Filiu, Jean-Pierre From Deep State To Islamic State The Arab Counter-Revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy

FROM DEEP STATE TO ISLAMIC STATE
THE CERI SERIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS

AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Series editor, Christophe Jaffrelot
This series consists of translations of noteworthy manuscripts

and publications in the social sciences emanating from the
foremost French researchers at Sciences Po, Paris.
The focus of the series is the transformation of politics and
society by transnational and domestic factors—globalisation,
migration and religion. States are more permeable to external
influence than ever before and this phenomenon is accelerating
processes of social and political change the world over. In
seeking to understand and interpret these transformations, this
series gives priority to social trends from below as much as to
the interventions of state and non-state actors.
JEAN-PIERRE FILIU
From Deep State

to Islamic State
The Arab Counter-Revolution
and its Jihadi Legacy
A
A
Oxford University Press is a department of the
University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective
of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide.
Oxfordâ•… New York
Aucklandâ•… Cape Townâ•… Dar es Salaamâ•… Hong Kongâ•… Karachi
Kuala Lumpurâ•…Madridâ•…Melbourneâ•…Mexico Cityâ•…Nairobi
New Delhiâ•…Shanghaiâ•…Taipeiâ•…Toronto
With offices in
Argentinaâ•…Austriaâ•…Brazilâ•…Chileâ•…Czech Republicâ•…Franceâ•…Greece
Guatemalaâ•…Hungaryâ•…Italyâ•…Japanâ•…Polandâ•…Portugalâ•…Singapore
South Koreaâ•…Switzerlandâ•…Thailandâ•…Turkeyâ•…Ukraineâ•…Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Copyright © Jean-Pierre Filiu 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with
the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available
Filiu, Jean-Pierre.
From Deep State to Islamic State: The Arab Counter-Revolution and its
Jihadi Legacy / Jean-Pierre Filiu.
ISBN 9780190264062
‘The notion of inviting the army into the country’s political life
again is extremely dangerous; it could turn Egypt into another
Afghanistan or Somalia.’
General Abdelfattah Sisi, Minister of Defence, 15 May 2013, Â€
less than two months before his coup against the elected president
‘If you are a patriot, you need to shut up and let us do our job,
and clean up the mess you made with your revolution.’
Threats from the Egyptian security services reported in January 2014
by former MP Mostafa Al-Nagar*
*â•–Mostafa al-Nagar, born in 1980, is one of the few activists of the Egyptian
25 January 2011 revolution to have successfully joined the political scene.
Â€
After an early involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood’s youth wing—which

he left in 2005—he became a vocal defender of human rights and Palestin-
ian causes. (A dentist by profession, he volunteered in Gaza to help the vic-
tims of the Israeli offensive of January 2009.) He was jailed four times under
Mubarak’s regime. In June 2011 he became one of the co-founders of the
Adl (Justice) party, and then its only member in the parliament that was
elected in November–December 2011, but dissolved by the Supreme Consti-
tutional Court in June 2012.
CONTENTS
Foreword ix
â•‡ 1.â•‡Meet the Deep State 1

â•‡ 2.â•‡The Mythical Fathers of the Nation 19
â•‡ 3.â•‡The Modern Mamluks 45
â•‡ 4.â•‡The Algerian Matrix 83
â•‡ 5.â•‡The Rise of the Security Mafias 115
â•‡ 6.â•‡The ‘Global Terror’ Next Door 137
â•‡ 7.â•‡The Story of Two Squares in Egypt 151
â•‡ 8.â•‡Evil Twins in Yemen and Syria 193
â•‡9.â•‡Strangling Palestine 213
10.â•‡The Tunisian Alternative 229
Conclusion 249
Notes 255
Select English Bibliography 271
Chronology 273
Index 289
vii
FOREWORD
It has been four years now since Mohammad Bouazizi’s self-

immolation in the Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid sparked a wave
of popular protests against the Arab regimes. President Ben Ali
was the first to fall in January 2011, followed by Husni Mubarak
the following month. At that time, I was visiting professor at
Columbia University, far from my home country and from the
Arab world, but close enough to feel the shockwaves of this
extraordinary development and to participate in its aftermath.
â•… My background as a historian soon led me to believe that this
was only the beginning of a long-term process, itself rooted in
the two-century long and complex period known as the Arab
renaissance, or Nahda. I was therefore reluctant to use the
expression ‘Arab spring’, anticipating that an ‘Islamist autumn’
would eventually replace it in the mainstream lexicon. I favoured
instead the ‘Arab revolution’, not because I thought that revolu-
tions would take place in every Arab country, but because I was
convinced that a pan-Arab dynamic was nurturing a regional
wave of radical protest.
â•… As early as spring 2011, I authored The Arab Revolution, Ten
Lessons About the Democratic Uprising, published the follow-
ing summer by Hurst in London and Oxford University Press in
New York.1 Far from being academic landmarks, these ‘lessons’
were meant to be modest signposts to keep track of a multi-fac-
eted process that would only become more difficult to interpret
and to categorize.
ix
FOREWORD
â•… This kind of leap in the dark was not the spontaneous attitude
a seasoned historian should adopt. Yet I was hoping that Arab
historians would benefit from the democratic breakthrough and
take a fresh look at their own national narratives. I believed that
history was just one of the many scholarly resources that could
help us grasp the long-term impact of an event of such profound
global importance.
â•… Nearly four years later, I readily confess that my focus on the
Arab revolution prevented me from assessing the full potential
of the Arab counter-revolution. I thought I had seen it all from
the Arab despots: their perversity, their brutality, their voracity.
But I was still underestimating their ferocity and their readiness
to literally burn down their country in order to cling to the abso-
lute power. Bashar al-Assad has climbed to the top of this mur-
derous class of Arab tyrants, driving nearly half the Syrian
population from their homes.
â•… This is how this ‘Arab counter-revolution’ was conceived: not
as a paradoxical sequel, but as a study of the repressive dynam-
ics designed to crush any hope of democratic change, through
the association of any revolutionary experience with the worst
collective nightmare. In order to describe this systematic war of
the Arab regimes against their people, I had to import and scru-
tinize the concept of the ‘Deep State’ from neighbouring Turkey.
That was a means of explaining how the nucleus of the ruling
cliques could strike back with such unbridled violence.
â•… This attempted conceptualization would however have been
pretty weak without the parallel use of the Mamluk paradigm to
underline how modern ‘security’ systems were established and
empowered. Contrary to previous works about the ‘New Mam-
luks’,2 dealing with the Ottomanized Mamluks of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries, I am referring to the original
Mamluks who ruled Egypt from 1250 to 1517, along with Syria
from 1260 to 1516. I draw a parallel between the legitimacy
derived by those founding Mamluks from the vulnerable ‘caliph’
x
FOREWORD
under their control and the one derived by the modern Mamluks
from the popular ‘votes’ held under martial law.
â•… Chapter 1 is dedicated to the Turkish contemporary ‘detour’
through the Deep State, afer which Chapter 2 addresses the pro-
cess of state-building in the post-colonial Arab world. My hypoth-
esis is that the Arab renaissance, or Nahda, was consistently
contested by two ideologies that laid the foundations for two
modern states: Kemalism for Turkey and Wahhabism for Saudi
Arabia. In the meantime, it took half a century, from 1922 to
1971, for the colonized Arabs to reach sovereign emancipation.
But through this very process, two decades were sufficient, from
1949 to 1969, for military cliques parading as a fighting ‘elite’
(khâssa) to hijack this newly won independence and snatch it
from the civilian resistance and from the ‘masses’ (‘âmma).
â•… Chapter 3 presents the historical process of power struggles
that led to the consolidation of the modern Arab Mamluks,
mainly in Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Yemen. Those four countries
shared the same characteristics of a reframed nationalist narra-
tive, a populist discourse, a ubiquitous repressive apparatus and
a systematic plundering of national resources. More important,
they extolled the virtues of the military as the dominant source
of legitimacy, while the hegemonic ruling party organized regu-
lar plebiscites.
â•… There lies a clear distinction between, on one side, the Arab
Mamluks and, on the other, police states (like Tunisia under
Bourguiba or Ben Ali) or would-be totalitarian regimes (like
Qaddafi’s Jamahiriyya or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq). Monarchies
who had survived the turmoils of the early 1970s (‘Black Sep-
tember’ 1970 in Jordan and the two failed military coups in
1971–2 in Morocco) were also spared the Mamluk curse.
â•… The ‘black decade’ of the 1990s in Algeria appears in retro-
spect as the first attempt of a Mamluk-styled regime to kill the
democratic alternative through the unleashing of civil war and
the nurturing of the jihadi threat. This is why the ‘Algerian
xi
FOREWORD
matrix’ is the focus of Chapter 4, before we turn, in Chapter 5,

to the income-generating mechanisms, primarily petrocarbons,
that sustain such a level of collective violence. Oil is only part of
the equation, contrary again to Libya and Iraq whose regimes
could rely on their oil wealth to survive the international sanc-
tions imposed from 1991 to 2003. Geopolitical income, namely
a triangular relationship with the USA and Israel, is crucial in
the Middle East, while immigration control is more profitable in
explaining how the North African regimes deal with Europe.
â•… Chapter 6 explores how the Bush administration’s leadership
of the ‘global war on terror’ played directly into the hands of the
Arab despots, delaying by many years the democratic uprising
that finally took place in 2011. The catastrophic US invasion of
Iraq, in 2003, and the subsequent reconciliation between Wash-
ington and Tripoli only accelerated the dynastical mutation of
the Arab Mamluks, effective in Syria as early as 2000, with
Egypt and Yemen ready to follow suit. The Yemeni Mamluks
even managed to divert most of the resources transferred by
Washington to fight jihadism into the beefing up of family-run
praetorian guards.
â•… Egypt represents today the best case study of a successful Arab
counter-revolution, through the revamping and the mobilization
of a merciless ‘Deep State’. Chapter 7 therefore studies in detail
how the 2011 popular protests were betrayed and ultimately
crushed. A year and a half after the toppling of the first demo-
cratically elected president of Egyptian history, General Sisi’s
regime remains far from stable. The deal offered by the Arab
Mamluks, trading oppression for security, is in fact obsolete and
the parallel growth of the ‘evil twins’ of dictatorial denial and
jihadi violence, both in Yemen and in Syria, is considered in
Chapter 8.
â•… There was no ‘Islamic state’ in Syria at the start of the anti-
Assad demonstrations in March 2011. Now Daesh, the Arab
acronym of such infamous ‘Islamic State’, is controlling one
xii
FOREWORD
third of the country and by August–September 2014 had dragÂ�

ged a US-led coalition, both in Syria and in neighbouring Iraq,
into an air campaign against ‘terrorist’ targets. In Yemen, the
jihadi threat has never been so formidable, and large swathes of
the country remain controlled by al-Qaeda. Such a disaster was
only made possible by the prevailing confusion about the very
nature of the modern Mamluks. This process of Arab disposses-
sion comes full circle, in Chapter 9, with the offensive against
Palestinian targets and symbols launched by those supposedly
‘nationalist’ regimes.
â•… Chapter 10, dedicated to the ‘Tunisian alternative’, highlights
a democratic way out of the Mamluk impasse. The Tunisian
transition has been proceeding despite a prolonged economic
slowdown and an unprecedented terrorist threat. There is noth-
ing preordained about Tunisia remaining an ‘exception’, since
the Arab people are not doomed to remain pawns, the perpetual
victims of a deadly game between their dictators and the jihadis.
But it is too early to assess the long-term impact of the sharp fall
in oil prices in the summer and autumn of 2014.
â•… In the meantime, my 2011 ‘ten lessons’ might still be of some
help, even though they all have to be amended, completed and
updated. My first lesson, entitled ‘Arabs are no exception’,
stands firm against all the culturalist and racist reasoning that
would exclude the Arabs per se from any democratic evolution.
The pugnacity of Arab protesters is testimony to this collective
aspiration to freedom. Second, ‘Muslims are not only Muslims’
is still valid in a region where his or her Islamic faith gives no
clue about the political rationale an individual or collective actor
may follow.
â•… The fact that ‘Anger is power for the young’ is still a striking
Arab reality, even if this militant ‘anger’ has failed to material-
ize into real political and institutional power. The same can be
said for the following lessons, ‘Social networks work’ and ‘Lead-
erless movements can win’: the amorphous nature of the Syrian
xiii
FOREWORD
revolution until today, for instance, is key to understanding both

its resilience (despite merciless repression) and its impotence (in
converting its social capital into political gains).
â•… ‘The alternative to democracy is chaos’ is obviously true in
Syria and in Yemen, but also in Libya, where the failure to estab-
lish effective institutions fed the militias’ warlordism. I am also
concerned that the Egyptian military coup will only precipitate
more serious disturbances instead of restoring ‘stability’. My next
lesson, ‘Islamists must choose’, was a warning against the temp-
tation for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or Ennahda in Tuni-
sia to take their coming electoral victories as a blank cheque,
while the Islamist vote was complex, and partly volatile.
â•… President Morsi contributed to the collapse of the democratic
transition in Egypt by refusing to choose between his party’s
internal logic and the national interest. Rashid Ghannouchi was
close to falling into the same trap, but the political process was
saved in Tunisia by the strong and enduring pressure exerted by
the powerful union (UGTT) that imposed an agreement between
the Islamist government and the nationalist opposition.
â•… Such compromise between the nationalist and Islamist com-
ponents of the Arab Nahda is the key to the fulfilment of its his-
toric promises, which I summarized in ‘No domino effect in the
Renaissance’. This is also why counter-revolutionary forces and
powers have a vested interest in exacerbating the polarization
between the Islamist and nationalist currents in various Arab
societies.
â•… ‘Palestine is still the mantra’ could easily seem out of date in
a world where the ordeals of Gaza and the impasse in the quest
for a Palestinian state elicit little Arab solidarity or sympathy
(the military junta in Egypt has reached unprecedented levels of
discursive demonization of Hamas). But the volatility of Arab
public opinion during the Israeli offensive against Gaza, in sum-
mer 2014, proves that popular feelings still run high when it
comes to Palestine, a cause now disconnected from support of
Hamas or the PLO.
xiv
FOREWORD
â•… Finally, ‘Jihadis could become obsolete’ may sound preposter-

ous when al-Qaeda affiliates dig deep into Yemen and loom over
Libya, with a self-proclaimed jihadi caliphate established on
both sides of the Syrian–Iraqi border. But the conditional tense
was intentionally used in connecting a reverse of the jihadi tide
with a breakthrough in the democratic process.
â•… In my book The Arab Revolution, I quoted a US intelligence
veteran who, in February 2011, confided to me: ‘a defeat of the
democratic movement would give such a boost to jihadi subver-
sion that the counter-terrorism budget would have to be tri-
pled—not doubled—just to cope with the magnitude of such a
threat’3 This is exactly where we find ourselves today, across the
entire Arab world.
â•… The massive surge of the jihadi menace is therefore not to be
blamed on the Arab democratic uprising, but on its worst ene-
mies, the dictatorships that played with jihadi fire to deny any
substantial power-sharing. More democracy should be the
answer, not a new ‘war on terror’ that would ultimately feed
more terrorism. The Arab revolution is only entering its fifth
year and its standard slogan, ‘The people want change’, will
echo for many years to come.
â•… The Arab struggle for collective emancipation has been rabidly
suppressed by regimes posing as the guardians of regional ‘stabil-
ity’ and reaping the associated benefits from their self-appointed
fictitious role. Despots will never be part of the solution, since
they stand at the very core of the problem. The ubiquitous ‘Deep
State’ eventually nurtured the ‘Islamic state’ and the Arab Mam-
luks succeeded in transferring to the rest of the world the respon-
sibility for the monster they had helped to create.
â•… Understanding the dynamic of the Arab counter-revolution is
a prerequisite to any decent attempt at containing the jihadi
menace. Let us hope it is not too late to grasp this terrible truth:
the hundreds of thousands of Arab women and men who fell in
their quest for freedom since 2011 were not only fighting for
xv
FOREWORD
their liberation, but also for all of us to live in a more peaceful

world. Apart from any moral consideration, the pathetic error
of abandoning the Arab people to their executioners will be an
unacceptable price to pay in the future.
Paris, December 2014
xvi
1
MEET THE DEEP STATE
The concept of a ‘Deep State’ (dawla ‘amîqa) has only recently

appeared in the academic and political debate in the Arab world.
The notion emerged from the various scandals that shook Tur-
key in the 1990s, when murky cooperation between state intel-
ligence, corrupt justice and organized crime seemed to ‘run’ the
system behind the scenes. The Deep State, known in Turkish as
derin devlet, was therefore an irrelevant notion in the Arab
world, where the ruling regimes were shamelessly dictatorial.
â•… After the popular Arab uprisings of 2011, the concept of the
Deep State became more and more familiar to politicians and ana-
lysts. They often attributed to a shadowy Deep State the hurdles
facing the various democratic Arab transitions. Many conspiracy
theories were built on the assumption that an all-powerful Deep
State was striking back and avenging itself on the post-dictatorial
regimes. It is therefore crucial, in order to clarify this issue, to
return to the Turkish cradle of the Deep State.
A Fateful Car Crash
When reality surpasses fiction, unexpected concepts can take

root. This is what happened on 3 November 1996 when a Mer-
Â€
1
cedes crashed in Susurluk, a Turkish town a few hundred km

south-west of Bursa. There were four passengers in the car, three
of whom died in the crash: a police chief, Huseyin Kocadag; a
notorious gangster with extreme-right connections, Abdullah
Catli; and Catli’s girlfriend. The fourth passenger was only
injured and appeared to be Sedat Bucak, an MP representing the
south-east Urfa province, where he led local Kurdish militias
against the separatist-Marxist insurgents of the PKK (Workers’
Party of Kurdistan).
â•… The accident proved beyond the wildest speculation how inti-
mate were the connections between the security apparatus and
anti-communist and anti-PKK paramilitary groups, the whole
ensemble characterised by a distinct mafia tinge. Kocadag was
no less than the director of the police academy in Istanbul. Catli
was a wanted criminal both for murders (by the Turkish justice)
and drug trafficking (by Interpol, after he escaped from a Swiss
jail in 1990). He had been deputy chairman of the ‘Grey
Wolves’,1 the youth (and combat) branch of the ultra-national-
ist MHP (Nationalist Action Party) during the late 1970s.
â•… To make matters worse, five pistols, along with two machine
guns fitted with silencers, were found in the wrecked car. Catli
was carrying, under a fake identity, a ‘green passport’, reserved
for government officials.2 And Bucak, whose extended family
had been a major target of PKK death squads, was the Urfa
strongman for the conservative Party of the True Path (DYP).
He had been elected in 1991, and again in 1995, to the National
Assembly, where he represented the DYP, the party of the min-
ister of interior (and police general), Mehmet Agar, and of the
deputy prime minister, Tansu Ciller.
â•… What has become known as the ‘Susurluk scandal’ deeply
shocked a Turkey that had only thirteen years earlier returned
to democracy. The main actor of this restoration had been Tur-
gut Ozal and his Motherland Party (known by the Turkish acro-
nym ANAP). Ozal was able to placate the military leadership
that had toppled the elected government in 1980 and had super-
2
MEET THE DEEP STATE
vised the new 1982 constitution. ANAP won the 1983 elections
and Ozal became prime minister until 1989. He died while he
was president of the Republic in 1993.
â•… At the time of the Susurluk accident, Turkey was run by a
coalition government between the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah
Â�Partisi, or RP) and the DYP (ANAP and DYP had only managed
to collaborate from March to June 1996). Necmettin Erbakan, the
Islamist prime minister, spoke dramatically about the scandal:
The situation is more serious than we think and than the people
know. There are military men, police officers, politicians and mafia
people involved. Events have taken place that are not known to the
public.3
â•… But his female deputy, Tansu Ciller, who had been prime minis-
ter from 1993 to 1996, chose a sharply different tone. She praised
Catli as a ‘hero’4 and, in line with her tough anti-PKK profile, she
stood by the minister of interior. It was the genuine outrage of the
Turkish public that eventually forced police general Agar reluc-
tantly to resign. From February 1997, millions of people turned
out their lights every day at 9 p.m., in an unprecedented demand
for more ‘light’ to be shed on the ‘Susurluk scandal’.
â•… A parliamentary commission was set up to investigate the case
which published its 300-page report in April 1997. But, in the
meantime, the top Turkish generals, regrouped in the National
Security Council (MGK), had published a ‘memorandum’ that
was in fact an ultimatum against the Islamist PM. Erbakan was
Â€
eventually compelled to step down in favour of an ANAP-led

coalition, in what has been described as a ‘post-modern coup’.5
â•… This was only the first blow in a fully-fledged campaign
against the Islamist party that ended up outlawed. Erbakan was
banned from any political activity for five years. This left the
field open for one of Erbakan’s protégés, Recep Tayyip Erdo-
gan, who had been the Islamist mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to
1998, before breaking away from his former mentor in 1999.
3
A State with Many Mansions
The depth of the shameful connections revealed by the ‘Susurluk

scandal’ gave birth to the expression ‘Deep State’ and to a wide
range of conflicting interpretations. It was now established
beyond any doubt that the priority given to the armed struggle
against the PKK had led to a sustained cooperation between the
security forces, both military and police, on the one side, and
criminal elements recycled into the ‘anti-terrorist’ fight, on the
other.
â•… But the ‘dirty war’ waged in the predominantly Kurdish
south-east of Turkey had triggered profound changes in the
security apparatus and its doctrine. This ‘low intensity conflict’
was not so much about law and order, but about how to hit the
PKK resources through a scorched earth policy and the liquida-
tion of their financiers.6 Since racketeering and drug smuggling
were crucial sources of revenue for the PKK, they became legit-
imate targets in an underground power struggle that nurtured
the expansion of the Deep State.
â•… The number of personnel involved in ‘combat’ operations
reached unexpected heights, whether regular forces or paramil-
itary groups: the ‘special teams’, an elite army unit, increased to
23,000; the ‘village guards’, as local Kurdish militiamen were
called, already numbered 36,000 at the beginning of the 1990s
and this figure had nearly tripled by the end of the decade; new
intelligence networks, parallel to the official National Intelli-
gence Service (MIT), were created to support the various centres
of power, providing critical data.7
â•… This substantial war effort could have proved to be a terrible
burden for the state budget, so it relied increasingly on its own
underground war economy. The Deep State could therefore
develop as a viable economic model, while it could also boast
military victories. From 1992 to 1996, according to government
sources, the casualty ratio between the security forces and the
insurgents fell from 1 to 2 to 1 to 6.8 Even if those official fig-
4
MEET THE DEEP STATE
ures are questionable, the trend itself is undisputable. And PKK

violence had effectively been contained in a peripheral area of
the country.
â•… As the French historian and sociologist Hamit Bozarslan put it: Â€
[even] if the war, and particularly the ‘low intensity conflict doc-
trine’, have weakened the PKK, they have created the conditions for
the re-emergence or the reinforcement of the paramilitary gangs.
The political options in the Kurdish issue have been eliminated,
because, among other reasons, for many involved actors, the so-
called ‘military solution’ meant substantial benefits and total inde-
pendence from the central power.9
â•… The ‘Susurluk scandal’ struck the Turkish public as an electro-

shock. The Deep State imposed its reality on the daily debate as
a shadowy structure monitoring the prevailing institutions. The
main attribute of such an unofficial power structure was of
course its absolute unaccountability. But more ominous even
was its capacity to influence and, why not, control leaders whose
legitimacy came from popular, free and fair elections.
â•… This black hole in Turkish politics could only foster conspir-
acy theories of all kinds. For example, President Ozal was
believed to have been poisoned by the Deep State in 1993
because he favoured a peaceful and negotiated solution to the
Kurdish problem with the PKK.10 The car crash at Susurluk was
no longer considered a mere traffic accident, but rather a care-
fully planned ambush which was in fact targeting the minister of
the interior himself.11
â•… These were only a small sample of the various ‘plots’ prolifer-
ating in the Turkish press and among public opinion, all of
which still linked a fundamental anti-PKK rationale to the bur-
geoning of the Deep State. However, they missed two main
aspects of the post-Susurluk phenomenon that are of great rele-
vance when discussing current Arab politics:
1.â•‡The army and the police in Turkey were indeed fighting far-
right terrorists during the 1970s, no matter how strongly
5
anti-communist the security apparatus was. The September

