderate Islamists" declare democracy and a republic and swear by them! However, being called "Islamists" tickles the feelings of the general Muslims, who think that the arrival of these Islamists will bring Islam to power. Consequently, their determination to perform the correct work for establishing the rule of Islam—the system of the Khilafah—weakens... Weakening the determination of Muslims to work for the Khilafah is what America wants, for the Khilafah haunts its sleep...
Second: To provide stability for its influence by exploiting the Islamists' use of people's emotions... But if they cannot provide stability for American influence, it abandons them, as it did with Morsi, and supports others—especially since it does not lack agent politicians it has cultivated in Egypt during those long years!
g- The people of the Land of Kinana (Egypt) must realize this matter: that America was and still is the one with actual influence during the era of the ousted Mubarak, during the era of the deposed Morsi, and during the era of the current government. It is the root of the disease and the source of the affliction. It is the duty of every Muslim who believes in Allah and His Messenger to work with diligence and effort to uproot American influence, remove its agents, and restore the rule of Islam—the Rightly Guided Khilafah—to the Land of Kinana so that it returns as the center of the Islamic lands. It will then eliminate the enemies of Islam and Muslims, eliminate the Jewish entity, and return the Holy Land to Islam and Muslims, just as it did in eliminating the Crusaders and the Tatars. And that is not difficult for Allah.