The Egyptian Coup

Most people would call the Egyptian military takeover a Military Coup but not the US.  A few links on the coup. 

 Military Coup ,  Digital Journal

Since the coup began the US has taken great pains not to call the Egyptian military takeover a coup. If the takeover were a coup then the US would by law be required to cut off all foreign aid consisting of about $1.5 billion.

Egypt: U.S. Won't Define Morsi's Ouster As Coup



So why won't the US call it a "Military Coup"?

Egypt Turmoil Still Not A Coup In Washington

There is of course a reason why the Obama administration does not want to be precise and that has to do with US law. 

Egypt receives more than a $1 billion dollars of aid every year but according to US law foreign aid must be suspended during a coup. 

But as the most populous Arab nation Egypt is of strategic importance to America - it is perhaps another case of interests and principles colliding in the world of foreign policy.
That's why this coup is not really a coup at all.

That aid is really a payoff to Egypt's leaders to play nice with Israel.

AIPAC flexes its muscle on Iran and Egypt | Mondoweiss:

On Egypt, the story was much the same: AIPAC got what it wanted. The Egyptian military's coup in June prompted a lot of pundits to talk about whether the Obama administration was going to cut off the $1.3 billion in military aid the U.S. delivers to the country annually. But there was never any serious chance the Obama administration was going to do so--and Israel is a key reason why. So when Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment this week to redirect the Egypt aid to infrastructure projects at home, it was quickly shot down--and the Senators opposing the amendment cited AIPAC and the Israeli government's insistence that military aid continue to Egypt. 

Open Zion's Ali Gharib runs down the revealing debate here: 

[P]eans to Israel's security came from the five Senators who spoke in opposition to the amendment: Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Bob Corker (R-TN), Jim Inhofe (R-OK) Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ), who even got into it with Paul about what American groups spoke with authority on Israel's interests.
Inhofe, the first to speak, set the tone. "If you have any feelings at all toward our good friends, our best friends in the Middle East—that is Israel—then you cannot consider this amendment. Israel has all of the interests at stake," he said. "We cannot do this to our friends in Israel and our other allies in the Middle East." He went on at length. Then Menendez made one of those references to American security when he said the Senate must consider "implications for U.S. national security and for our ally Israel." Later, he elaborated on those concerns—the Israeli ones, at least: "When you have hundreds of tunnels in the Sinai being used by extremists to send weapons into Gaza to attack Israel, it is about their security."

And Senator Lindsey Graham underscored the fact that AIPAC was opposed to cutting off aid to Egypt. As Gharib notes, Graham read into the Congressional record the letter AIPAC sent to Senators on the Paul amendment, which states:

 We are writing to express our concerns over the Paul amendment to the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that would eliminate military assistance and sales to Egypt. We do not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time, as we believe it could increase the instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.

 There are other important reasons why the U.S. won't cut off aid to Egypt. The flow of money ensures profits for weapons companies in America, and ensures that the Suez Canal, important for oil, is also a place where the U.S. navy flexes its muscle--which is important to box Iran in.

oh, and also,.....

Because we're christians and we hate those Muslim radicals


'via Blog this'