1980 coup was launched against both extremes of the politi-
cal spectrum and, even though the far-left was struck harder,
the ‘Grey Wolves’ lost some ‘martyrs’ and many of their lead-
ers ended up in jail. Interestingly, one decade later, the same
extremist outcasts were recycled in the all-encompassing
struggle against PKK ‘terrorism’.
2.â•‡Prime Minister Erbakan’s robust response to the Susurluk
scandal could have paved the way for an understanding
between a law-abiding Islamist party and those parts of the
military hierarchy that were genuinely outraged by the Deep
State’s dangerous liaisons. Instead, the scandal only acceler-
ated the showdown between the army top brass and the
elected government, with the brutal conclusion, after only a
year, of the first Islamist-led cabinet in Turkish history.
3.â•‡So the Erbakan government fell as a collateral victim of the
Susurluk scandal. It is by definition impossible to assert that
the military elites would have toppled the Islamist govern-
ment without such a scandal (and indeed nothing in the omi-
nous ‘memorandum’ was connected to Susurluk), but the
Refah/Welfare party that had won the 1995 elections was
ousted from power shortly afterwards. The idea then pre-
vailed that, no matter how soiled the Deep State was shown
to be, the Islamists who opted for the political and parlia-
mentary path would be the ones who paid the price.
â•… It also became obvious that ‘crime’ and ‘terrorism’ were rela-
tive notions when it came to the Deep State. True, the PKK was
relying on its own mafia godfathers or baba to finance its guer-
rilla operations. But they were neither better nor worse than the
top gangsters such as Catli, who ran their activities with the pro-
tection, and even the collaboration, of the anti-PKK apparatus.
Moreover the unbridled dynamics of such a ‘dirty war’ led to the
usual escalation of violence and counter-violence, with each
camp accusing the other of being the ‘terrorist’ villain.
6
MEET THE DEEP STATE
â•… This blend of shadowy warfare, the black economy and con-
spiracy theories generated, after a while, a ubiquitous perception
of the Deep State. Defenders of due process resented it as the
most vicious threat facing the Turkish republic. Meanwhile,
Kurdish nationalists perceived it as the latest avatar of Turkish
armed chauvinism. Islamist activists protested against an illegit-
imate political machine that they felt was designed to deprive
them of their electoral gains. Even the secularist, progressive and
leftist militants feared the Deep State’s connections with the
extreme-right.
â•… Such a complex web of attitudes and interpretations only
magnified the ominous aura of the Deep State. Nearly everybody
came to believe in its reality without being able to pin it down
precisely. But each actor came also to the paradoxical conclu-
sion that the Deep State was working on behalf of the other side
of the political or national spectrum. This explains why a con-
sensus eventually coalesced on the pressing need to dismantle
the Deep State.
Erdogan Versus the Deep State
We saw above how the military’s crackdown against Erbakan in

1997–8 paved the way for the rise of one of his disciples, Erdo-
gan, who freed himself from his political boss in 1999. The way
ahead for the former Islamist mayor of Istanbul, who was even
jailed for four months in 1999 and banned from politics till
2003, was hardly straightforward,. But this did not deter Erdo-
gan from founding the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in
2001, amalgamating elements of the traditional Islamist move-
ment (the Welfare Party, which had become the Virtue Party,
before being also banned) and the conservative wing of the
Ozal-founded ANAP.
â•… The AKP insisted on its commitment to ‘conservative democ-
racy’, to avoid the pavlovian military blowback against any
7
form of Islamism. Erdogan’s venture was so successful that, dur-

ing the general elections of November 2002, AKP won 34.3 per
cent of the vote and, more importantly, 363 of the 500 seats in
the National Assembly. This two-thirds majority allowed AKP
to form the first single-party government in twenty-five years.
â•… This AKP cabinet was first chaired by Abdullah Gül, but he
moved to the presidency of the Republic in March 2003, when
Erdogan, his political ban now behind him, won a by-election that
allowed him to enter parliament and then the government. Erdo-
gan’s strength as prime minister was dramatically consolidated
when the AKP reaped even more votes (46.6 per cent) in the July
2007 elections (with slightly fewer parliamentary seats, at 341).
â•… At the very beginning of this second term, the so-called
‘Ergenekon’ case began to unfold. The Ergenekon Valley is a
mythical place in Central Asia where a she-wolf is supposed to
have rescued the Turkish nation. One of the first documents
seized by the police in this case was entitled ‘Ergenekon’, and
detailed a military plot to destabilize the AKP government. (The
civilian dimension of this plot was called ‘Lobby’ in a separate
document.)
â•… From June 2007 to June 2009, thirteen successive waves of
arrests led to the detention of more than 200 individuals, includ-
ing the retired brigadier-general Veli Küçük, believed to have
established the Gendarmerie Intelligence Branch (JITEM) long
before its official founding in 2005. JITEM had often been men-
tioned during the Susurluk scandal investigations but, while pol-
iticians acknowledged its existence as a fighting outfit against
the PKK, the military adamantly denied it. Küçük was in fact
arrested the same day as Sami Hostan, nicknamed ‘Sami the
Albanian’, well known in the criminal underworld for his past
association with Abdullah Catli (it was Hostan who had recov-
ered the dead gangster’s body from the Susurluk car wreck).
â•… The indictments against the Ergenekon plotters included the
shooting attack on the Council of State (which left one senior
8
MEET THE DEEP STATE
judge dead) and three separate attacks against the liberal news-
paper Cumhurryet, all of these crimes taking place in 2006. The
network was also accused of having masterminded certain ter-
rorist attacks, including the murder of the Turkish–Armenian
journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007. The manipulation and
infiltration of armed groups from the Marxist far-left (DHKP-
C) and the Islamist extreme-right (Hezbollah) were also part of
this multi-faceted ‘strategy of tension’.
â•… The plot literally thickened in the spring of 2009, when an
‘Action plan against reactionary forces’ was revealed as having
emanated from the armed forces’ General Staff. Despite repeated
denials by General Ilker Basbug, the chief of staff, the authentic-
ity of the document was confirmed. It was an ambitious plan to
discredit not only the AKP, but also the latter’s political ally,
Fethullah Gülen’s movement,12 an Islamic brotherhood (tarika)
highly active in education, the press and the business world.
(Gülen, harassed by the Turkish military, has been living in the
USA since 1999.)
â•… But more was to come with the unravelling of the ‘Sledgeham-
mer’ plot in 2010. In this case, the most senior echelons of the
armed forces were accused of having planned, as early as 2003,
terror attacks and military incidents in order to foment civilian
strife and bring down the AKP government. The explanation
that this was only scenario-based forward planning did not hold
water, and the three former general commanders of the Naval
Forces (Ozden Ornek), of the Air Force (Ibrahim Firtina) and of
the First Army (Cetin Dogan) were put on trial.
â•… The June 2011 general elections saw AKP reap nearly half of
the votes (49.83 per cent). Erdogan became the first prime min-
ister in the history of Turkey to win three consecutive elections,
and each time with a greater share of the votes. AKP gained 327
seats, falling far short of the two-thirds majority that would
have allowed it to amend the 1982 Constitution. But Erdogan
could with some justification consider his showdown against the
9
Deep State to have been hugely popular. And there was no rea-
son for him and his supporters to keep their hands tied behind
their backs.
â•… In September 2012, harsh judicial verdicts were delivered in
the Sledgehammer case. The three convicted generals were each
condemned to twenty years in jail (the life sentence initially
requested was reduced because the plot was never implemented).
Only one in ten was acquitted of the more than 300 officers who
were being tried. The defendants denounced a ‘witch hunt’
against the very pillars of the Turkish republic, branding the
trial ‘unfair and unlawful’.13 Observers feared that such a mass
conviction would affect the confidence of the Turkish public in
their judicial system.
â•… The Ergenekon trial concluded in August 2013, after more than
five years of legal argument. Retired General Küçük received two
consecutive life sentences. Among the 253 others convicted were
renowned officers, nationalist intellectuals, mafia bosses, right-
wing lawyers and businessmen, along with opposition MPs and
leaders of the ‘Grey Wolves’. The severity of the verdicts was sup-
posed to impose the coup de grâce on the Deep State.
â•… But the prosecution might have gone too far, and too high, in
indicting at a later stage of the trial the retired chief of staff,
General Ilker Basbug. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on
charges of ‘establishing and leading a terrorist organization’ and
‘attempting to destroy the Turkish government’.14 The strange
irony of Turkey having a convicted ‘terrorist’ at the top of the
state’s military apparatus from 2008 to 2010 was not missed.
Basbug reacted solemnly to the verdict: ‘For those who have
been tried under those circumstances, the final say is the people’s
say. And the people are never wrong and are never deceived.’15
â•… The following month, in September 2013, it was now the turn
of General Hakki Karadayi, chief of staff from 1994 to 1998, to
be tried. The retired general and the other 102 defendants were
indicted for the ‘post-modern coup’ that toppled the Islamist-led
10
MEET THE DEEP STATE
government in 1997. The trial was expected to last several years,

like the Sledgehammer and Ergenekon cases. But there was a clear
‘trial fatigue’ in the Turkish public, enhanced by the fact that
Karadayi, aged 81, had been unable to attend the hearings on
medical grounds. And the fear was mounting that the cycle of ret-
ribution against the Deep State could become open-ended.
â•… Erbakan, the Islamist PM at the time of the ‘Susurluk scandal’
in 1996, had not only been unable to nail down his adversaries
in that affair, but had been ousted from power shortly after-
wards. Erdogan had learnt this sobering lesson the hard way and
had pushed the Ergenekon case to its utmost limits. He could
have been satisfied with settling his accounts with the military
top brass through the Sledgehammer trial. But adding general
Basbug to those on his chargesheet soon appeared counter-
productive.
Payback Time
The dismantling of the Deep State through police and judicial
measures during Erdogan’s second and third terms as prime
minister ought to have guaranteed the democratic future of Tur-
key. This rosy scenario was one where the country, now freed
from its shadowy superstructure, could fully benefit from the
institutions and the due process of an uncontested democratic
republic. But the independence of justice had been repeatedly
trampled on during the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer trials.
Worse, these cases seemed to reveal an increasingly dark side of
the Islamist leader, namely his authoritarian tendencies and the
personal vendettas he was waging under cover of the struggle
against the Deep State. While more charitable observers were
ready to accept this bumpy process of bringing Turkish democ-
racy to adulthood, free from military tutelage, others denounced
what they regarded as a ‘Soviet-style show trial’.16
â•… The European Commission, in its annual report on Turkey for
2012, noted, even before the Ergenekon verdicts, that ‘these
11
cases have been overshadowed by their wide scope and the

shortcomings in judicial proceedings. Moreover, they tend to
contribute to the polarization of Turkish politics.’17 This was an
understated description of a country bitterly divided between
AKP supporters and their secular opponents, both claiming that
law and the nation were on their side.
â•… The United States had banked heavily on the success of the
‘Turkish model’. Barack Obama delivered a vibrant speech in
front of the Turkish National Assembly in April 2009, less than
three months after his arrival at the White House. The American
president lobbied his European allies to promote Turkey’s
admission into the EU. The AKP democratic record was sup-
Â€
posed to demonstrate how Islam and the West could finally

reach a win–win relationship, with Turkey serving as a show-
case for a harmonious blend between globalized capitalism, the
NATO alliance, pluralistic institutions and moral standards.
â•… But the widening crackdown on dissent in Turkey sent shock-
waves through Washington. The US ambassador in Ankara, the
seasoned diplomat Frank Ricciardone, stated in August 2012
that he had ‘heard Turkish leaders in the government and in the
opposition expressing their concerns about what needs to be
done in terms of access to justice’.18 This veiled reference to
growing dissatisfaction inside the AKP itself only added to the
anger of Prime Minister Erdogan, who had previously scornfully
called Ricciardone a ‘rookie’.19
â•… In June 2013, the violent response to a peaceful sit-in in central
Istanbul led to widespread protests, including the occupation of
Taksim Square in Turkey’s biggest city, and demonstrations and
incidents in other major urban centres. While eleven people were
killed, more than 3,000 were arrested during this wave of protests.
Erdogan vilified the demonstrators as mere ‘looters’20 and the pro-
AKP media accused Western powers and Israel of a vicious con-
spiracy to undermine Turkish stability and prosperity.
â•… The parallel between the Turkish Taksim and the Egyptian
Tahrir Square (the epicentre of the Egyptian revolution in Janu-
12
MEET THE DEEP STATE
ary–February 2011) was embarrassing for Erdogan: the ‘Turk-

ish model’ that he boasted was a source of inspiration for the
so-called ‘Arab spring’ was now marred by police brutality and
xenophobic propaganda, reminiscent of the worst excesses of
the Arab dictatorships. The AKP leadership, worried by the
long-term consequences of the prime minister’s heavy-handed-
ness, tried a softer approach to placate the protesters.
â•… This volatile context explains why, far from being perceived
as the final act of emancipation from the Deep State, the verdicts
in the Ergenekon trial in August 2013 were resented by many as
another manifestation of Erdogan’s authoritarianism. Tensions
grew among the Islamist camp itself, with decade-long political
allies suddenly at odds over the future of Turkey. Two major
trends now seemed to polarize the AKP officials and militants,
torn between Erdogan’s loyalists and Gülen’s affiliates.
â•… This divorce between the two Islamist leaders, one sitting at
the head of the government and the other commanding a pow-
erful network from his Pennsylvania exile,21 fuelled a merciless
war by proxy, in the courts as well as in the press. In December
2013, a corruption scandal led to the arrest of forty-seven peo-
ple, among whom were the sons of three prominent AKP minis-
ters. Erdogan had to cut his losses and substantially reshuffled
his cabinet, sacking the three ministers involved, along with
seven of their colleagues.
â•… But this was only the beginning of an unsavoury campaign of
leaks (in the press and online) of audiotapes, video recordings
and various documents, all questioning the public and private
integrity of the prime minister, his family and his closest associ-
ates. In response, Erdogan and his followers started beating the
drums of the international conspiracy again, even though a pub-
lic threat to expel the US ambassador was never implemented.
Dozens of police chiefs were sacked, while the ministries of inte-
rior and justice tightened their internal regulations.
â•… Erdogan went a step further, in February 2014, by pushing
through the AKP parliamentary majority a law reforming the
13
supreme judicial body (HSYK) that would constrain the inde-

pendence of judges and prosecutors. He also obtained an
unprecedented ban on Twitter and, more generally, a stricter
control of the Internet, the Islamist prime minister having
accused the social media of threatening Turkish institutions. On
both counts he was rebuffed by the Constitutional Court, to the
great relief of human rights defenders.
â•… In March 2014, the same Constitutional Court ruled that
General Basbug’s legal rights had been violated: the former chief
of staff was subsequently released after 26 months in jail. Erdo-
gan officially welcomed the decision and even phoned the retired
general to congratulate him. The Islamist PM went so far as to
cast doubts on the validity of the Sledgehammer and Ergenekon
trials. He had a compelling reason to reverse his position on
such a sensitive issue: the same judges, often affiliated to Gülen,
who had been instrumental against the Deep State, were now
going after the prime minister himself.22
â•… What had begun as the triumphant revenge of Erdogan
against his former foes ended up in a very dubious battle. The
prime minister’s draft bill to strengthen the National Intelligence
Organisation (MIT) was, in April 2014, denounced as the first
step towards a muhaberat state. (Muhaberat is the Turkish ver-
sion of the Arabic mukhâbarât, the generic term to designate the
much feared ‘intelligence’ services, namely the armed elements
of the security state whose primary job is suppressing any sign
of domestic dissent.)23
â•… An opposition MP expressed his fears that this move would
‘allow the prime minister to create his own Deep State inside the
Turkish state’.24 The fifteen-year long struggle of Erdogan
against the Deep State was no longer portrayed as a legitimate
campaign to upgrade Turkey to European democratic standards,
but rather as a petty manoeuvre to replace one unruly repressive
machine with a docile one more to his own liking.
14
MEET THE DEEP STATE
The Turkish Deep State was exposed in the 1990s. At that time,
it was intimately bound to the ‘dirty war’ against the PKK Kurd-
ish guerrillas. Such a mix of unbridled repression, parallel intel-
ligence and the criminal underworld was indeed the trademark
of the Deep State. And this patchwork of maverick officers,
ultra-nationalist activists and mafia bosses constituted the very
fabric of the Ergenekon case.
â•… When the AKP gained power in 2002, a ceasefire prevailed
between the Turkish state and the PKK, whose leader, Abdullah
Öcalan, had been captured in Kenya in 1999. But the ceasefire
collapsed in 2004, with a renewed insurgency that soon reached
levels of violence comparable to those of the previous decade.
The top brass could then test Erdogan’s resolve to defend Turk-
ish territorial integrity with all the might that the police and mil-
itary could muster.
â•… This trial by fire, jointly experienced by the Islamist govern-
ment and its military branch, was crucial in forging new bounds
of trust, and even loyalty, between the AKP and the security
apparatus. Erdogan, while sanctioning the armed strikes against
the PKK, launched in 2009 a ‘Kurdish initiative’, bracing for a
grand bargain on the Kurdish question, that had been plaguing
contemporary Turkey since its very birth. In 2010, he appointed
as head of the National Intelligence Organisation (MIT) Hakan
Fidan, who had been involved in secret talks with the PKK.
â•… In March 2013, Erdogan endorsed Öcalan’s public appeal for
a ceasefire. Kurdish guerrillas started to disarm, before with-
drawing into northern Iraq (officially) and north-eastern Syria
(clandestinely, since they could rely on the well-established com-
plicity between the PKK local affiliate, named PYD, and the Syr-
ian security services). The road to peace in Turkish Kurdistan
remained fraught with dangers, but that was the first attempt at
a lasting solution to this three-decade-long conflict, that had
claimed the lives of some 40,000 people.
â•… The Islamist prime minister had therefore succeeded in dragging
the security apparatus into a peace process with its Kurdish arch-
15
enemy, the PKK. This formidable achievement has to be taken

Â€
into account when assessing Erdogan’s appalling performance on

other fronts of Turkish politics during the fateful year of 2013.
The June wave of protest and the December corruption scandal
eventually jeopardized the very ‘Kurdish initiative’ that the
Islamist prime minister had become so closely identified with.
â•… While the Ergenekon trials were historically linked to the
1996 ‘Susurluk scandal’ and the Kurdish ‘dirty war’, the Sledge-
hammer case stemmed from a different timeline, where the 1997
‘post-modern coup’ was only the last in a series of three previ-
ous military takeovers, in 1960, 1971 and 1980. The 1997
bloodless coup was directed against the first Islamist-led govern-
ment, while the previous takeovers, even though profoundly
nationalist, were supposed to be party-blind.
â•… With the Sledgehammer case, Erdogan chastised the top brass
for allegedly plotting against him as prime minister in 2003. He
therefore blurred his fight against the Deep State by associating
it with the generation-long showdown in Turkey between the
Islamists and the military. So, instead of consolidating a national
consensus against the Deep State, he fell back on his partisan
base to settle old feuds.
â•… The domestic reversal of the popular tides in favour of the
self-righteous Erdogan occurred in 2012–13, when the concept
of the Deep State became increasingly popular in Arab public
debate. The star of the AKP ‘Turkish model’ had already paled
in the various Arab countries undergoing democratic transitions,
with mounting opposition against the initially victorious Islamist
parties. This was especially true in Tunisia, where the Ennahda
party was described as the closest in the Arab world to the ‘Mus-
lim–democrat’ AKP.25
â•… In Egypt, by contrast, there was no love lost between the Mus-
lim Brotherhood and the Turkish Islamists, both vying for the
pivotal role in worldwide political Islam. But a ubiquitous Deep
State was being blamed for many of the country’s problems and,
16
MEET THE DEEP STATE
as had been the standard procedure in Turkey, every actor

denounced his enemy for manipulating this shadowy structure.
When the counter-revolution assumed ferocious proportions in
the summer of 2013, observers had not yet adjusted to the real
nature and outreach of the indigenous Deep State.
â•… To grasp the specificity (and the perversity) of the Arab Deep
State, one has to go back to the process of state-building in these
countries. This detour through the founding moments of the Arab
states is key to understanding how and why part of those struc-
tures do indeed go so ‘deep’. Central to this process is the exclu-
sive and patrimonial vision of the nation. Thus Turkey once again
offers a comparative approach to highlight the entrenching of the
security apparatus at the zenith of the Arab polities.
17
2
THE MYTHICAL FATHERS OF THE NATION
In the contemporary Turkish debate, the notion of ‘parallel state’

has sometimes been used as an equivalent to the Deep State. The
two adjectives reveal how the very champions of the struggle
against the Deep State are accepting some of its basic prejudices.
The operatives of the Deep State justify their illegal activities by
challenging the very legitimacy of the state, which is accused of
being too ‘shallow’ to fulfil its missions. And the ‘parallel state’ is
mirroring with self-proclaimed efficiency a state that is blamed for
being incapable of meeting the public’s expectations.
â•… A profound sense of mission and a resolute collective determi-
nation are pre-requisites in order to bind together the complex
coalition that makes the Deep State work. At the heart of this
alchemy lies the firm conviction that acting on behalf of the
supreme interests of the nation who elected their politicians and
civil servants may be too weak a conjunction to defend ear-
nestly. This absolute belief is reinforced by an unquestionable
equivalence between the interests of the nation and those of the
Deep State.
â•… To achieve this equivalence, being more patriotic or even
xenophobic than the ‘shallow state’ is not enough. What is
needed is a patrimonial approach to the country and a paternal-
19
istic vision of its people. And it is being rooted in the historical

process of state-building that led key elements in the Deep State
to claim an innate right to decide what is good for the country
they served, and therefore deserve more than any others. The
Turkish example in that regard is only of partial relevance to the
Arab world.
No Turkey without Kemalism
The roots of contemporary Turkey are commonly traced back

to the 1908 Young Turk revolution. Stirred by Sultan Abdulha-
mid II’s repressive policies and by the string of humiliations suf-
fered by the Ottoman Empire, this revolution resulted in the
reinstatement of the 1876 Constitution (that Abdulhamid II had
suspended after only fourteen months) and the convening of a
new parliament. The main force in this revolution, as well as in
the National Assembly (with 60 seats out of 275), was the Com-
mittee for Union and Progress (CUP), whose appeal went far
beyond ethnic Turks (the founding seat of CUP was the Greek
city of Salonika).
â•… In 1909, the CUP managed to crush a counter-revolutionary
coup in Istanbul, which led to the deposition of Abdulhamid II
and his replacement by the more docile Mehmed V. But the Â€
Ottoman defeats, first against the Italian invasion of Libya in

1911, and then in the Balkan wars of 1912–13, sealed the fate
of the pluralistic CUP. A military triumvirate, composed of
Â€
Enver, Talaat and Djemal (the so-called three Pashas), seized

power in 1913 and put an end to the constitutional era.
â•… The ‘three Pashas’ shared a passionate Turkish nationalism
(with the dream of Pan-Turkism substituting for the Ottoman
ideal), a fascination for German militarism and a strong antipa-
thy towards Christian minorities, who they resented as a ‘fifth
column’ in the very bosom of the Empire. In the context of the
First World War, they joined forces with the Central Empires in
20
1914 and launched the following year a mass deportation of the

Armenian population, one that culminated in genocide. The
disastrous collapse of the Ottoman army in 1918 forced the
‘three Pashas’ to flee into exile where they were eventually killed
by Armenian avengers (Talaat and Djemal) and the Soviet mili-
tary (Enver) respectively.
â•… The Ottoman Empire was forced to sign in 1920 the Treaty of
Sèvres that instituted French, British, Italian and Greek zones of
influence, while opening the way for an independent Kurdistan.
Mustafa Kemal, a former CUP officer, raised the flag of resis-
tance against such a treaty. The liberation struggle, starting from
central Anatolia (where nationalist Ankara was defying Otto-
man Istanbul), rolled back the occupying armies, before the Sul-
tanate was abolished in 1922.
â•… The Republic of Turkey was established in 1923, with most
of its present borders recognized the same year in the new treaty
signed at Lausanne. (Armenia had become a Soviet republic in
1920; the boundary with Iran had been defined in the sixteenth
century between the Ottoman and the Safavid empires; the Brit-
ish Empire would negotiate in 1926 the border with the Iraqi
province of Mosul; and the French Republic would offer the Syr-
ian province of Hatay/Iskenderun in 1939 in order to placate
Turkey in the run-up to the Second World War.)
â•… Mustafa Kemal, who raised modern Turkey from the ruins of
the Ottoman Empire, had all the attributes of an ‘enlightened
despot’: his one-party rule mercilessly crushed all dissent in
order to promote his ambitious vision of progress (abolition of
the Caliphate, unification of the school system, Latinization of
the alphabet, a new civil code, the imposition of civil marriage
and the extension of voting rights to women). He also defeated
three major Kurdish revolts between 1925 and 1937. In 1934—
four years before his death—the National Assembly bestowed
upon him the title of Atatürk, Father of the Turks, acknowledg-
ing his achievements.
21
â•… Exalted by such a legacy, it was certainly hard for the Kemal-
ists, as Atatürk’s followers came to be known, not to view them-
selves as the only true nationalists and patriots. In their candid
tautology, Turkey was what Atatürk had made of it. Thus, stat-
ing that Turkey was Kemalist was just another way of acknowl-
edging that Turkey was Turkish.
â•… The ominous coalition that wanted to carve up Turkey had
indeed been defeated in 1922, but the Kemalists considered it
their duty to wage an endless fight against the domestic enemies
that still threatened Turkish integrity: Kurdish rights were there-
fore perceived as an existential threat—and fought against as
such; while any expression of Islam in the political sphere was
deemed as blatant subversion—and dealt with as such.
â•… Turkey stayed neutral during the Second World War, but its
rallying to the Western camp in the Cold War facilitated the
loosening of political constraints: the Democratic Party (DP)
was authorized in 1946, along with the Kemalist Republican
People’s Party (CHP) and, after four years of painstaking tran-
sition, DP was voted into forming the new government. The DP
power decade of the 1950s ended brutally with the military coup
of 1960, followed by the trial and hanging of the deposed prime
minister, Adnan Menderes.
â•… The army, under Atatürk and his successors, could hencefor-
ward focus on its mission to defend the sovereignty of Turkey,
because it knew that the CHP one-party system and the attached
bureaucracy, often staffed with former military officers, were
upholding the principles of Kemalism (atatürkçülük). But the DP’s
resolve to submit the military to civilian rule had traumatized the
top brass, who decided to supplant the declining CHP on the
domestic front with a martial, and even ruthless, response.
â•… The military intervened twice again: in 1971, they toppled the
government to replace it with a technocratic cabinet with a
strongly Kemalist flavour; but in 1980, a military junta assumed
direct power, dissolved the parliament and banned all political
22
parties. Terrorist violence, from both the extreme-right and the

far-left, had reached the unprecedented level of ten deaths a day.
This allowed for true popular support for the coup.
â•… In 1982, 92 per cent of the electorate voted in favour of a
Constitution drafted by the military, with General Kenan Evren,
chief of the National Security Council (MGK), acting president
of the Republic. This ‘security-oriented constitutionalism’, as the
French political scientist Jean Marcou described it,1 was a des-
perate attempt to turn the clock back to the golden age of
Atatürk’s rule. But such a top-to-bottom approach lacked the
modernist vision that had animated Mustafa Kemal.
â•… Turkey had changed, forcing the military to withdraw reluc-
tantly to their barracks. This is when the Deep State started to
develop, as a belated response to the challenges of Kurdish sep-
aratism and political Islam. The ‘post-modern coup’ which the
MGK executed in 1997 was the last public manifestation of this
kind of self-righteous interference. After that ultimate show of
strength, the Deep State went deeper.
â•… But the military contingency planning never excluded the pos-
sibility of a direct takeover. As the New Yorker put it, comment-
ing on the Sledgehammer case, ‘however close the generals came
to removing Erdogan in 2003, their casual tone makes it clear it
was not the first time they’d had the conversations’.2 The AKP
era mass trials clearly signalled that Turkey had moved to a dif-
ferent era. And that happened in sharp contrast with the Arab
world and its own Deep State.
From Ottoman Arabs to Colonized Ones
From the second half of the sixteenth century until the end of the
eighteenth, the Arab lands were under Ottoman rule, with the
notable exception of independent Morocco, of the Algerian port
of Oran/Wahran (most of the time under Spanish occupation) and
peripheral Oman (the Ottomans controlled Muscat only from
23
1581 to 1588). More than two centuries of Ottoman domination

extended from 1574, when Tunis was re-conquered by Spain, to
1798, when the then General Bonaparte invaded Egypt.
â•… In 1705 Hussein ibn Ali established a dynasty of Tunisian
‘beys’ that garnered a substantial degree of autonomy from
Istanbul. And in the central Arabian province of Nejd, the pact
concluded between the Saud family and the preacher Ibn Abd al-
Wahhab had consolidated a ‘Wahhabi’ fiefdom, controlled after
1776 from Riyadh. But from Algiers to Basra, as the historian
Eugene Rogan eloquently framed it, ‘the Ottoman sultan was
universally accepted by the Arabs as their legitimate sovereign.
They prayed in the sultan’s name on Friday, they contributed
soldiers for the sultan’s wars, and they paid their taxes to the
sultan’s agents.’3
â•… The French occupation of Egypt was short-lived, but this
Western invasion laid bare the shortcomings of the Ottoman
Empire and stirred in reaction the Arab renaissance, or Nahda.
Mohammad Ali seized power in Cairo in 1805, on behalf of the
Ottoman sultan, but eventually founded his own dynasty of
‘khedives’. The Tunisian beys and the Egyptian khedives
embarked on an ambitious programme of tax reform and mili-
tary upgrading, with an emphasis on industrialization in Egypt
and on constitutional rule in Tunisia.
â•… This top-to-bottom Nahda was accompanied, and sometimes
welcomed, by a new intellectual class that fed on the relative
democratization of the Arabic language (through the printing
press) and of the educational curriculum (through the opening
of new teaching institutions). The Nahda thinkers and agitators
hoped to achieve freedom from Ottoman rule and to resist West-
ern imperialism.
â•… In order to take up this double challenge, some Arabs favouÂ�
red the promotion of a European-style nationalism, anchored to
the principle of one people, one land and one language. Others
considered an Islamic revival was the key to confronting colo-
24
nialism and reversing Ottoman decline. Today, the first trend

would be called ‘nationalist’ and the second one ‘Islamist’, yet
these notions were not at that point relevant in the nineteenth
century (those two political families were then far from distinct
from one another).4
â•… The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked the beginning
of the colonial moment in the Arab world. The British, more
interested in controlling the sea route to India, started their
expansion with the occupation of Aden in 1839, before securing
agreements and ‘truces’ with the various sheikhs ruling on the
southern shore of the Persian Gulf. The two Western powers
struck a fatal blow to the Nahda-driven modernizing dynasties,
with France imposing its protectorate on Tunisia in 1881, and
Britain occupying Egypt the following year (the British protec-
torate of Egypt was only proclaimed in 1914).
â•… Rivalry between the European states eventually sharpened
their colonial impulse. In 1906, France and Spain formalized
their ambitions in Morocco, with Paris establishing a fully-
fledged protectorate over most of the country in 1912, while
Madrid controlled its northern and southern margins. Italy,
eager to carve out its own imperial domain, invaded Libya in
1911. The Ottomans were only left with Hejaz, Iraq and what
the Westerners called Greater Syria and the Arab Bilad al-Sham
(the ‘country of Sham’, Sham being the name of Damascus, in
Arabic and in Turkish).
â•… The 1908 Young Turk revolution had nurtured high expecta-
tions among the pro-Ottoman Arabs, and 60 of the 275 depu-
ties of the new parliament were Arabs. But the 1913 military
coup and the ethnic chauvinism of the three Pashas antagonized
even the Arab officers of the Ottoman army, who began plotting
against what they resented as Turkish oppression. When the
Istanbul triumvirate aligned with Germany and engineered a
Sultan’s call for ‘jihad’ against France, Britain and Russia in
1914, such a call fell on deaf ears in the Arab world (except,
paradoxically, among the Iraqi Shias).
25
â•… On the contrary, the ‘nationalist’ and ‘Islamist’ components

of the Nahda rallied around Sherif Hussein of Mecca, the Otto-
man governor of Hijaz, but more importantly a descendant of
the Prophet Mohammad from the Hashemite lineage. This gene-
alogy convinced ‘Islamists’ that the Sherif would be a far better
qualified caliph than the Turkish sultan. And the ‘nationalists’
saw the Bedouin leader as the champion of Arab values, honour
and identity (as stated above, the contemporary notions of
‘nationalist’ and ‘Islamist’ were not used at that time).
â•… In 1916, Sherif Hussein launched his ‘Arab revolt’ (in Arabic
thawra, literally, revolution). The Turkish novelist Nedim Gür-
sel has described in his much debated Daughters of Allah5 the
absolute shock of the Turkish officers, besieged in Medina and
devastated by what they loathed as an Arab treason. The Turks
reacted with such violence that Djemal Pasha, one of the three
rulers of the Ottoman Empire, now in charge of the Arab prov-
inces, was called in Damascus Al-Saffah, the Blood-shedder.
â•… Britain had promised Sherif Hussein that an ‘Arab kingdom’
would be established after the Ottoman defeat; but London also
secretly agreed with Paris to share the coming spoils of the Arab
provinces. And the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour,
endorsed in 1917 the Zionist plan for a ‘Jewish national home’
in post-Ottoman Palestine. Those contradictory commitments
could never be reconciled once the First World War was over, as
the Paris Peace Conference demonstrated in 1919.
â•… France and Britain divided the region from which the Ottoman
forces had been expelled into ‘mandates’ of the newly created
League of Nations. France got Syria and Lebanon, while Britain
got Palestine and Iraq. London believed that a buffer state would
be needed between its two possessions, which gave birth to the
new entity of Transjordan. Sherif Hussein watched his Arab
dream collapse in total impotence. His son Faysal, who had
entered Damascus as a victor in 1918, was expelled by the French
military in 1920 but received the throne of Iraq as compensation
26
from the British. His older brother Abdullah settled in Amman,

the most parochial capital of the young emirate of Transjordan.
â•… At the end of the First World War, the collapse of the Otto-
man Empire led not to the emancipation of the Arabs, but rather
to their subordination to Western imperialism. Arab indepen-
dence had disappeared between the Atlantic Ocean and the Per-
sian Gulf and there remained only two enclaves free from
colonial domination: in central Arabia, a Wahhabi kingdom, led
by Abdelaziz Ibn Saud, had challenged the Ottomans, and now
defied the Europeans; in North Yemen, Zaydism, a local off-
shoot of Shiism, was officially upheld by Imam Yahya, whose
absolute power in Sanaa had deterred all the Western incursions
into ‘Arabia Felix’.
Formal Independence
It took half a century, from 1922 to 1971, for the Arab world to
regain its independence. This painful process was initiated in
Egypt, when a nationalist revolution (thawra) shook the coun-
try during the spring and summer of 1919, in protest against the
Paris Peace Conference and its negation of the right to self-deter-
mination. More than 800 Egyptians were killed by the British
armed forces, despite the non-violent nature of this uprising,
many of the messages from which were to find an echo in the
2011 Tahrir revolution.6
â•… Such levels of repression failed to quell the nationalist upsurge
and Britain had to terminate the Protectorate in 1922, recogniz-
ing the Egyptian King Fuad as a sovereign head of state. But
London had restricted independence in the four areas of com-
munications, defence, Sudan policy and, in an ominous link,
protection of minorities and of British interests. This imperial
sword of Damocles would weigh heavily on Egypt’s fate through
the following three decades, during Fuad’s reign, and even more
so during his successor Farouk’s (1936–52).
27
â•… In Iraq, the British Empire amalgamated under its mandate

the previous Ottoman governorates of Baghdad, Basra and
Mosul. London chose its new ruler: Faysal, the frustrated ‘King
of the Arabs’, who had been based in Damascus from 1918 to
1920. A referendum was organized by the British administration
to legitimize the new king; and given the ban on rival candi-
dates, Faysal was approved through a one-question plebiscite by
96 per cent of voters. This Hashemite kingdom, with no indige-
nous roots, relied heavily on an army built around the former
officers of the Ottoman armed forces, most of them Arab Sun-
nis (while the majority of the population was Shia, with a strong
Kurdish irredentism in the north).
â•… In 1932, Britain granted independence to Iraq, with far fewer
strings attached than in Egypt, even though the imperial power
pursued its close monitoring of Iraqi domestic affairs, with reg-
ular, and generally unpopular, interference. This same year saw
the proclamation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This was the
culmination of the state-building process led by Abdelaziz Ibn
Saud since the re-occupation of Riyadh on behalf of the Al-Saud
family in 1902.
â•… Ibn Saud had succeeded in controlling first the central prov-
ince of Nejd, then, in 1913, the coastal region of Al-Ahsa on the
Persian Gulf. Conspicuously neutral during the anti-Turkish
‘Arab revolt’ of 1916–18, Ibn Saud turned against Sherif Hus-
sein in 1925, expelling him from the Hijaz. The Wahhabi con-
quest of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina sent shockwaves
through the Muslim world.
â•… Ibn Saud then decided it was time to rein in the Ikhwan (liter-
ally the ‘Brothers’, a Wahhabi militia of settled Bedouins) whom
he had unleashed until then against his successive Arab enemies.
An operation coordinated with the British forces in Iraq con-
cluded with the destruction of the Ikhwan in 1929 at the Battle
of Sabilla. Ibn Saud was now free to establish a country so
closely identified with the ruling family that their people became
known as ‘Saudis’.
28
â•… Lebanon and Syria fell in 1920 under a French Mandate that
was so eager to dismantle the ‘Arab kingdom’ that it designed
the Lebanese borders far beyond the traditional limits of Mount
Lebanon, before carving up Syria into five different entities.
France was therefore planting the seeds of future crises, includ-
ing the major ‘Arab Revolt’ that shook Syria in 1925–6. It took
the Second World War (and the 1941 conflict between the
armies loyal to Pétain’s Vichy or to de Gaulle’s Free French) to
cripple imperial rule. Syria and Lebanon became independent
republics in 1943, but they both had to wait for the ultimate
French withdrawal in 1946 to gain full sovereignty.
â•… The League of Arab States, generally known as the Arab
League, was launched in Cairo in 1945. Its founding members
were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjor-
dan, soon to be joined by Yemen. The emirate of Transjordan,
a buffer state created by Britain between its mandates over Iraq
and Palestine, would achieve its formal independence only with
the Treaty of London signed by the now King Abdullah with
Great Britain in 1946. Even then, the Soviet Union vetoed its
admittance to the United Nations, considering that Transjordan
was still too intimately tied to Britain.
â•… The proclamation of the state of Israel in May 1948, one day
before the end of the British Mandate in Palestine, led to the first
Arab–Israeli war. Eight months of conflict concluded with the
incorporation of 77 per cent of mandatory Palestine into the ter-
ritory of Israel. Of the remaining 23 per cent, 1 per cent became
the Gaza Strip, under Egyptian administration; but the remain-
ing 22 per cent, called the West Bank (of the Jordan river), was
soon absorbed by Abdullah’s kingdom.
â•… This ‘union of the two banks’ (the Palestinian West Bank and
Transjordan) was the founding act of the Hashemite kingdom of
Jordan (the annexation of the West Bank was only recognized
by Britain and Pakistan). And Abdullah did not live long enough
to enjoy his newly expanded kingdom: in July 1951 he was
29
assassinated in Jerusalem, during Friday payers at the Al-Aqsa

mosque. The murderer, a Palestinian nationalist, sought revenge
for Abdullah’s dealings with Israel.
â•… The Italians, who had occupied the Libyan territory since
1911 (and had named their colony “Italian Libya” in 1934),
were defeated by the Allies in 1943. Britain started to rule the
coastal provinces of Tripolitana and Cyrenaica, while France
governed the Saharan Fezzan. The emir Idris al-Senoussi, who
had wisely sided with the British during the war, could also rely
on his strong support among the nationalist militants, often
members of the Senoussi Sufi order. A UN-sponsored process
led to the proclamation in 1951 of the independence of Libya,
with Idris as its constitutional monarch.
â•… In North Africa, France accepted a loosening of its colonial
grip only after its humiliating 1954 defeat in Indochina. The
Moroccan Sultan Mohammad had been exiled in 1953 to Cor-
sica, then to Madagascar, and popular protest against this harsh
French diktat nurtured two years of violent disturbances. The
‘revolution of the King and the people’, as the nationalists cele-
brated it, forced France to accept the triumphal return of
Mohammad in November 1955. Four months later, France offi-
cially recognized the independence of Morocco.
â•… King Mohammad V, as he was known after 1957, secured his
sovereignty over Tangier, where Spain relinquished any author-
ity. But ‘Spanish Sahara’ remained beyond his reach, despite the
‘Ifni War’ that nationalist guerrillas waged (and lost) in 1957–8.
Hassan II, who succeeded his father after his death in 1961,
managed to negotiate the Ifni enclave back from Spain in 1969.
But in his ambitions over the remaining Spanish territory, he had
now to compete with Polisario, a liberation movement of the
‘Western Sahara’, strongly backed by Algeria.
â•… Tunisia became independent shortly after Morocco, in March
1956. But the six months preceding the end of French rule were
marred by a violent power struggle between the two leaders of
30
the nationalist Neo-Destour, Habib Bourguiba and Salah Ben

Youssef. The path of negotiation chosen by Bourguiba was
denounced as treacherous by Ben Youssef. The two camps prob-
ably lost far more militants in their bloody feud than during the
whole campaign against French colonialism.7 But Bourguiba
prevailed and forced Ben Youssef to flee to neighbouring Libya.
â•… The Algerian struggle for independence was certainly the most
tragic in the entire Arab world. Such violence was intensified by
the duration of the French occupation (132 years), the impor-
tance of the European colonial population (sometimes settlers
whose families had been there for several generations) and the
fiction of ‘French Algeria’; while their administrative incorpora-
tion into the French republic never yielded the expected rights
for the indigenous population.
â•… The armed resistance launched in November 1954 by the
National Liberation Front (FLN, to use its French acronym)
only succeeded in ending French rule in July 1962. While nation-
alist propaganda hailed the ‘million martyrs’ of Algeria, histori-
ans consider the toll of the ‘liberation war’ to be around 250,000
killed, 80 per cent of them by the French military.8 Even those
revised figures prove that no other Arab country had experi-
enced such trauma to achieve its collective freedom.
â•… Last but not least, Britain had to fulfil its pledge to abandon
its possessions east of Suez. Kuwait was the first protectorate to
gain its independence, in 1961, with Iraq abandoning its claims
over the new state two years later. In 1967, the constellation of
sheikhdoms that Great Britain had coalesced into a ‘Federation’
and a ‘Protectorate’ of South Arabia merged, after the British
withdrawal, into a ‘Democratic and Popular Republic of Yemen’
(DPRY), commonly known as South Yemen. In 1971 London
finally severed all its ties to the sovereignty of Bahrain, of Qatar,
of Oman and of the seven emirates of the Trucial Coast, who
established the federation of United Arab Emirates.
â•… The four new members joined the United Nations the same
year. The painstaking process of Arab emancipation was now
31
completed, with one major caveat: Palestine, a full member of

the Arab League, remained in a diplomatic limbo, with a ‘decla-
ration of independence’ adopted by the PLO in Algiers in 1988,
and the admission of Palestine by the UN as a ‘non-member
state’, with observer status, in 2012. The two-state solution
between Israel and Palestine seems now even less attainable than
at the beginning of the peace process in the 1990s.
A Dictatorial Hijacking
It took half a century for the Arab countries to rid themselves of

Western domination. But it took only two decades, from 1949 to
1969, for the military cliques to reap the fruits of this hard-won
Arab independence. There was no battle over the political regres-
sion to region-wide dictatorship, often because the viciousness of
colonial repression had extracted a heavy price on civilian resis-
tance and the liberal camp: they arrived at independence often
exhausted by the liberation struggle, while armed plotters were
waiting in the wings, legitimized by a ‘Third World’ discourse.
â•… The Arab–Israeli conflict was also crucial in strengthening
anti-democratic forces who claimed their dedication to the anti-
Zionist cause, even though their main focus was the silencing of
domestic opposition. It is therefore no surprise that the first
coup of this regressive cycle occurred in Syria in 1949. As the
late journalist Patrick Seale described it:
It is in Syria that the post-war impotence of classic nationalism is
most clearly demonstrated. Out-dated by their own success against
the mandatory power, they were incapable of diagnosing the prob-
lems posed by independence and were ousted by younger, more rad-
ical groups.9
â•… In March 1949, the Syrian chief of staff Colonel Husni Zaïm
seized power in a bloodless coup that was a direct consequence
of the military humiliation inflicted on his country during the
recent war with Israel. In neighboring Iraq, the army had in the
32
past repeatedly interfered in state politics, but had never dared

to challenge the monarchy itself, while Zaïm had rid himself in
Syria of all constitutional obstacles. It was not long before he
dissolved all political parties.
â•… Zaïm was the only candidate in the June 1949 presidential
election, where he officially received 99.4 per cent of votes cast.
This pattern of authoritarian plebiscite would soon become a
standard feature in the Arab world. And Zaïm’s eagerness to
sign a ceasefire with Israel, effective in July, stemmed from his
urge to deploy his armed forces on the domestic front,10 another
distinctive feature of the coming dictatorships.
â•… This move however came too late to save Zaïm from one of
his subordinates, Colonel Sami al-Hinnawi, commander of the
southern region. In August 1949, armoured battalions took con-
trol of Damascus. Hinnawi’s associates executed the president
and his prime minister on the spot. But Hinnawi’s experience
was even more short-lived than his predecessor. In December
1949, Colonel Adib Shishakli, commander of the first brigade,
took over. Hinnawi fled to Beirut where he was assassinated by
those avenging Zaïm’s murder.
â•… The new military leader, Shishakli, pledged to restore civilian
rule first. A new constitution was drafted and adopted. Six cab-
inets would be formed in the following two years, half of them
with minority participation on the part of the Muslim Brother-
hood (operating then as the Islamic Socialist Front).11 The Baath
party, established in Syria in 1947, and the Communist party
were vocal in their opposition to any alignment with the West-
ern powers. Political instability reached such a level that, in
November 1951, Shishakli assumed total control of the repub-
lic (parliament was dissolved and parties were banned).
â•… In Egypt also, the humiliation of the Israeli victory had sent
shockwaves through domestic politics. Militia from the Muslim
Brotherhood had fought alongside the Egyptian army: they
accused King Farouk and his government of having betrayed
33
‘jihad’ in Palestine. In December 1948, a Muslim Brother assas-

sinated Prime Minister Mahmoud Nuqrashi. Four thousand
Islamists were jailed in retaliation, before the founder of the
Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was murdered in February
1949, most probably under official orders.12
â•… The Egyptian monarchy was nevertheless able to absorb this
shock because it had lived through nearly three decades of a par-
liamentary system. The Wafd party, heir to the 1919 revolution,
had won all the succeeding elections, but other nationalist or
progressive parties were challenging its dominance. The press
still enjoyed a fair amount of freedom, while unions were devel-
oping. But it was the brutality of British unilateralism that
brought down King Farouk.
â•… In January 1952, British forces crushed the nationalist protest
in the Suez Canal area, killing dozens of Egyptian police officers
in their barracks when they refused to surrender. This led to
widespread anti-Western riots in Cairo, with schools, cafés and
foreign institutions looted and destroyed. Muslim Brothers
actively contributed to this ‘Cairo burning’ and opened secret
channels with a clandestine group of Free Officers, through one
of their founders, Anwar Sadat.
â•… Six months later, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, the eighty Free
Officers took control of the army. All generals were arrested,
except Mohammad Naguib and another who had endorsed the
coup. King Farouk, holed up in his summer palace in Alexan-
dria, was soon deposed and exiled. In the same choreography
that had already been enacted three times in Syria, armoured
units took control of strategic points and a ‘communiqué num-
ber one’ was broadcast on the radio to herald the coup. Sadat
was chosen to read the declaration:
We have undertaken to clean ourselves up and have appointed to
command us men from the army whom we trust in their ability,
their character and their patriotism. It is certain that all Egypt will
meet this news with enthusiasm and will welcome it.13
34
â•… The self-righteousness of such an opening salvo is impressive.

For Nasser and his partners, it was not only the monarchy, but
also the parliamentary class, starting with the Wafd, that were
condemned. The ‘blessed revolution’, as the officers celebrated
it, was supposed to fulfil the frustrated promises of the 1922
independence.
â•… The Syrian dictator Shishakli had found welcome soulmates
in the Egyptian Free Officers. He had outlawed all parties except
his own Arab Liberation Movement, just as Nasser would grant
a monopoly to the Arab Liberation Rally. A cheerful Shishakli
visited Cairo in December 1952, just after an unprecedented
military parade in Damascus. This demonstration of force,
designed to mark the first anniversary of the military regime,
was marred by the skidding of a tank into the crowd, killing 52
people.What other symbolism could more vividly and accurately
illustrate the dangers of unchecked military rule for a vulnerable
civilian population?
â•… Following in Husni Zaïm’s steps, Shishakli ran in July 1953
as the only candidate in a presidential ‘election’ where he offi-
cially amassed 99.7 per cent of the votes. The irrelevance of such
a farcical plebiscite was demonstrated seven months later, when
a general mutiny of all the commanders in the provinces forced
Shishakli to flee to Brazil (where he was murdered in 1964 by a
vengeful Druze).
â•… Contrary to Egypt, where the Free Officers effectively killed
the parliamentary system, the Syrian military restored free and
fair elections in 1954, with the Baath party gaining 22 out of the
142 seats (many of the 64 ‘independent’ MPs were in fact
backed by the Muslim Brotherhood). Political bickering resuÂ�
med, amid a quite vibrant press and militant union activism. But
Nasser’s aura outshone that of any Syrian leader, especially after
the failure of the 1956 ‘tripartite aggression’ of Israel, France
and Britain against Egypt.
â•… The Baath party had won the foreign affairs portfolio for its
leader, Salaheddine Bitar, and his pan-Arab creed led him to
35
push for union with Egypt. Disgruntled officers went to Cairo in

January 1958 and threw themselves upon Nasser’s mercy: ‘Do
with us what you will. Just save us from the politicians and from
ourselves.’14 This Baathist and military joint action caused, the
following month, the unconditional surrender of Syrian indepen-
dence to Egypt, with Nasser now presiding over the United Arab
Republic (UAR).
â•… In July 1958, the Iraqi Free Officers overthrew the monarchy,
shooting the king and many of his family. Nasser believed that
the new ruler in Baghdad, Abdelkarim Qasim, would soon join
the UAR. But Qasim was an Iraqi nationalist at heart and he
Â€
preferred to rely on the Communist party rather than the Iraqi

branch of the Baath. He suppressed with merciless violence the
pro-Nasser uprising of Mosul, in March 1959. The numerous
plots uncovered in Iraq in the following years consolidated
Qasim’s own dictatorial tendencies.
â•… In UAR ‘northern province’—as Syria was now called—Egyp-
tian arbitrary rule also left deep scars. Military intelligence and
security operatives became increasingly intrusive. Parties had
been banned, in a clear breach of the promises made by Nasser
to the Baath. Discontent was so pervasive in the Syrian public
that the bloodless coup of September 1961, restoring the inde-
pendence of Syria, was celebrated as a new liberation. Even the
disillusioned Bitar welcomed such a move.
â•… The three and a half years of UAR authoritarianism had nev-
ertheless struck a terrible blow against the capacity of the Syrian
political class to live up to their patriotic pretences. The army
had restored their power, but the political environment was
swamped by murky intrigue. Baathist and Nasserist plotters
competed in the shadows. In February 1963, Qasim was over-
thrown in Baghdad by a Baathist coup (he was executed, along
with thousands of his followers). The next month, the Baathists
echoed this success by taking over Damascus, and then Syria.
â•… The coups that had toppled the monarchy in Egypt, in 1952,
and in Iraq, in 1958, were irreversible. The royal families that
36
had reigned since independence were accused of being too

lenient towards Britain, the former colonial power. They were
therefore liquidated, symbolically in Egypt, and physically in
Iraq. The resulting power struggles among the plotters them-
selves prevented any relaxation of the constraints on the politi-
cal scene, with its intrusive intelligence and one-party system. In
Syria, the frequency of the coups and the tragic experience of the
UAR proved paradoxically how entrenched was the pluralistic
political legacy that even the French Mandate had been com-
pelled to cope with. It would need a militarized version of the
Baath to annihilate this specifically Syrian trait.
â•… The nine founders of the National Liberation Front (FLN)
had launched the Algerian emancipation struggle against France
in 1954. When independence was achieved in July 1962,
through negotiations between Paris and the Provisional Govern-
ment of the Algerian Republic (GPRA), three of those ‘founding
nine’ had already been killed by the French military. The six sur-
vivors were Krim Belkacem, vice president of the GPRA; Ahmed
Ben Bella, Mohammad Khider, Hocine Aït Ahmed, Mohammad
Boudiaf and Rabah Bitat; also formal members of the GPRA,
but released from French jails only in March 1962.
â•… The GPRA, supported by the French federation of the FLN
and the domestic resistance, soon faced a formidable contender:
the ‘army of the frontiers’, led by Colonel Houari Boumediene,
had escaped the French offensives in its safe havens of Morocco
and Tunisia; it was probably three times stronger than the FLN
networks in Algeria proper, devastated after seven years of fight-
ing. The ambitious Ben Bella sided with Boumediene in order to
achieve supreme power.
â•… Soon after the proclamation of Algerian independence, Bou-
mediene’s army moved from Tunisia to crush the GPRA in the
eastern city of Constantine. In September 1962, the military
entered the capital Algiers, after at least a thousand people died
in this fratricidal fighting. The GPRA was replaced by the newly
37
founded ‘Political Bureau’ of the FLN. Ben Bella, the self-

Â€
appointed prime minister, rewarded Boumediene with the

defence portfolio.
â•… During the following year, 1963, the five remaining members
of the ‘founding nine’ all turned their efforts against Ben Bella:
Belkacem, followed by Bitat, went to France, Khider fled to
Geneva, Boudiaf was put under house arrest in Southern Alge-
ria, while Aït Ahmed organized armed resistance against the new
regime in the mountainous ranges of Kabylia. In their opposi-
tion to Ben Bella and Boumediene, obviously weakened by the
lack of any coordination between them, they were adamant in
denouncing the betrayal of the anti-colonial struggle by what
had now become the Popular National Army (ANP).
â•… The last sequence of this military cycle was completed in Sep-
tember 1969 when Colonel Moammar Qaddafi deposed the Lib-
yan King Idris in a bloodless coup. Qaddafi candidly admitted
he had joined the army, six years before, in the hope of staging
such a putsch.15 This was the first time that plotters had joined
the military in order to seize power, and not the reverse.
â•… Crown Prince Hassan Reda (Idris’ nephew) was swiftly
arrested, along with the main decision-makers. Idris, who was
then undergoing medical treatment in Turkey, was rendered
powerless. Qaddafi himself read the usual ‘communiqué number
one’ from Benghazi’s radio station, proclaiming the establish-
ment of the ‘Libyan Arab Republic’.
â•… Before the 1922–71 cycle of Arab independences was even
completed, military rulers had replaced the nationalist leaders in
most of the countries from Algeria to Iraq. The fact that the new
power cliques often had dubious or disputable resistance creden-
tials led to an escalation in nationalistic rhetoric and an obses-
sive focus on regime security (with the famed ‘foreign agents’ as
standard bogeymen). The ubiquitous ‘intelligence’ services, or
mukhâbarât, interfered blatantly in the lives of millions. While
the struggle for independence had been closely tied to demands
38
for increased freedom, this dictatorial hijacking did indeed prove

terminal for individual and collective liberties.
Fathers and Pretenders
This sketchy overview of centuries of Ottoman/Turkish/Arab

history may read like déjà vu for some. However, it is useful in
underlining an unexpected parallel between the only two ‘fathers
of the nation’ of the post-Ottoman twentieth century: Mustafa
Kemal Atatürk and Abdelaziz Ibn Saud. No matter how blas-
phemous such an association may appear to many, the facts are
self-evident: these two leaders are the only ones who actually
shaped their own country (including its boundaries, polities and
ethos) through their politico-military struggle, their personal
vision and their overwhelming charisma.
â•… Kemalism and Wahhabism are both state ideologies that deliver
to the ruler and their clique undisputed authority, social mobili-
zation and a legitimizing discourse. The repression of ‘unortho-
dox’ practices in ‘cosmopolitan’ Hijaz was no less ruthless than
the fight against ‘reactionary’ Islam in the Anatolian countryside.
Shia culture was no more recognized in the ‘kingdom of Nejd and
Hijaz’ than Kurdish culture was in nascent Turkey.
â•… There was one more attribute shared by Kemalism and Wah-
habism: both ideologies were fiercely opposed to the Arab
Nahda. Kemalism rejected it as one of the fateful Ottoman leg-
acies that accelerated the Empire’s decomposition and chal-
lenged Turkish identity. Wahhabism developed in the Nejd
hinterland that remained out of reach of the Nahda. And the
Saud’s followers waged their jihad exclusively against other
Arab Muslims, thus obliterating any possibility of joining the
Nahda, even in its Islamic revival dimension.
â•… King Mohammad V had sometimes been celebrated in Morocco
as ‘the father of the nation’. But he was exiled to Madagascar
when the Moroccan liberation struggle was at its most violent.
39
He was certainly a source of inspiration for the anti-French

activists: his Alawi dynasty had reigned over Morocco for three
centuries, deterring any Ottoman encroachment, and this iden-
tification between king and country was unparalleled in the
Arab world.
â•… The first king of independent Morocco was nevertheless
unable to substantiate his claims over ‘Spanish Sahara’. The
nationalist guerrillas were defeated in the 1957–8 ‘Ifni war’.
Mohammad V’s son and successor, Hassan II, eventually regained
Ifni in 1969, but that was not enough to placate the military
who tried twice to liquidate him, in July 1971 and in August
1972. The ‘Green March’ that Hassan II launched in November
1975 was a master stroke, since this human wave was not
resisted by the departing Spaniards; and the armed forces, now
focusing on their fight against the Sahraoui guerrillas of the
Polisario front, had ceased to be a threat to the throne.
â•… King Abdullah I could hardly be described as the ‘father of the
nation’, since Transjordan was conceived as a buffer state by the
British Empire rather than a nation. The Hashemite dynasty also
had to face the deep parochialism of the local Bedouins, who
never forgot that their king was originally a Hijazi outsider.
Interestingly, it was through his secret dealings with the Zion-
ists16 that Abdullah tried to emancipate his kingdom and himself
from British tutelage. This dangerous gamble brought him the
Palestinian ‘West Bank’, but also precipitated his brutal death.
â•… Abdullah’s grandson Hussein escaped a dozen attempts on his
life during his 1953–99 reign. He lost the West Bank to Israel in
1967, but kept claiming those Palestinian territories as his own,
which was one of the main reasons behind the conflict with the
PLO in 1970, the so-called Black September. It was only reluc-
tantly, and under the Palestinian intifada pressure, that King
Hussein agreed in 1988 to sever his symbolic ties with the West
Bank. This was a paradoxical way of acknowledging the identi-
fication between his dynasty and the original Transjordan, now
the ‘Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan’.
40
â•… The monarchs of Morocco and Jordan were no match for Ibn
Saud as ‘fathers of the nation’, but Bourguiba clearly had the
ambition to stand as the Tunisian equivalent of Atatürk. He
therefore had to erase from collective memory and official his-
tory the mark of his nationalist arch-rival, Ben Youssef (eventu-
ally assassinated by Bourguiba’s agents in Frankfurt in 1961).
Another challenge Bourguiba had to face in his Atatürkian meta-
morphosis was the strong attachment of the Tunisian public to
constitutional monarchy and to the ‘benevolent father’ figure of
the Bey.
â•… The Tunisian sovereign, whose dynasty had reigned over
Tunisia for two and a half centuries, nominated Bourguiba as
prime minister in April 1956. However, ‘the Supreme Fighter’,17
as his supporters lauded him, could not be satisfied with less
than absolute power. When the constitutional assembly, elected
just after independence, elaborated a draft of a British-style par-
liamentary system in January 1957, Bourguiba squashed the
proposal. Then he waited only six months before launching a
merciless attack on the very principle of monarchy, obtaining
the instant proclamation of the Tunisian republic.
â•… It took two more years of manoeuvres and intrigues for Bour-
guiba to impose a presidential constitution with basically no
countervailing power, in June 1959. Yet such a shrewd politi-
cian made a tragical mistake when he issued an ultimatum to de
Gaulle in July 1961 requesting the immediate evacuation of the
French base in the Tunisian northern port of Bizerte. De Gaulle
flatly refused and, in the ensuing confrontation, at least six
Â�hundred Tunisians were killed compared to two dozen French
soldiers.
â•… The armed forces resented Bourguiba’s disastrous gamble
with their life and honour. Bizerte would be evacuated by the
French as planned by de Gaulle, after the independence of Alge-
ria, underlining how futile had been the sacrifice of the Tunisian
military in 1961. Inspired by a shared hatred of Bourguiba, a
41
network involving Ben Youssef’s supporters and implacable offi-

cers (including the president’s aide de camp) started to plot
Bourguiba’s death.
â•… The conspiracy was uncovered in December 1962. Soon a tri-
bunal with sessions broadcast live rapidly issued the verdicts. Ten
defendants (five military and five civilians) were executed by fir-
ing squad. The location of their mass grave was kept secret.18
Bourguiba accused Ben Bella and the Algerian regime of support-
ing the plot. He then consistently downgraded the army, favour-
ing instead the state police and the one-party apparatus to control
Tunisia. In 1975, he felt strong enough to be proclaimed ‘presi-
dent for life’, a title no other Arab autocrat had dared to assume.
*
The absence of authentic ‘fathers of the nation’ paved the way
for the series of military takeovers that set the dictatorial tone of
the Arab world. Bourguiba escaped the regional wave by pre-
empting an army coup, which gave to its own ‘enlightened des-
potism’ a distinct police-state flavour. Nasser was gallant
enough to let the deposed king flee into exile. His self-pro-
claimed disciple, Qaddafi, instigated his coup while the Libyan
king was abroad, but he had the crown prince tried and jailed.
In Iraq, the military junta that liquidated the royal family, in
1958, established an enduring pattern of bloody vendettas and
brutal retribution.
â•… It took a decade and a half of alternating coups (some blood-
less, some violent) and parliamentary interludes before Syria fell
prey to the Baath party. In Algeria, it was the progressive elimi-
nation or marginalization of the FLN founding nucleus that
cemented the power of Boumediene, and then Bendjedid. In
Yemen, it was the overlap between the civil war (in the north)
and the decolonization process (in the south) that led to a unique
blend of military rule, as we shall see in the next chapter.
â•… No matter how forcefully their state propaganda beat the
drums of patriotic bravado, all those military plotters knew bet-
42
ter than anybody else how shallow their nationalist legitimacy

was. They had diverted the country’s development in order to
maximize the benefits of their ruling elite. The more they feared
a counter-coup, the louder they screamed against ‘Zionism’ and
‘imperialism’. Their paternalistic (at best) and often deprecatory
approach towards their own people was devastating. Meet the
modern Mamluks.
43
3
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
It was Napoléon Bonaparte who introduced the Mamluks to the

West. After he invaded Egypt in July 1798, his army slaughtered
thousands of them near the Pyramids, a disaster that opened the
road to Cairo to the French. When General Bonaparte sailed
back to France the following year, he took some Mamluk rene-
gades back with him, even promoting one of them to be his
faithful bodyguard for the next fifteen years.
â•… Emperor Napoléon I had a Mamluk squad incorporated into
his own Imperial Guard, and Francisco Goya left vivid memo-
ries in Madrid of the Mamluk subjugation of the patriotic upris-
ing of 2 May 1808. The Mamluks of the Imperial Guard, despite
Â€
numbering fewer than two hundred, came to embody the worst

of the French Empire in the eyes of its enemies. The end of the
Napoleonic saga coincided with their liquidation in the Cairo
citadel by Mohammad Ali, the founder of modern Egypt.
â•… The Mamluks were then reduced to a nostalgic footnote in
Orientalist folklore. That was not a fitting way to honour their
millennium-long history. In Arabic, Mamouk literally means
slave; Abbassid caliphs, in Baghdad or in Samarra, sometimes
opted to recruit Turkish slaves into their personal guards, so
their loyalty as absolute outsiders would be less questionable
during local power struggles.
45
â•… This system became an institution in the last part of the

twelfth century, when Saladin’s heirs established their dynasty
of Ayyubid sultans in Egypt and Syria. Slave traders were selling
captives from the Black Sea, the Caucasus and even Central Asia
on the markets of Aleppo, Damascus or Alexandria. Selected
individuals were sent to military school (the most famous of
which was inside the citadel of Cairo) under the undisputed
guidance of one sole master. Once their training was completed,
they were emancipated and started a new life as free soldiers.
â•… In 1249, the French King Louis IX led the Seventh Crusade into
Egypt. He was defeated and captured at Mansura, but the Mam-
luks considered this victory as theirs and toppled the Sultan. The
French monarch had to pay a hefty ransom to be released. With
the Crusaders’ threat out of the way, the Mamluks could face the
far greater menace of the Mongols, who devastated Baghdad and
killed the Caliph in 1258. Two years later, the Muslim victory at
the Battle of Ayn Jalut, near the Palestinian city of Nablus,
brought a dramatic halt to the Mongol invasion.
â•… A hero of the battles of Mansoura and Ayn Jalut, Baybars
killed the last Ayyoubid ruler and had the Mamluk Sultan Qutuz
assassinated in order to seize his throne. This dark side of his
military bravado was absent from the florid epics that have cel-
ebrated his reign (1260–77) until today. Baybars’ stroke of
genius was to take under his protection, in Cairo, a member of
the Abbassid family who had survived the massacre and pro-
claim him a ‘Caliph’. This powerless Caliph was transferring his
legitimacy as a descendant of the Prophet to the non-Arab rul-
ers of Cairo and Damascus, who often spoke very poor Arabic.
â•… Such an emasculated Caliphate continued to develop as a
dynasty, while the very dynamics of the Mamluks forbade them
to follow such path. The Mamluks were banned from marrying
outside their ethnic group and their sons were not supposed to
take up civilian or military office. Family networks were regu-
larly fought by the Mamluks as a group, no matter how divided
46
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
the personal loyalties could be. This Darwinian logic offered the
key to power to the most ruthless of competitors, with a perma-
nent tension between the winner’s temptation to establish a
dynasty on behalf of his scions and the collective resolve of the
Mamluks to maintain a balance among the various factions.
â•… The Mamluk world functioned as a counter-society, with its
own codes and rites (such as the game of polo, horse races and
archery competitions), alienated from local Arab societies. Civil-
ians were generally despised by the ruling class, but peace and
order were widely popular after the tribulations of the Crusades
and the Mongols. The Islamic classical divide between the rul-
ing elite or khâssa (the ‘special’ ones) and the masses of the
‘âmma (the ‘ordinary’ ones) reached unprecedented depths.
â•… The government was militarized and the vizier was down-
graded to being a mere treasurer. With the notable exception of
Baybars, nor did Mamluks interfere in religious affairs. The
ulemas therefore respected the tacit agreement through which
the Islamic credentials of the former slaves were never ques-
tioned. Mamluk rulers were also celebrated as the ‘Sultan of
Islam and of the Muslims’ (Sultan al-Islâm wa al-Muslimîn),
with an emphasis on their leading the jihad.1
â•… Mamluk rule lasted two and a half centuries. The Ottomans,
who conquered the Middle East in 1516–17, wiped out the
Mamluks from Syria, but allowed the surviving ones to serve
them in Egypt. The local population feared most the periodic
quarrels pitching one military clan against another, since they
could escalate into fully-fledged battles in vulnerable cities. Long
before Bonaparte’s invasion and Mohammad Ali’s massacre, the
Mamluks’ star had waned.
â•… The reader may well wonder why the Mamluk paradigm
should be resurrected in this analysis of the contemporary Arab
militarized state. As this chapter unfolds, the parallels between the
two historical sequences will I hope emerge. The modern Mam-
luks, like their medieval predecessors, lacked the legitimacy of
47
century-long dynasties, but compensated for this shortcoming

with their strong belief that might was right. They were not eman-
cipated slaves, although they often came from the lower social
strata, where the army was the only route to social promotion.
â•… Modern Mamluks loathed the traditional elite; they yearned
for populist revenge, even when their revolutionary impulse was
fed by an urge to grab the spoils of the ancien regime. They soon
constituted a khâssa world apart from the rest of the ‘âmma
population, with its privileges, protocol and ceremonies. But
their deep attachment to Baybars and his successors was the
Darwinian sanction of a recurring power struggle.
â•… Nasser, Boumediene and Assad were far from being the most
talented rulers, but they were ruthless survivors in an implaca-
ble environment of intrigues, coups and treachery. They learnt
to kill before being killed. Their obsession with security defined
the fate of the nation. After hijacking the gains of independence,
they made a whole population hostage to their ambition. And,
like Baybars in his time and afterwards, they found many peo-
ple ready to join in such a quest for glory.
An Insecure Nasser
The hagiographic narrative depicts Nasser as a brave officer,

outraged by the 1948–9 humiliation in Palestine, who in 1952
led a band of Free Officers to restore Egypt’s dignity. He had to
confront a multi-faceted domestic ‘reaction’, with two major
Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies against him in 1954 and
1965, while fighting through two imposed ‘imperialist’ wars, in
1956 and 1967. Despite the magnitude of the task, he vied con-
sistently for Arab unity and collapsed from exhaustion in 1970
after having restored peace in Black September Jordan.
â•… This narrative has been basically maintained under Sadat and
Mubarak, because both dictators knew how dearly they would
pay for uncovering the founding crimes of their political predeces-
48
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
sor. While it is true that Nasser faced a dozen attempts against his
life and regime, these mostly came from within his own military
establishment. But Nasser, as a former Muslim brother himself,2
owed much to his talent at engineering coups; he spent his life in
power in a world of plots, often posing real threats.
â•… The Free Officers who ousted King Farouk in July 1952 estab-
lished a fourteen-member Revolutionary Command Council
(RCC) that Nasser chaired and controlled through his close
aides Abdelhakim Amer and Zakaria Mohieddine. But they
needed a public figurehead to embody and legitimize their coup.
They turned to General Mohammad Naguib, whom they
believed offered the best combination of popularity and docility.
Naguib was named prime minister in August 1952 and became
their first president, following the proclamation of the Republic
(and the dissolution of the parties) in June 1953.
â•… The Liberation Rally, a loose organization vibrant with
nationalism and populism, was launched as the political arm of
the Free Officers (and the only legal party). Nasser became dep-
uty prime minister; and Amer, a lowly major in 1952, was cata-
pulted to the chief of staff of the armed forces (a ministerial-level
post). Zakaria Mohieddine, promoted to minister of the interior,
soon strengthened the security apparatus: the Special Branch,
founded by the British in 1911, was expanded into the General
Investigations Service (GIS/Mabâhith ‘âmma).
â•… The Military Intelligence Directorate (MID/Mukhâbarât
‘askariyya) was re-oriented towards a political operation; and
some of its most loyal (and effective) members went to create the
Presidential Bureau of Information (PBI)—under Nasser’s direct
supervision—and the General Intelligence Department (GID/
Mukhâbarât ‘âmma).3 GIS, part of the ministry of the interior,
was supposedly civilian, but all intelligence agencies were mili-
tarized under the Free Officers’ regime.
â•… Such obsession with security was from the outset a hallmark
of Nasser’s and his successors’ regimes. The fact that supposedly
49
civilian intelligence was grounded in military expertise and lead-

ership is another example of this Deep State in the making.
Nasser was well aware that his own popularity could not match
Naguib’s. The first Egyptian president could furthermore rely on
the democratic commitment of most of the armed forces, who
echoed the banned parties’ call for free elections and a new
constitution.4
â•… In true Mamluk style, Nasser decided to plunge Egypt into cri-
sis in order to neutralize Naguib: a ring of provocative explo-
sions preceded the dramatic legalization of political parties in
March 1954, in order to associate public strife with political
pluralism. Then the military police engineered a transport strike
that brought the country to a standstill, while Liberation Rally
agitators demonstrated in Cairo shouting: ‘No parties! No par-
liament! No elections!’5 Naguib turned to his minister of the
interior, Zakaria Mohieddine, who demanded written orders to
suppress the protest and warned of a bloodbath. Caught
between the Free Officers and the street troubles, Naguib
escaped the showdown and agreed to back down. Though now
powerless, he was still the nominal president. In April 1954, all
trade and student unions were banned.
â•… Six months later, Nasser killed two birds with one stone after
the failed (and most probably staged) attempt on his life in Alex-
andria by a Muslim Brother. Naguib was accused of being part
of the plot and was put under house arrest for the next eighteen
years. The crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood sent some
20,000 of their members to jail (with only one in twenty stand-
ing trial).6 This cleared the way to absolute power for Nasser
and his circle, who banked on their land reform and the anti-
monarchy rhetoric (and trials) to burnish their revolutionary
credentials.
â•… The transition from coup to ‘revolution’ (in fact, Nasser’s dic-
tatorship) was complete in June 1956: the new constitution and
Nasser’s presidency were approved by 99.9 per cent of voters.
50
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
The RCC was dissolved but, as had always happened with the
Mamluks, Nasser could not rest on his laurels. Indeed, he would
have to face a formidable rival from within his own circle dur-
ing the next decade: Abdelhakim Amer was promoted to the
unprecedented rank of Field Marshal in 1957.
â•… To grasp the perversity of such a power struggle, one has to
realize that military rank had nothing to do with the appointees’
actual fighting capacities and performance. Amer nearly broke
down during the November 1956 ‘tripartite aggression’ by
Israel, France and Britain against Egypt. Nasser took over the
operational initiative and, even though his army was clearly
defeated, he was celebrated as the political victor of the crisis
after the unconditional withdrawal of the invading forces under
US pressure.
â•… But Amer knew intimately the paranoia of his former fellow
plotter and repeatedly unveiled new conspiracies, starting in
April 1957, to keep the president off his guard. More impor-
tantly, the commander in chief had transformed the officer corps
into the largest ‘patronage network’ in Egypt, as the sociologist
Hazem Kandil aptly put it, commenting: ‘for the army, the field
marshal had become something like a Santa Claus’.7
â•… When the Syrian leadership pushed an initially reluctant
Nasser into accepting union with Egypt,8 in 1958, the president
of this new ‘United Arab Republic’ saw the opportunity to get
Amer out of his way: the field marshal was appointed governor
of the ‘Northern Province’, just as unruly Mamluks were sent to
Damascus when they became too much of a threat to the Sultan
in Cairo. But the union was short-lived and collapsed in 1961,
partly because of the military brutality unleashed by Amer in his
own fiefdom.
â•… The field marshal came back to Cairo. In autumn 1962,
Nasser tried to force Amer out of the military high command,
prompting the army boss to denounce the president’s ‘fear of
democracy’.9 The Egyptian intervention in Yemen also played
51
into the hands of Amer and his top brass protégés.10 Eventually,
Nasser became the supreme commander of the armed forces, but
had to cope with Amer shadowing him as first vice president
and deputy commander-in-chief. Nasser could then bitterly com-
plain to Anwar Sadat, one of the founding Free officers: ‘I am
responsible as president, but it is Amer that rules.’11
â•… In June 1963, unable to dislodge the field marshal from the mil-
itary leadership, Nasser established a Vanguard Organization
(VO) inside the newly formed Arab Socialist Union (ASU), the
avatar of the long-gone Liberation Rally as the only legal party.
The Egyptian president was too much of a despot to trust the peo-
ple, but the clandestine VO offered him a powerful intelligence
arm that could even spy on Amer’s supporters in the military.
â•… The field marshal retaliated by having his Military Intelligence
Directorate (MID) uncover a Muslim Brotherhood plot (with
thousands detained and at least 250 deaths under torture) in the
summer of 1965. Amer lashed back at Nasser, accusing the rival
civilian GID of incompetence, at the least, and demanding its
dissolution. This war by proxy on intelligence only sharpened
the anti-Islamist campaign, with Sayyid Qutb being hanged in
August 1966. After the 1954 ‘plot’, a more confident Nasser had
chosen to jail, rather than execute, the Muslim Brotherhood’s
senior leadership.
â•… The Nasser/Amer constant feud was critical to the comedy of
errors leading Egypt into the trap of the 5 June 1967 war, with
Â€
eyes wide open. (One third of the armed forces were pinned
down in Yemen, which made any chance of victory against
Israel seem ludicrously implausible.)12 Everybody in Cairo was
bluffing to outwit their rivals, but Israel wisely used this verbal
escalation to deliver a nearly fatal blow to the Egyptian military.
On 9 June, Nasser announced the collective resignation of the
Â€
country’s leadership (including Amer’s and his own) in a dra-

matic speech. ASU engineered mass demonstrations all over
Egypt to beg Nasser to stay in power.
52
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
â•… In a carefully staged move, Nasser retracted his resignation on

11 June. After five years of strife, the Egyptian president had
Â€
finally ousted Amer. A smear campaign was soon underway,

each camp blaming the other for the ‘Six Day War’ humiliation.
Two months later, Amer was taken into GIS custody where he
either swallowed poison to commit suicide (the official version)
or was swiftly executed (the accusation of his faithful followers
who would from then on be relentlessly targeted and purged by
Nasser’s intelligence services).
â•… It had taken the 1967 disaster for the Egyptian dictator to rid
himself of his military nemesis. Nasser would eventually focus
on the re-conquest of the Sinai he had so painfully lost, with the
‘war of attrition’ flaring on the Suez Canal. He was also forced
to court the heroes of the time, those Palestinian guerrillas he
had harried in the previous decade. The Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO), launched in Cairo in 1964 under Nasser’s
auspices, had to be conceded to the Fatah movement and its
leader, Yasser Arafat, in 1969.
â•… Unable to restore Egyptian territorial integrity, Nasser could no
longer claim to champion the Palestinian cause. He opted for
damage control, sanctioning the PLO’s encroachment on others’
sovereignty: the October 1969 Cairo agreement between Lebanon
and the PLO, whose violation of Lebanese sovereignty was so bla-
tant that it had to remain secret; and the ceasefire between Jordan
and the PLO ending Black September in 1970. This was Nasser’s
last achievement, just before he died from a heart attack.
From Sadat to Mubarak
The security triumvirate that ruled the country on behalf of

Nasser was caught off guard by his unexpected death: Ali Sabri
ran the ASU, Shaarawi Gomaa handled the Vanguard Organiza-
tion (VO) as well as being minister of the interior, and Sami
Sharaf was the head of the Presidential Bureau of Information
53
(PBI). They settled on Anwar Sadat as Nasser’s successor, since

they were convinced the new president would only be a transi-
tional one, giving them time to prepare their takeover (and set-
tle their tripartite accounts).
â•… Sadat nevertheless outwitted his supposed allies, since he ben-
efited from his familiarity with Nasser’s dirtiest secrets. In April
1971, he proclaimed the union of Egypt with Syria and Libya,
dissolving the mighty ASU into a wider entity. In July, he was
informed of the details of a conspiracy involving Sabri, Gomaa
and Sharaf. He offered Sharaf a deal if he would turn against his
fellow plotters. Sharaf miscalculated and refused, then was
sacked with the other ringleaders.13 The whole counter-coup was
proudly labelled Corrective Revolution, in echo, as we shall see
later, of the ‘corrective’ coup Assad had waged in Damascus in
November 1970.
â•… The project of the tripartite union with Syria and Libya had
served its purpose and Sadat now dropped it. But he purged and
revamped the GIS profoundly, restructuring it into the State
Security Investigations Service (SSIS, Mabâhith Amn al-Dawla).
For Sadat the intelligence dimension of the PBI had become use-
less and the service was downgraded to a presidential briefing
structure. The brutal expulsion of the Soviet advisers in July
1972 signalled a significant switch in intelligence cooperation
from the KGB to the CIA. Sadat could also rely on his old friend
Â€
Kamal Adham, now the head of Saudi intelligence.

â•… The Egyptian and Syrian presidents began secretly preparing
a combined offensive against Israel. But, while Assad had hoped
through waging war to regain the Golan Heights, Sadat was
envisioning a political war to break the deadlock with Israel,
before turning to the USA and their mediation to recover the
Sinai. The fact that Sadat had no combat experience added to
the unlikelihood of such a scenario coming to pass.
â•… On 6 October 1973, the Egyptian army crossed to the eastern
Â€
bank of the Suez Canal in a coordinated move with a brazen
54
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
Syrian assault on the Golan. But Sadat decided unilaterally to

halt the offensive on 9 October, leaving the Syrians to face alone
Â€
the full might of the Israeli counter-offensive. Then the Egyptian

president resumed the military offensive on 14 October, open-
Â€
ing a breach that the Israelis soon sneaked through to advance

on the western bank of the Canal.
â•… Sadat’s final decision to accept a ceasefire in place, on 22 Octo-
Â€
ber, was the last straw that broke the military’s endurance, despite
its brave battlefield performance. The popular and strong-willed
chief of staff, Saadeddine Shazly, was blamed for all the short-
comings of the war and exiled as military attaché to London. Sha-
zly was different from Amer since, contrary to what had happened
in 1967, this time the army had been consumed with its patriotic
duty, neglecting the domestic power struggles.
â•… The vice president chosen by Sadat was Husni Mubarak, chief
of the air force and the least inclined of senior officers to coup
temptations. Sadat launched the Opening (Infitâh) policy to
reach out to Western and Gulf investors. State employment con-
tinued to grow at the same alarming rate of a yearly minimum
of 8 per cent as during Nasser’s years, in order to nurture net-
works of local and national patronage. But economic liberaliza-
tion was the mantra of the 1970s, and Sadat dreamt of a
fully-fledged alliance with America.
â•… There was however an obvious continuity between Nasser
and Sadat in the pre-eminence of the intelligence barons. As the
historian Amira el-Azhary Sonbol described: ‘It is not an exag-
geration to say that many of those who managed to win the
most-sought after positions in the export and import organisa-
tions and in the foreign service during both the Nasser and Sadat
regimes belonged to Egypt’s mukhâbarât. Members stood
together and assisted each other to create “truths” that would
allow them to benefit by virtue of their role.’14
â•… In January 1977, a callous slashing of government subsidies
for basic commodities triggered countrywide ‘bread riots’. Those
55
were the wildest popular troubles since the infamous ‘Cairo

burning’ of January 1952, a violent outburst of anti-British and
anti-monarchy rage that paved the way for the Free Officers’
coup. Sadat had to escape the crowd in Aswan and return to
Cairo by helicopter, while Mubarak’s residence near Alexandria
was torched.
â•… The president sent in the army to restore order. Though 160
demonstrators were killed in two days, only the reinstatement of
the subsidies restored peace on the Egyptian street. Sadat, deter-
mined no longer to depend on the military for his regime’s sur-
vival, decided to beef up the paramilitary units of the Ministry
of the Interior, the Central Security Forces (CSF), whose ranks
grew from 100 to 300,000 members.15
â•… Sadat then passed a law on political parties that led to the
division of the ASU into three platforms (manâbir), deemed to
fit the right wing, the centre and the left wing of the political
spectrum. The centrist platform was the most powerful and
inherited most of the clout of the ASU. It was eventually named
Â€
the National Democratic Party (NDP), in a smooth transition

from one-party rule to a system dominated by a hegemonic
party. Most of the VO cadres migrated from ASU to NDP,
bringing along with them a sizeable intelligence capacity.16
â•… Reassured on the domestic front, Sadat performed his bold
move towards a US-sponsored peace with Israel. He started with
a surprise visit to Jerusalem in November 1977, before the tri-
partite summit with Israeli PM Menachem Begin, hosted by
Jimmy Carter at Camp David in September 1978. An Egyptian–
Israeli peace treaty was eventually signed in March 1979. To
reward the armed forces for their continued loyalty, the USA
agreed to earmark a yearly transfer of $1.3 billion in military aid
to Egypt.
â•… Sadat could sincerely believe he had it made, but on 6 Octo-
Â€
ber 1981, during the celebration of the eighth anniversary of the

military’s advance across the Suez Canal, the Egyptian president
56
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
was shot dead by a jihadi commando who had infiltrated the

military parade. One week later, Mubarak, the heir designate as
vice president, was voted in as the new head of state after a ref-
erendum which approved his nomination for president with
98.4 per cent of the ballot. In the interim period, an Islamist
uprising focused on the Upper Egypt city of Asyut was crushed
by the military.
â•… Mubarak’s minister of defence was field marshal Abdel Halim
Abu Ghazala, who had commanded the artillery during the
October 1973 War. Like Shazly before him, Abu Ghazala nur-
tured no Amer-like ambition to political power. When the CSF
conscripts, fearing an additional year of compulsory service,
rebelled in February 1986, Abu Ghazala sent the army in to
quell the revolt in a matter of days (with 107 policemen killed).
But once the mission was accomplished, the military loyally
withdrew to their barracks.
â•… This respectful stance did not save the minister of defence
when, two years later, he was accused of smuggling illegal mate-
rial to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.17 Abu Ghazala was ultimately
forced to resign in April 1989. His demise smoothed the transi-
tion of Mubarak’s Egypt from its crucial part in supporting Iraq
during its war against Iran (1980–88) to its key role in the anti-
Saddam coalition in 1990–91 (Egyptian forces were among the
first to enter ‘liberated’ Kuwait).
â•… Amer died from poison, Shazly was exiled, but Abu Ghazala
stayed quietly home after his retirement. He enjoyed a wide-
spread popularity in Egypt and was even tempted, in June 2005,
to compete in the first multi-candidate presidential election. But
Mubarak’s visit to his house was enough for the former marshal
to forsake any political ambition.18 Compared with Sadat’s era,
and of course Nasser’s, Mamluks had become unprecedentedly
tamed during Mubarak’s presidency.
57
Syrian Intrigue
We saw how the traumatic experiment of the Egyptian-led

United Arab Republic (UAR) dealt a terrible blow to the Syrian
polity and its pluralistic nature from 1958 to 1961. Egyptian
Mamluks imported their security apparatus and its aggressive
repression into Syria. Thereafter, the polarization of Arab
nationalism between Nasserism and Baathism led logically to
the militarization of the Baathist structure, basically to survive
the assaults of their (pro-) Egyptian rivals.
â•… A secret cell of Baathist officers blamed the civilian leadership
of their party for having sold Syrian independence to Nasser.
They organized an underground ‘military committee’ in 1960,
to prepare the downfall of the UAR and, eventually, their own
takeover. Their leader was lieutenant colonel Mohammad
Umran, the son of an Alawi sheikh from Homs.
â•… The five other members of this clandestine committee were
Salah Jadid and Hafez al-Assad, both Alawis; Abdelkarim Jundi
and Ahmad al-Mir, both Ismailis; and Usman Kanaan, a Sunni
from Iskenderun.19 This over-representation of Muslim minori-
ties in such a group was the unexpected result of the viciousness
of Egyptian repression: the Baathist plotters trusted only their
closest comrades, and therefore put a strong emphasis on social
proximity.
â•… It was a Saudi-backed right-wing coup that restored Syrian
independence in September 1961. But the ‘military committee’
waited only eighteen months before seizing the prize. In March
1963, Umran and Jadid deployed their tanks in Damascus, while
Assad occupied the nearest airbase. One fellow plotter, the
Druze captain Salim Hatum, moved into the radio station where
the traditional ‘communiqué number one’ was broadcast.
â•… Jadid controlled the Bureau of Officers’ Affairs where he pro-
moted Baathist conspirators (lieutenant-colonel Assad soon
became general) and purged rival activists from the armed
forces. The ‘military committee’ operated as a ‘junta within the
58
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
junta’20 and left the front row to a non-Baathist Sunni general,

Amin al-Hafiz, who combined the portfolios of defence and
interior. Meanwhile, the Baath established its own paramilitary
‘National Guard’.
â•… The founding fathers of the Baath party tried to regain power
by gambling on ambitious Umran against his former partners.
But Jadid and Assad anticipated the move and, in February
1966, Hatum led a bloody assault on Amine al-Hafiz’s palace.
The party militia, commanded by Rifaat, Hafez al-Assad’s
younger brother, joined the fray. Hafiz and Umran were jailed
in the Mezze prison, on the outskirts of Damascus. The civilian
leadership of the Baath was thoroughly dismantled.
â•… Jadid now ran the country, but the over-cautious plotter led
Noureddine Atassi as a civilian front at the presidency of the
Republic. Assad was appointed minister of defence, while
Hatum, who coveted this portfolio, in September 1966 mounted
a retaliatory ambush against Jadid. Assad’s air force thwarted
this attempted coup; Hatum fled to Jordan, before Jadid and
Assad purged the armed forces for the fifth time in three years.
â•… Instead of adopting a low profile towards Israel, Syrian Mam-
luks, echoing their Egyptian counterparts, indulged in verbal
escalation against ‘Zionism’ and ‘imperialism’. They saw it as a
paradoxical way to defuse the tension inside the armed forces,
now that the ‘military committee’ had split twice in 1966. Jadid
was also committed to protect the Palestinian Fatah guerrillas,
whose infiltrations into Israel triggered reprisals against Syria.
â•… As the Middle East historian David Lesch put it, ‘Syria was
severely unprepared for war: despite the bombastic and jingois-
tic rhetoric, the Baathist regime viewed its actions against Israel
as low-level warfare that was not meant to lead to an all-out
war.’21 The Syrian challenge to Egypt for the regional leadership
aggravated the power struggle inside Egypt between Nasser and
Amer. So the egocentric Mamluks in Cairo and Damascus
fuelled the flames of the disastrous ‘Six Day War’ in June 1967.
59
â•… The Syrian Baathists stood paralysed during the first four days
of the conflict. They let Egypt and then Jordan be crushed, with-
out offering any ‘Arab solidarity’. Then the Israeli military turned
against the Golan Heights on 9 June. The Syrian army fought
Â€
bravely, but it lost 600 soldiers and 86 tanks. The remaining units
withdrew into the city of Quneytra, where they consolidated their
positions and secured the strategic road to Damascus.
â•… On the following morning, 10 June, Assad broadcast on
Â€
Damascus radio the now infamous ‘communiqué 66’, announc-

ing the fall of Quneytra. This statement, though inaccurate, sent
panic waves through the Syrian defence lines, accelerating the
effective capture of Quneytra by the Israelis and generating a
disorderly retreat towards Damascus. Such a communiqué has
been interpreted either as a blackmail trick to drag USSR into
direct intervention, or as a sinister manoeuvre to protect the
Baath leadership in Damascus at the cost of Quneytra.22
â•… Syria had lost the Golan, half of its air force and half of its
tanks, along with probably 2,500 soldiers.23 But the regime was
safe and it even found a convenient scapegoat: Hatum had vol-
unteered to fight Israel and he had then been amnestied back
from Jordan; but he was soon tried for treason, allegedly for
betraying Syria to the Americans and British. A few days after
the end of the war, Hatum was shot by firing squad.
â•… Assad also blamed the June 1967 disaster on Jadid and Atas-
si’s radical adventurism. The minister tightened his control on
the officer corps through Mustafa Tlass, his protégé as chief of
staff. He forced Ahmed al-Mir to retire and ‘promoted’ him to
ambassador in Madrid. But Abelkarim Jundi, another of the
founding members of the ‘military committee’, and now military
intelligence czar, remained loyal to Jadid.
â•… Assad therefore engineered a showdown, in February 1969,
between his brother Rifaat, commander of the party militias, and
Jundi who, humiliated and cornered, committed suicide. Jundi’s
fall triggered a new purge in the security apparatus, this time
60
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
against Ismaili officers. After the 1966 purge against Druze fol-
lowers of Hatum, this elimination of undesirables set the stage for
the final battle between Jadid and Assad, both relying on their
hard-core Alawi networks, in alliance with key Sunni players
(president Atassi for Jadid and chief of staff Tlass for Assad).
â•… Assad bitterly criticized Jadid’s support for Fatah, who had
taken control of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)
and established a ‘state within the state’ in neighbouring Jordan.
During the Black September 1970 crisis, Jadid decided to send
Syrian tanks to assist the Palestinian guerrillas against the Jorda-
nian army. But Assad ordered his air force to hold back and the
Syrian units were annihilated by Jordanian warplanes.
â•… Echoing the loss of the Golan Heights in 1967, what was a
disaster for Syria turned out to play into the hands of Assad’s
obsessive quest for absolute power. In November 1970, the con-
ference of the Baath party seemed a victory for Jadid and Atassi,
but both of them were soon jailed, along with thousands of their
supporters. Assad proclaimed the ‘corrective movement’ and,
three months later, was the only candidate in a presidential pleb-
iscite where he reaped 99.2 per cent of the votes.
â•… The parallel is obvious between Assad and Sadat, although
the former had to fight for power whereas the latter inherited
and was forced to defend it. They both eventually defeated their
rivals, whose errors had to be ‘corrected’. This is also why they
both had to compensate for the 1967 disaster, at least to erase
their personal responsibilities in the historical defeat of the
Arabs. But we saw that the October 1973 war was for Sadat a
military gamble to reach an American-sponsored agreement, an
option that Assad was therefore compelled to endorse.
â•… Henry Kissinger’s ‘shuttle diplomacy’ brokered separate dis-
engagement accords, first between Israel and Egypt, then
between Israel and Syria. Assad and Sadat, now safe on the
Israeli front, could benefit from the post-oil-shock largesse of
the Gulf monarchies, generous sponsors of the ‘front-line states’
61
(with Israel). But while Sadat had chosen a Pax Americana that
would lead him to the treaty with Israel, Assad kept the ‘anti-
imperialist’ rhetoric alive, with the attached and substantial
Soviet support.
â•… In June 1976, the Syrian army invaded Lebanon at the request
of the Christian president of the Republic, and in order to coun-
ter the revolutionary coalition of the PLO guerrillas and the Leb-
anese left. This military intervention echoed Assad’s anti-PLO
stand during the Black September crisis in Jordan. The Syrian
dictator was shrewd enough to garner the public endorsement of
Saudi Arabia and the tacit agreement of Israel (and America) for
an occupation that would last nearly three decades.
â•… Assad had now made his armed forces a pillar of ‘regional sta-
bility’, through the durable ceasefire on the Golan and the con-
trol he exerted over the various militias in Lebanon. But the
militant faction of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood launched a
terror campaign against the regime and the Alawi community in
1979. The battle in Aleppo went on through most of 1980 and
left some 2,000 dead. The jihadi uprising in Hama was quelled
in March 1982 in an unprecedented bloodbath (estimates of the
toll ranged from 8,000 to 20,000 dead).24
â•… The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, far from weak-
ening Assad, helped him to erase the memory of the Islamist
insurgency and to regain his position as a great Arab champion.
The fact that his army refused to fight Israel until it was forced
to do so (and to concede defeat) was quickly forgotten. The
USSR opened its arsenals to boost the Syria’s defences in what
increasingly resembled a new Cold War. Never had Assad
appeared so powerful, internationally and domestically.
â•… But the president’s health problems, during autumn 1983,
convinced the hot-headed Rifaat al-Assad that he could replace
his older brother. Rifaat had led the Defence Brigades, the
armoured units of the former party militia, during the civil war
of 1979–82 and he believed that such a mass killing justified his
62
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
aspiration for power. In an Alawi community once targeted by

jihadi terrorism, this discourse struck a chord. The Alawi gener-
als nevertheless stood by Hafez al-Assad in March 1984 when
rival tanks, each column bearing the portrait of one of the com-
peting brothers, moved into downtown Damascus.
â•… Rifaat al-Assad, appointed as one of the three ‘vice presi-
dents’, was soon exiled to USSR, after which he chose to settle
ultimately in France. The final crisis of the Syrian Mamluk sys-
tem was over: the despot was re-elected in February 1985 with
99.6 per cent of the vote (compared to 99.2 per cent seven years
before) and the slogan ‘Assad for ever’ became the predictable
theme tune at party rallies. The Syrian dictator was there to stay,
and we shall see in the next chapter how the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait would rejuvenate and reinforce Assad’s regime.
The Never-Ending Liberation Struggle of Algeria
When Algeria gained its independence in the summer of 1962,

we saw how Boumediene’s military apparatus eliminated any
domestic resistance to install Ben Bella as president of the new
Republic. This dictatorial takeover was facilitated by the devas-
tating impact of French colonial repression on nationalist net-
works in Algeria. Nearly 1.7 million French soldiers fought in
Algeria between 1954 and 1962,25 while the FLN guerrillas,
even at the apex of their power in 1958, never exceeded 25,000
combatants.26 The French offensives under Charles de Gaulle’s
presidency (1958–62) destroyed the core of the FLN fighting
force, paving the way for the takeover by the ‘army of the fron-
tiers’, based in Morocco and Tunisia.
â•… In fact, de Gaulle had won the military war against the FLN,
but he knew from his own history, as the leader of the ‘Free
French’ during WWII, that such a victory was meaningless so
long as an overwhelming majority of the Algerian people was in
favour of FLN-led independence. Eventually de Gaulle had to
63
sever ties with Algeria to save the French Republic from the mil-
itarized extreme-right (the ‘French Algeria’ fanatics nearly assas-
sinated the French president in August 1962).
â•… President Ben Bella and Boumediene, his minister of defence,
wrested power from the activists who had made Algerian inde-
pendence possible and from the political leadership who had
negotiated this independence with the French authorities. The
losers of summer 1962 were erased from the official narrative,
where ‘revolution’ was equated to ‘jihad’ and ‘liberation strug-
gle’, and therefore stripped of any other possible revolutionary
dimension. Might was right, since it had created the basic legit-
imacy of the new rulers.
â•… The historical roots of this forced militarization could be
traced back to the Special Organization (OS), created in 1947 by
the nationalist Movement for the Triumph of the Democratic
Liberties (MTLD) in order to prepare an armed uprising. Ben
Bella had been the leader of the OS, before joining the ‘founding
nine’ nucleus of the FLN in 1954. The celebration of the military
struggle in contrast to the illusions of the political game lay at
the core of the anti-French liberation campaign.
â•… Algerian independence could have taken a wholly different
turn if the decisions adopted by the FLN in its Soummam con-
ference, held clandestinely in August 1956, had been imple-
mented. The charismatic leader Abbane Ramdane, nicknamed
‘the architect of the revolution’, had convinced the FLN con-
gressmen that national unity and popular support were key to
achieving independence. He had therefore secured the subordi-
nation of the military to the political wing, as well as the pri-
macy of the domestic leadership over the exiled one.
â•… Ben Bella, at that time exiled in Cairo, had failed to defeat this
line. The Soummam conference had also divided Algeria into six
wilayas (governorates), each with a ‘people’s assembly’ and a
military structure. The fifth wilaya, covering the west of the
country, was officially based in Oran, but practically in the
64
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
Moroccan city of Oujda. It was run by Abdelhafid Boussouf,

aka ‘Si Mabrouk’, a veteran from the OS, who had reached the
rank of colonel (the highest in the Algerian liberation army). In
December 1957 Ramdane was lured into Morocco, where Bous-
souf had him strangled27 (the FLN announced later that Ram-
dane had been killed in combat).
â•… Ramdane’s assassination dealt a fatal blow to the Soummam
vision and platform. People’s assemblies soon disappeared in
insurgent Algeria. Ten years after the launching of the OS, its
anti-civilian ethos had eventually prevailed. As the Algerian
political sociologist Lahouari Addi described it, ‘the OS-driven
dynamics imposed the army as the embodiment of the nation
and the source of political power. This is why the army chief is
potentially the political leader’.28
â•… Boussouf, unchallenged after Ramdane’s murder, consolidated
his brutal grip over the fifth wilaya. His security obsession in an
ever more militarized FLN led him to establish the Algerian gov-
ernment-in-exile (GPRA) intelligence services, known as MLGC,
then MALG (Ministry of Armament and General Liaisons). This
promotion compelled him in 1958 to transfer the leadership of
the fifth wilaya to his deputy, Colonel Houari Boumediene.
â•… The fifth wilaya remained a strong power centre, designated as
the ‘Oujda group’ (or ‘clan’), where Boussouf and Boumediene
could rely on the factional loyalty of ambitious militants like
Abdelaziz Bouteflika (Boumediene’s private secretary) or Ahmed
Medeghri. The promotion of Boussouf to Algerian intelligence
czar preceded Boumediene’s taking control of the whole ‘army of
the frontiers’: the Oujda command structure in Morocco had a
counterpart in the parallel Ghardimaou outfit based in Tunisia.
â•… Boussouf and Boumediene’s clout reinforced each other and
attracted new allegiances. Boussouf sent a ‘Red Carpet’ class of
elite intelligence operatives for training with the KGB29 and
decided to place Kasdi Merbah, one of his most talented recruits,
under Boumediene’s command. Chadli Bendjedid became Bou-
65
mediene’s deputy in Ghardimaou. A few dozen Algerian NCOs

then defected from the colonial forces, often to join Boumedi-
ene’s staff, like Khaled Nezzar. They were called the DAF, the
French acronym for ‘Defectors from the French Army’.
â•… This flashback to some of the murkier episodes of the anti-
French liberation struggle is essential to understanding the
dynamics of the Algerian Mamluks and the resilience of their
power networks: just as the Egyptian ‘Free Officers’ abolished
parliamentary pluralism with their monarchy, the Algerian mas-
ters would, a decade later, liquidate the liberal legacy of the
domestic resistance with the end of French domination.
â•… This ‘new Algeria’ became literally ‘theirs’, since they would
deny any rival’s nationalist credentials. The mythical ‘French
party’ (hizb Fransa) acquired ubiquitous attributes in official
propaganda, with every opponent being accused of membership
of this anti-FLN Fifth Column. The militarization of the libera-
tion struggle (with the subsequent elimination of any dissent) led
to a militarization of independent Algeria, under the one-party
rule of the FLN.
â•… Boussouf rapidly understood that he had been outflanked by
his disciple, Boumediene: he wisely decided to quit politics and
move to the business sector, with a very profitable outcome.30
More generally, a new bourgeoisie embedded in military and
intelligence circles could benefit from properties that had been
abandoned by the Europeans (90 per cent of the French Algerians
fled in 1962). The best real estate and the richest agricultural land
ended up in the hands of Boumediene’s protégés and clients.31
â•… The minister of defence was patiently waiting patiently in the
shadows for President Ben Bella to antagonize wider segments
of the population through his autocratic and erratic style of gov-
ernance. The sole candidate for the presidency, Ben Bella had
been elected with 99.6 per cent of the official vote in September
1963. He was at the same time leading the FLN party and the
government (staffed with ‘Oujda clan’ pillars like Bouteflika in
foreign affairs and Medeghri at the interior).
66
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
â•… Soon after the presidential plebiscite, Ben Bella launched the
‘Sands War’ against Morocco. Mohammad V had agreed with the
GPRA to renegotiate the Saharan borders between Algeria and
Morocco, but Ben Bella had denounced the very idea of such a
discussion. Algeria now stood by the inviolability of the post-
colonial boundaries, which led to an armed conflict in October
1963 over Tindouf (in Algeria) and Figuig (in Morocco). Algeria
was backed by the Egyptian and Cuban militaries, but the Moroc-
can army fared much better in desert combat.
â•… A ceasefire was signed in February 1964, under the auspices
of the Organization for African Unity (OAU), which endorsed
the principle of the inviolability of post-colonial borders. This
symbolic victory cheered Ben Bella, who did not grasp how
much the military blamed him for the misconduct of the war
with Morocco. The FLN congress, held in Algiers in April 1964,
became a showcase for Ben Bella’s hubris.
â•… The president/PM/party chief started to demote senior ministers
from the ‘Oujda clan’ and take up their portfolios. After sacking
Medeghri from his interior post, he turned against Bouteflika at
foreign affairs, a move that would trigger Boumediene’s coup in
June 1965. Chief of staff Colonel Tahar Zbiri arrested the presi-
dent at his residence. The deployment of tanks in the capital was
ironically thought by local residents to be connected to the film-
ing, on that very day, of The Battle of Algiers, a movie directed by
Gillo Pontecorvo and dedicated to the 1957 confrontation
between the French army and the Algerian resistance.
â•… Boumediene went on TV to proclaim the ‘revolutionary recti-
fication’ (redressement). Even though the coup was presented as
bloodless, scores of Ben Bella’s supporters were liquidated in the
following weeks, especially in Annaba. Boumediene established
a 26-member Revolutionary Council, whose presidency he com-
bined with the party leadership and the defence portfolio. The
‘Oujda clan’ controlled the party, while Medeghri recovered full
control of the interior ministry (Bouteflika naturally remained at
foreign affairs).
67
â•… The exclusive hold on power of the ‘Oujda group’ eventually

embittered the main ouster of Ben Bella. The Chief of Staff Zbiri
staged his own coup in December 1967, but he was quickly neu-
tralized and had to flee. Boumediene, who a few weeks later
escaped an attempt on his life, absorbed the position of his chief
of staff into his own defence portfolio, coupled with the presi-
dency and the party leadership. He also decided to give even
more powers to the military intelligence, the former MALG, and
now Sécurité militaire (SM), run by the KGB-trained Kasdi Mer-
bah, one of the historical ‘Boussouf boys’.
â•… The SM extended its tentacles all over the country, infiltrating
the various associations, recruiting potential or active oppo-
nents, and even mounting provocative actions to discredit their
targets. The Offices for Security and Prevention (BSP, in their
French acronym) became the local arms of the SM, spying on
everybody, informing on any activity. Boumediene’s Algeria
became a SM-monitored world, where every citizen knew the
cost of criticism.
â•… The SM was also believed to have carried out the ‘dirty work’
of liquidating dissidents abroad, including some of the FLN
‘founding nine’: Mohammad Khider was gunned down in
Madrid, in January 1967; Krim Belkacem, sentenced to death in
absentia, was strangled with his own tie in Frankfurt, in Octo-
ber 1970. The power of the SM was feared even within the
army, and in the now rival Ministry of the Interior. When Mede-
ghri, who had run it practically since 1962, was found dead at
his home in December 1974, the official version, ‘suicide’, was
widely disputed.32
â•… Boumediene had relied on the SM to get rid of the FLN found-
ing nucleus, and then to dispose of the ‘Oujda clan’ (with the
notable exception of Bouteflika, whose foreign affairs portfolio
kept him away from domestic intrigue). Boumediene was now
the sole and absolute master, a position Nasser achieved only
from 1967 to 1970, and as an unexpected consequence of a
68
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
disastrous war with Israel. Boumediene could bank on seemingly

un-extinguishable hydrocarbon resources that generated colos-
sal revenues after the 1973 oil shock. Agrarian reform and the
industrialization-first strategy were financed by the oil boom in
a Soviet-style planned economy. The political scientist Miriam
Lowi aptly described this process:
This institutional arrangement did away with pluralism, while pro-
viding the illusion of popular incorporation. By controlling the
extension of participation in this way, it protected elite privileges
and Boumediene’s agenda. This was, indeed, an authoritarian
regime aimed at radically reshaping Algerian society and economy
in the absence of political participation.33
â•… This institutional reshaping from above was completed in the

second half of 1976: in June, the ‘National Charter’ enshrined the
monolithic role of the FLN; in November, a referendum approved
a new constitution and the reactivation of the assembly, sus-
pended since the 1965 coup; the following month, Boumediene
was voted in as sole candidate for the presidency of the Republic
with the by now mandatory 99.5 per cent of the ballot.
â•… This constitutional whitewashing, far from reducing Boume-
diene’s powers, consolidated them: the president was also prime
minister, commander in chief of the armed forces and nominal
head of the FLN. Even Assad in Syria had always kept a front
Â€
man at the head of government. But then during an official visit

to Damascus Boumediene was diagnosed with a rare blood dis-
ease that caused his death in December 1978.
â•… A forty-day period official mourning was proclaimed in Alge-
ria, and Rabah Bitat, the only remaining member of the FLN
‘founding nine’, became the interim head of state as president of
the National Assembly. As with Nasser’s sudden death in 1970,
the putative heirs were caught unprepared, with party boss Salah
Yahyaoui and MFA Bouteflika topping the list.
â•… The military leaders settled for a local version of Sadat, Chadli
Bendjedid, whose absence of personal ambition reassured all the
69
‘decision-makers’ (décideurs), an expression that would flourish

later in Algeria. Bendjedid deputised for Boumediene in the
‘army of the frontiers’, took over Constantine from the GPRA
in 1962 and became the docile commander of the Oran military
region from 1964 to 1978.
â•… A colonel, like his departed mentor, Bendjedid was nominated
by the FLN as sole candidate for the presidency. In February
1979, he was voted in but with only 99.4 per cent of the ballots
cast. That he secured 0.1 per cent fewer votes compared to Bou-
mediene’s plebiscite in 1976 might have been intended as a mark
of respect towards the deceased president. Bendjedid kept the
ministry of defence, but appointed a civilian prime minister. Con-
tinuity was the motto but, as happened with Sadat after Nasser,
the new leader would soon strike out in his own direction.
â•… In July 1979, Bendjedid released Ben Bella from jail where he
had been detained since the 1965 coup. The first Algerian pres-
ident was placed under house arrest for one year, before being
allowed to settle in Switzerland. Bouteflika lost his foreign
affairs portfolio to be appointed ‘counsellor’ to the president. In
July 1980, he had to flee the country to avoid a trial for embez-
zlement. The same month, Yahyaoui was ousted from his key
position in the FLN party.
â•… Bendjedid knew that he also had to rein in the SM. The mili-
Â€
tary top brass actively supported him in this neutralization cam-

paign. First, Merbah was replaced by one of his aides,
Noureddine Zerhouni, aka ‘Yazid’, who ran the intelligence ser-
vice until 1982. Then came the era of the generals, since Bendje-
did had decided to upgrade the Boumediene-style ‘colonel’ glass
ceiling. The president soon named General Lakehal Ayat as chief
of the SM.
â•… While the FLN had held no conference during Boumediene’s
presidency, it was now expected that the ruling party would con-
vene every five years to confirm Bendjedid as its candidate (and
therefore the sole one) for the next poll. This was done in 1984,
70
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
with Bendjedid being voted back the following month by the same
99.4 per cent of the ballot, just as in 1979. The president felt
strong enough to pursue his Sadat-like ‘opening’ policy, under-
mining state monopolies in industry and mass distribution.
â•… Such a campaign against the hard core of Boumediene’s profi-
teering networks was much more demanding for Bendjedid than
the political challenges of his previous mandate. He could no lon-
ger tolerate a unified SM and so dismantled it in 1987: army secu-
rity was given to General Mohammad Betchine and stayed in the
broader defence organization scheme; while Ayat remained chief
of an emasculated General Directorate for Prevention and Secu-
rity (DGSP),34 under the direct authority of the president.
â•… By uncoupling the presidency and the prime ministry, Bendje-
did had managed to transform Boumediene’s legacy of a security
state into a less Sovietized monitoring structure. But he was
wary of the intrigues of his subordinate Mamelouks. A military
man by profession, he could trust only a fellow general to han-
dle such a sensitive job. That was the mission assigned in 1986
to Larbi Belkheir, first as secretary general of the presidency,
then as director of the president’s cabinet. The next chapter will
explore how Belkheir eventually sided with the other Mamluk
leaders against his constitutional master.
Yemeni Bipolarity
Imam Yahya had secured the independence of the main part of

Yemen in 1918, while Aden and its hinterland remained a Brit-
ish colony. Sixteen years later, two treaties settled the borders of
the Yemeni kingdom with ‘Occupied Southern Yemen’ and
Saudi Arabia. Fiercely isolationist, adamantly reactionary, Imam
Yahya relied on his genealogical prestige as a religious leader (he
was 65th in a thousand-year line of imams). Half of his 5 million
subjects shared his Zaydi creed, a local offshoot of Shiism, but
only 100,000 aristocrats (sayyid, plural sada) could access eco-
71
nomic or political power. The other half, consisting of Sunni

Yemenis, were thoroughly marginalized.
â•… Imam Yahya nominated his eldest son Ahmad as crown
prince. This move infuriated Prince Ibrahim, another of his four-
teen sons, and led him to join the Free Yemeni movement in
Aden, now calling for constitutional monarchy. In February
1948, Imam Yahya was ambushed near Sanaa along with his
prime minister. The Yemeni king died gallantly at the age of 79,
his body ridden with machine-gun bullets, trying to protect one
of his grandsons.
â•… Crown Prince Ahmad gathered a crowd of tribesmen in Taez,
outraged by the assassination of the Imam. They moved to
Sanaa to besiege and plunder the city associated with such a sac-
rilege. The main plotters were soon executed, while Prince Ibra-
him died in jail of a ‘heart attack’.35 The new Imam Ahmad
chose Taez as his capital. In April 1955 the king suppressed an
attempted coup by one of his brothers, Prince Abdullah, whom
he ordered to be beheaded.
â•… The 1948 and 1955 failed plots were not aiming at toppling
the Imamate, but at reforming it. Things changed dramatically
when the Egyptian Mamluks vowed to fight both ‘colonialism’
in South Yemen and ‘reaction’ in the North. In March 1961,
Imam Ahmad was seriously wounded when trapped in the
Hodeida hospital. Colonel Abdullah Sallal, the Hodeida com-
mander (and an Egyptian agent) was organising the plot, but
escaped the subsequent crackdown.
â•… The Syrian secession from Egypt-led UAR emboldened Imam
Ahmad publicly to defy Nasser. In December 1961, he used a
radio-broadcast poem to vilify those who ‘shout over the micro-
phone with every incongruous voice’.36 The Egyptian propa-
ganda retaliated by calling for revolution in Yemen. When Imam
Ahmad died peacefully in September 1962, the designated heir
and new king, Mohammad al-Badr, was a pro-Egyptian reform-
ist: his reign started with a general amnesty and the nomination
of Abdullah Sallal as chief of staff.
72
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
â•… Imam Badr ruled for only eight days before Sallal toppled
him. Badr was declared dead by the revolutionary propaganda,
but the deposed king, though wounded, had managed to escape
to Saudi Arabia. Sallal soon promoted himself to general, then
field marshal, a meteoric ascension reminiscent of Amer’s
‘career’. Field Marshal Amer indeed visited Sanaa just after the
coup, leaving an Egyptian imprimateur all over the new leader-
ship. A Republic was proclaimed by the Yemeni ‘Free Officers’
who, like their Egyptian mentors a decade earlier, constituted a
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).
â•… Nasser and his allies had needed many years to achieve, in a far
more advanced Egyptian society, what their Yemeni disciples
vowed to complete in just a few weeks. But the Yemeni army was
no match for the wide tribal coalition that soon rose in defence of
the Imamate. So the Egyptian Mamluks had to step in to prevent
their protégés’ collapse. The leadership struggle in Cairo also
favoured the intervention: Amer, challenged by Nasser as com-
mander-in chief, bet on a quick war to consolidate his position,
but once the invasion had started, defeat was the unthinkable
option, which led to a rapid escalation in hostilities.
â•… Sadat, one of Nasser’s closest supporters, was also pushing for
an all-out war, basically to punish Saudi Arabia for supporting
the break-up of the union with Syria.37 Yemen would then
become the main battlefield for the ‘war by proxy’ waged
between Cairo and Riyadh, a fight that Nasser was confident of
winning. By the end of 1962, the Egyptian expeditionary force
numbered 13,000 soldiers but this eventually increased to
70,000 Egyptian military personnel in Yemen.38 Egyptian ‘coun-
sellors’ were now shadowing every Republican official.
â•… The Yemeni Republic was officially recognized by both USSR
and USA. But it controlled only half the country, including
Â€
Sanaa, Taez and Hodeida (the main entry port of entry for Egyp-
tian supplies and reinforcements), while the royalists, strongly
backed by Saudi Arabia, held fast in the northern and eastern
73
highlands. Despite its overwhelming superiority in tanks, artil-

lery and its monopoly over the air force, the Egyptian–Republi-
can camp was not able to win a significant victory. Nor did air
raids on Saudi border towns succeed in dismantling the rear
bases of the royalist insurgency.
â•… Nasser’s visit to Yemen, in April 1964, precipitated the adop-
tion of a new constitution, with a Yemeni Popular Union mimick-
ing the Egyptian ASU. Republican dissidents became increasÂ�ingly
Â€
uneasy with the constant Egyptian interference. Marshal Sallal

had concentrated the presidency, the prime ministership and the
party leadership in his own hands, along with the supreme com-
mand of the armed forces. Beheading was no longer imple-
mented, but firing squads were kept quite active against various
forms of dissent.
â•… In September 1966, a prominent Republican delegation trav-
elled to Cairo to protest against Sallal’s dictatorship. They were
detained by their Egyptian hosts, since the Mamluk ruling tan-
dem was gambling on the total victory of his Yemeni protégé:
Nasser dreamed of extending his protectorate over a British-free
South Yemen, while Amer intensified his offensives in order to
quell the royalist guerrillas.
â•… Poison gas had previously been tested on a small and limited
scale by the Egyptian forces in Yemen, despite their claim to be
using only napalm. But the late 1966 escalation led to several air
raids in which chemical weapons were used, the targets being roy-
alist strongholds that had to be annihilated. The worst poison gas
attack occurred in January 1967, when hundreds were killed in
the Egyptian bombing of Kitaf,39 some 300 km north of Sanaa.
â•… Nasser and Amer were both anxious not to leave the Yemeni
prize to be seized by the other. As we saw above, this power
struggle, and Yemeni shortsightedness, contributed to the disaster
of the ‘Six Day War’. Nasser could then get rid of Amer, but to
do so he had to settle the Yemeni dispute with King Faisal of
Saudi Arabia. An agreement was reached on the withdrawal of
74
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
Egyptian forces from Yemen. The abandoned Sallal turned angrily

against Nasser, but was deposed in a bloodless coup (a rare occur-
rence in Yemen) while visiting Baghdad in November 1967.
â•… The Egyptian retreat played into the hands of the royalist
forces who closed in on Sanaa in the final days of late 1967. The
besieged Republicans, led by Abdurahman al-Iryani, a religious
judge, were now directly supported by the Soviet Union and
adamantly rejected any form of monarchy, even a constitutional
one. Their heroic resistance, celebrated as the ‘Seventy Days Bat-
tle’, succeeded in breaking the siege of the capital city and later
in reopening the vital route to Hodeida. Meanwhile the National
Liberation Front (NFL) had taken over from the British after the
latter’s withdrawal from Aden and ‘South Arabia’.
â•… The Marxist wing of the NFL eliminated its rivals in Aden in
June 1969. This communist breakthrough forced Riyadh to reas-
sess its Yemeni policy: striking a deal with pro-Western Republi-
cans in the north appeared now more important than pushing for
an elusive royalist victory. In July 1970, King Faysal recognized
‘Sheikh’ Iriyani as president of the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR).
The disgruntled Imam Badr left Saudi Arabia for permanent exile
in the United Kingdom. A few months later, South Yemen became
officially a People’s Democratic Republic (PDRY), the only such
affiliate of the Soviet bloc in the Arab world.
â•… For nearly a decade, YAR and PDRY would live their paral-
lel and troubled political existences, with occasional clashes (in
1972 and 1974) and frequent trading of accusations. The two
independent state systems functioned in a disconnected way,
echoing the lack of impact of the North Yemeni civil war on the
decolonization process of South Yemen
â•… In July 1974, Iryani was exiled to Syria after a ‘corrective
movement’, led by Colonel Ibrahim al-Hamdi.40 Iryani would
remain the only civilian president of the YAR. The army coup
Â€
that ousted him was therefore, despite its ‘corrective’ ambition,

different from the takeovers engineered by Assad and Sadat
75
under the same name, since the Syrian and Egyptian ‘correc-
tions’ were basically targeted at military rivals and/or threats.
â•… Prior to 1974, Colonel Hamdi had been deputy to Iryani as
president and commander of the armed forces. He then concen-
trated both civilian and military powers in his own hands.
Hamdi inaugurated the era of the indigenous Mamluks and was,
not unexpectedly, betrayed by his own chief of staff, Ahmad al-
Ghashmi. Since Hamdi was largely popular, his assassination in
October 1977 was never claimed by anyone or by any organisa-
tion. Various versions circulated, involving Saudi agents, or an
ambitious young officer, one Ali Abdullah Saleh, whom
Ghashmi appointed military governor of Taez after the killing.
â•… What Hamdi’s murder did unleash was bloody retribution.
President Ghashmi was killed after only seven months in power,
when a bomb, supposedly carried by a South Yemeni envoy,
exploded in his office. This assassination triggered a coup in
Aden, where Prime Minister Ali Nasir Mohammad toppled and
executed President Salim Rubaï Ali (aka ‘Salmin’). The new
South Yemeni ruler replaced the NLF with a Soviet-style Yemeni
Socialist Party (YSP).
â•… In Sanaa, a four-member presidential council was formed,
including the zealous Major Saleh, and in July 1978, the YAR
parliament elected the 32-year-old as president. Now chief of
staff, the new commander of the armed forces set in motion a
brutal purge of the officer corps. Saleh appointed his own
brother to the top job in the Central Security, the main police
force. He designated the powerful General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar
from his own Sanhan tribe as commander of the first artillery
brigade, positioned in the northern part of Sanaa.
â•… The Sanhan tribe was a minor component of the highland
confederation of Hashid, while the assassinated presidents
Hamdi and Ghashmi belonged to a larger Hashid tribe, the
Hamdan. The Hashid, along with their historic contenders/part-
ners from the Bakil confederation, represented the main powers
76
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
in the Zaydi tribal structure. But Saleh had also developed

enduring connections with the Sunni business class of Taez, first
as key officer on the ‘whisky road’ from Mocha (the main cen-
tre for smuggled alcohol), then as governor of Taez. Local mer-
chants even chartered a plane to fly him to the presidential
palace in 1978.41
â•… So Saleh could bridge the regional and sectarian gap between
the Zaydi highlands and the Sunni midlands. But his main chal-
lenge was to escape the brutal end meted out to his sundry pre-
decessors. The security apparatus was therefore staffed with
relatives, cronies and supporters. And that protection in the mil-
itary hierarchy meant a blank cheque on tax exemption. As Ste-
phen Day, a scholar of Yemeni politics, described it: ‘like the
Zaydi imams of old, president Saleh operated from his base in
Sanaa, while drawing revenues from the high production regions
to the south and west’.42
â•… The echoing coups in Sanaa and Aden in 1978 boded ill for
the destiny of the two parts of Yemen and their leaders. A bor-
der war flared up in 1979, with Marxist guerrilla groups oper-
ating in North Yemen over the next three years. Ali Nasir
Mohammad soon wanted to settle this conflict with Saleh, but
he met strong opposition within the Yemeni Socialist Party
(YSP), led by the ultra-leftist Abdelfattah Ismaïl. The ceasefire
option prevailed only in 1982. Ali Abdullah Saleh, then reas-
sured on his southern flank, organized his own presidential
party, the General Congress of the People (GCP).
â•… Now at peace with its northern half, South Yemen became
increasingly at war with its own self. In January 1986, the pres-
idential security shot dead Abdelfattah Ismaïl and his main allies
inside the very Political Bureau of the ruling YSP. The party and
Â€
the military were split between warring factions that left thou-
sands dead in a devastated Aden. Ali Nasir Mohammad had to
flee to North Yemen with his supporters, while his enemies
nominated Ali Salem al-Bid as head of state.
77
â•… The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) was in a

shambles. Its two central provinces of Abyan and Shabwa were
now marginalised for appearing too favourable to the exiled pres-
ident. The collapse of the Soviet bloc aggravated the crisis even
further within its only Arab satellite state. Ali Abdullah Saleh
knew how to use the South Yemeni dissidents he was protecting
and hosting to ratchet up the pressure on Ali Salem al-Bid.
â•… The North Yemeni president had become an expert at the game
of checks and balances in order to weaken the various contending
centres of power. He had appeased the paramount sheikh of the
Hashid confederation, Abdullah bin Hussein al-Ahmar (who had
dramatically left Sanaa in protest against Hamdi’s presidency), he
had maintained the ‘tribal affairs’ administration (when leftist
South Yemen had vowed to erase tribal identity once and for all),
but he had relied on his own patronage network to guarantee the
loyalty of the security apparatus.
â•… Saleh was also the beneficiary of the Marxist subversion cam-
paign, which led to strong US and Saudi support for him in
response, in line with the anti-Soviet and pro-Islamist covert
action they undertook in Afghanistan. But the North Yemeni
president shrewdly played on the competition between the Mus-
lim Brotherhood in the Sunni midlands and Saudi-inspired Salaf-
ism in the tribal highlands, thereby preventing the dominance of
one specific Islamist trend over the other. He also courted Saddam
Hussein’s favour to avoid being too dependent on Saudi Arabia.
â•… The discovery of oil in Marib province, in 1984, reinforced
Saleh’s power in the years that followed. The North Yemeni
president was clearly in a position of strength when he visited
Aden, in November 1989, and signed an agreement on the uni-
fication of the country with Ali Salem al-Bid. He made sure he
had the final say in the composition of the five-member presi-
dential council (with three members from the North and two
from the South). Saleh also wanted to merge his ruling GCP
with the Yemeni Socialist Party, a revealing sign of his authori-
78
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
tarian vision of politics, though ultimately he had to concede the

principle of party pluralism.
â•… In May 1990, Saleh became the first president of the united
Republic of Yemen, at the age of forty-four, with Ali Salem al-
Bid as his deputy (the prime minister was a Southerner and his
deputy a Northerner). His record in the Yemeni revolution had
been pretty thin, even though he boasted of his participation in
the 1967 ‘Seventy Days’ battle in Sanaa. He had consolidated his
one-man rule through a creative mix of tribal intrigue, military
gambles and international manoeuvres. Unlike his fellow Mam-
luks in Egypt, Syria and Algeria, Saleh had not hijacked the
independence of Yemen, but he had controlled for his sole ben-
efit the unification between North and South.
*
Nasser might have easily passed as a contemporary Baybars. As
always with such celebrated heroes, their alleged achievements
are best assessed from a safe distance. A closer look quickly
reveals how petty and vengeful those brave war commanders
could become during domestic power struggles. Nasser had his
Ayn Jalut moment in 1956, even though it was American power,
and not the Egyptian military, that forced the complete with-
drawal of the Israeli, British and French aggressors. But the
myth of the twentieth-century Baybars, tarnished through the
Syrian secession and the Yemeni quicksands, collapsed after the
rout of the ‘Six Day War’.
â•… There is however one legacy of Baybars that remained a trade-
mark of the modern Mamluks. Routine allegiance to the caliph,
the paying of mere lip service to justify absolute power, was
transformed into the phenomenon of unanimous plebiscites. The
people had no more leverage on the ‘elected’ presidential Mam-
luk than the Abbassid caliph had over his ‘subordinate’ Mamluk
sultan. The caliph lived, heavily guarded, under an unofficial
form of house arrest, a situation comparable to that of the pop-
79
ulations of the newly independent Arab states, who fell under

the intimidating control of the security apparatus.
â•… Modern Mamluk leaders needed the cyclical rite of mass pleb-
iscites to rejuvenate their authority, as an echo of the loyalty
pledged by the sultans of Cairo to the caliph of the day. Prayers
and decisions were pronounced in the name of the powerless
caliph, while contemporary constitutions and parties would
extol the people as the only source of a power in fact monopo-
lized by the Mamluk clique. Even Boumediene, after eleven years
as Algerian president, and Saleh, nine years after the reunifica-
tion of Yemen, felt the need to poll more than 96 per cent of the
vote in carefully staged presidential elections.
â•… Those electoral celebrations were farcical by democratic stan-
dards, but they were crucial for the smooth transition from one
presidential sultan to the other, or to reinvigorate the populist
capital of the ruling Mamluk. This is a fundamental difference
between those Mamluk authoritarian regimes and the aspiring
totalitarian systems established by Moammar Qaddafi in Libya
and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
â•… After his anti-monarchy coup in 1969, Qaddafi had to heed
the views of his fellow Free Officers, gathered in a Nasser-style
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC). But a failed coup
emanating from the very RCC, in 1975, led Qaddafi, two years
later, to change the Libyan Arab Republic into a ‘Jamahiriyya’,
literally a ‘mass-ocracy’. Under the disguise of ‘direct democ-
racy’, parties were abolished, revolutionary committees became
ubiquitous and elections were vilified as an obsolete legacy of a
‘reactionary past’.
â•… Contrary to the Syrian Mamluks, it was as a civilian that Sad-
dam Hussein rose steadily through the hierarchy of the Iraqi
Baath. This party, already a leading force behind the 1963 coup,
assumed a dominant position only five years later. Saddam was
then appointed vice president of Iraq by his distant relative,
Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, head of state as well as of the party, and
the former leader of the Baath military branch.
80
THE MODERN MAMLUKS
â•… In 1979, Saddam forced Bakr to resign from all public posts
because of his ‘poor health’ and concentrated unprecedented
powers in his own hands. But the Iraqi despot was not interested
in staging Mamluk-style electoral celebrations. He waited until
1995 to organize a referendum to endorse his presidency, a rite
echoed in 2002. The 100 per cent positive ‘result’ disclosed a
rationale designed mainly to defy the outside world, since Iraq
was under tight UN sanctions.
â•… In Egypt, in Syria, in Algeria and in Yemen, the disciples of
Baybars had managed to control power and to retain it for
decades, despite recurrent conflicts, intrigues and tensions. The
following chapters will explore how their monopolistic streams
of revenue and their redistribution contributed significantly to
sustaining their regimes. It is however easier to maintain a caliph
under eternal lock and key than perennially to suppress a popu-
lation demanding liberty. The Algerian military would be the
first to be hit by such popular protest and it was they who offer
a way out of this dilemma to their fellow Mamluks: let the peo-
ple or the caliph rot in their not so gilded cages; and never for
one moment fail to fight ballots with bullets.
81
4
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
The democratic uprising that shook the Arab world in early

2011 might have happened two decades earlier. This aborted
‘first wave’ went largely unnoticed as a regional phenomenon in
a world obsessed, at the time, by the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
But the end of the USSR and its empire sent shockwaves through
the Arab regimes: they had often adopted the coercive tech-
niques of the KGB and the political strategies of a one-party
repressive system, no matter how close they were (or were mov-
ing) to the West. (Sadat’s Egypt was the best illustration of this
hysteresis of Soviet-like control, even after the peace was secured
with Israel.)
â•… There was also an onset of biological fatigue in regimes increas-
ingly paralysed by an ageing leadership. ‘President for Life’ Bour-
guiba had become a caricature of his former self, enjoying only a
few hours of lucidity every day. After crushing riots in 1978 and
1984, in which hundreds of protestors were killed, the Tunisian
dictator sought to liquidate the Islamist opposition by sending to
the gallows its most prominent activists.
â•… Prime Minister Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, a police general and
former minister of the interior, staged a ‘medical coup’ on
7 November 1987. The 84-year-old despot was deemed senile
Â€
83
and placed under house arrest. The Tunisian public welcomed

with palpable relief this ‘Jasmine Revolution’; the founding date
of the new regime, 7 November, was celebrated from that
Â€
moment on as the symbol of ‘change’ (echoing Boumediene’s

‘rectification’ of 1965, or Assad’s and Sadat’s ‘corrective’ coups
in 1970–71).
â•… Bourguiba had nipped in the bud other potential Mamluks by
emasculating the army, so the new uniformed ruler came from
the police, rather than from the military. The single party
changed its name (from Socialist Destourian Party/PSD to Con-
stitutional Democratic Rally/RCD), albeit while pursuing its
incestuous relationship with the security apparatus. After a year
and a half of the ‘Tunisian spring’, the opposition in general,
and the Islamists in particular, fell victim to the same vote-rig-
ging and police repression. But Ben Ali had fulfilled the dream
of any dictator: first, absolute power; then visible ‘change’ to
avoid making any substantial concessions.
â•… We saw how King Hussein of Jordan, after thirty-five years on
the throne, had been forced in 1988 to sever his formal ties with
the Palestinian West Bank, annexed to his Kingdom till its occu-
pation by Israel in 1967. This dramatic decision was precipi-
tated by pressure from the intifada that sought the establishment
of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
The monarch succeeded in defusing the Palestinian threat, but
the recognition that Jordan was in fact only Transjordan was a
startling reminder to the Hashemites of what their national proj-
ect really amounted to.
â•… In April 1989, riots erupted in and spread throughout the his-
torically Bedouin parts of Jordan, from Maan to Tafileh, Kerak
and Salt. Triggered by offcuts in government subsidies for basic
commodities, the protest quickly escalated into demands for
official accountability and condemnation of the state corruption.
Instead of sending in the army, King Hussein agreed to hold the
first parliamentary elections since 1967. The vote took place in
84
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
November 1989 and the Muslim Brotherhood gained twenty-

two out of eighty seats (with twelve ‘independent Islamists’
being also elected as MPs).
â•… The Islamist party was thus empowered to select the Speaker of
the House, and a year later the Muslim Brotherhood entered gov-
ernment with five ministerial posts (and two more for ‘indepen-
dent Islamists’), including education, justice and agriculture. This
engagement with the main opposition party ultimately proved
beneficial to King Hussein and the stability of his regime. But the
Jordanian monarch was no Mamluk, so he could afford to usher
in domestic reforms without jeopardizing his legitimacy.
â•… The republican dictatorships had no such room for manoeu-
vre. According to their worldview, democratization, even on a
limited scale, could only ever be a zero-sum game, and they were
far too well aware of their own unpopularity to relish the pros-
pect on winning a free vote. They had escaped political conces-
sions thanks to economic liberalization (Bendjedid in Algeria,
Sadat and Mubarak in Egypt) or through territorial expansion-
ism (via intervention in Lebanon for Assad and unification of
the two Yemens for Saleh). Liberalization and expansion offered
renewed opportunities for redistribution among the ruling elites
and their protégés.
â•… The crumbling of the Soviet system was a terrible blow for the
modern Mamluks. But the main trigger for the aborted ‘first
wave’ of Arab democratization was the 1986 oil counter-shock.
Oil prices fell by half during that year and Algeria—much more
vulnerable than Egypt, Syria or Yemen—was hit the hardest.
Bendjedid, whose initial largesse had been financed on the back
of the 1979 oil shock, was caught offguard, and defenceless.
Algerian GDP growth slowed sharply, before turning negative in
1987 (-1.4 per cent) and 1988 (-2.7 per cent). The informal
economy flourished, especially trabendo, as smuggling is called
in Algeria, while popular protests against state institutions
became increasingly common.
85
From Riots to Ballots
From 5 to 10 October 1988, rioting broke out in the Algeria’s

Â€
major cities, and hundreds of protesters were killed, most of

them in Algiers itself. In the deceptive environment of Mamluk
intrigues, each Algerian clan accused its rival of manipulating
the crisis. Irrespective of who fuelled the flames, the situation
quickly careered out of control. President Bendjedid proclaimed
a state of emergency and General Khaled Nezzar, commander of
the land forces, crushed the uprising with extreme brutality.
â•… The Algerian military treated its fellow citizens with a feroc-
ity akin to that deployed by a force of occupation. Tanks
roamed urban centres, heavy machine-guns were fired at protest
marchers and torture was widespread. Islamist leaders were
called in to appease the demonstrators, yet crowds who gathered
near militant mosques were harassed by the military. The imme-
diate effect of these planned or unintended provocations was to
enhance the political aura of Islamist dissent.
â•… Bendjedid placed the blame on the political branch (DGPS) of
the former Military Security (SM) and sacked its chief, General
Ayat. Meanwhile Nezzar, the main architect of the ‘iron fist’
crackdown, was promoted to the resurrected position of Chief
of Staff of the armed forces, a position that Boumediene had
abolished in 1967 after an attempted coup. This restructuring of
the top military hierarchy led to the retirement of most of the
generals from the ‘1954 generation’ who were associated with
the anti-colonial liberation struggle against France. Bendjedid
felt protected by ‘his’ two loyal generals, Belkheir (his right hand
man at the presidency, who sat at the hub of political intrigue)
and Nezzar (head of the armed forces), and he moved forcefully
towards democratizing political détente.
â•… Following the rites of the two previous presidential elections,
a conference of the ruling FLN party endorsed Bendjedid as its
sole candidate in December 1988, before the president was re-
elected with 93.3 per cent of the vote (a marginal, but significant
86
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
dip compared with the previous 99.4 per cent). Far more impor-
tant was the constitutional referendum of February 1989: the
1976 reference to the ‘socialist’ state and to the FLN one-party
system was abolished, while the independence of the judiciary
was guaranteed. In the following months, clandestine parties
were authorized (like Hocine Aït Ahmed’s FFS ‘front’ or Ben
Bella’s MDA ‘movement’) and an Islamist party, the Front for
Islamic Salvation (FIS in its French acronym), was legalized.
â•… The vibrant populism of the ‘old’ FLN was reinvigorated in
the ‘new’ FIS, with the same emphasis on an ideally monolithic
Algerian community, cemented now by Islam more than by
nationalism.1 The FIS’s celebration of private business struck
deeper chords with the Algerian public than the obsolete ‘indus-
trialization first’ slogans of the FLN. The popular rejection of
Â€
bureaucratic corruption was such that the FIS emerged as a clear

winner from the local elections of June 1990, with twice as
many votes as the FLN (54 per cent against 28 per cent).
â•… This landslide victory convinced Bendjedid that the reformist
option was the only route out of confrontation. In July 1990 he
became the first Algerian president in twenty-five years to relin-
quish the defence portfolio, assigned to General Nezzar, while
General Abdelmalek Guenaizia, chief of the air force, was pro-
moted to chief of staff.
â•… However, the desire to ‘civilize’ the top state hierarchy was
tarnished with the promotion of Nezzar, the main executioner
of ‘Black October’ 1988. In the same ambiguous spirit, the dis-
solution of the DGPS was supposed to close the story of the
ubiquitous SM, but the military soon reconstituted a DRS2
(Department of Intelligence and Security), under Colonel
Mohammad Mediene (aka Tewfik).
â•… Parliamentary elections were scheduled for 27 June 1991, but
Â€
the FLN-staffed National Assembly passed a gerrymandering

law, with up to ten times fewer votes needed to elect an MP in a
pro-FLN constituency than in a pro-FIS one. The Islamist party
87
retaliated by launching a national strike on 25 May until the

Â€
electoral law was repealed. Four days later, the government

agreed to allow FIS militants to occupy peacefully designated
public squares. Yet incidents and provocations escalated: Nez-
zar moved 10,000 soldiers and 200 tanks into Algiers, with
Bendjedid proclaiming a state of siege.
â•… As in October 1988, the army was once again in charge of
internal security. The government promised ‘free and fair’ elec-
tions, but postponed them to December 1991. General Belkheir
exited the presidency, where he was Bendjedid’s director of the
cabinet, to become minister of the interior. He was too intimate
with Nezzar to even try to counterbalance the swing of the pen-
dulum towards military repression. The newly promoted Gen-
eral Mediene fully restored the aggressiveness of the Military
Security (SM) into his revamped Department of Intelligence and
Security (DRS).
â•… In July 1991, the top leadership of the FIS was arrested for hav-
ing planned an ‘insurrectionary strike’. When the state of siege
was lifted, in September, hundreds of Islamist militants had been
detained, with special camps to hold them set up in the Sahara.
This intense repression triggered a fierce internal debate within
the FIS, but the supporters of the political boycott lost the battle
and their party agreed to run in the parliamentary elections.
â•… The first round was held on 26 December 1991 and FIS
Â€
reaped 47.5 per cent of the votes. There would be no second

round: outraged by Bendjedid’s readiness to share power with
an Islamist-led government, Nezzar led a group of generals into
the president’s office and forced him to resign. A civilian front,
a five-member ‘Higher State Council’, was established as cover
for the military coup. A State of Emergency would become the
norm over the next two decades.
â•… The parallel with Ben Bella’s ‘rectification’ and with the col-
lapse of the Soviet Union is enlightening. As in 1965, the Algerian
president was toppled by a minister of defence he trusted enough
88
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
to appoint as his senior ally. But Boumediene’s coup was a per-

sonal venture in pursuit of personal glory, while Nezzar moved as
the senior leader of a collective ‘decision-making’ body. Ben Bel-
la’s ousting was a sequel to the power struggle of summer 1962
and completed the elimination of the FLN’s founders, while Bend-
jedid’s overthrow aborted the multi-party transition and signalled
a return to the previous rules of the game.
â•… Nezzar and his associates scorned Bendjedid as a dangerous
Algerian version of Gorbachev, an elite member of a system
who was bound to destroy it while pretending to ‘reform’ it. The
Â€
Algerian top brass, convinced they were the guardians of the

supreme interests of the nation, considered Bendjedid as a mere
traitor and congratulated themselves on their clemency in sparing
his life. No significant voice to defend Bendjedid emerged from
within the military apparatus. Three decades after Algerian inde-
pendence (won by FLN politicians, despite the defeat of the
Â�‘liberation army’), the Algerian Mamluks were now bracing them-
selves for a fully-fledged war. And this is exactly what they got.
The New World Order
The Algerian crisis was closely monitored by the Arab autocrats,

more anxiously in Syria than in Egypt. Mubarak, the sole candi-
date, had been re-elected in 1987 for a second six-year mandate
with 97 per cent of the vote. And in 1989, the Egyptian presi-
dent had dismissed his far too popular minister of defence, Field
Marshal Abu Ghazala, who quietly accepted his marginaliza-
tion. More than a billion dollars of American military aid was
allocated each year to the Egyptian armed forces, with a wide
range of business investments now open to any member of the
officer corps.
â•… Hafez al-Assad was not worried by the loyalty of his military,
but rather by the crumbling of the Soviet empire, which was
eroding his international position, only years after he had
89
boasted of soon attaining ‘strategic parity’ with Israel.3 His

hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood remained profound and he
forced King Hussein to apologize publicly, in 1985, for Jorda-
nian support of the Islamist uprising in Syria. Now Assad had to
endure the Brotherhood’s electoral victory in Jordan, where
Prime Minister Mudar Badran was ready to include Islamist
ministers in key positions. (In 1981, Syrian intelligence had tried
to assassinate him.)4
â•… However, Assad could enjoy the fulfilment of his Lebanese
dream with the signing of the Taif Agreement in Saudi Arabia, in
October 1989, and its endorsement by the Lebanese parliament
the following month. Lakhdar Brahimi, the Algerian mediator
who had conceived ‘Taif’, had enshrined Syrian guardianship over
Lebanon. The Saudi kingdom blessed this formula because it
enhanced the position of the Sunni prime minister, now responsi-
ble to parliament, while he used formerly to be accountable only
to the Christian Maronite president of the Republic.
â•… The first Christian president elected under the Taif formula,
René Moawad, was killed in a bomb attack after only seventeen
days in office. His successor, Elias Hrawi, was far more docile
towards Syria (the parliamentary session that elected him was
held in the Lebanese city of Chtaura, only a few km from the
Syrian border). The same MPs approved the appointment of
Selim Hoss, a Sunni veteran politician, as the new prime minis-
ter. But the Maronite General Michel Aoun, who had declared
the ‘war of liberation’ against Syria in March 1989, continued
to cling on as prime minister.
â•… Assad waited for the most opportune moment to strike a fatal
blow at Lebanese resistance to Syria. His arch-enemy Saddam
Hussein facilitated such a move when Iraq invaded Kuwait and
annexed it in August 1990. The panicked Saud family turned to
George H. W. Bush for immediate assistance and demanded the
Â€
deployment of American troops, soon to reach a six-figure num-

ber in the Arabian Peninsula. Nonetheless, Washington needed
90
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
credible Arab partners to join the anti-Saddam coalition. Egypt

and Syria topped the US wish list and Mubarak joined the fray
with something approaching alacrity: his armed forces had not
fought a foreign enemy since 1973 and a new generation of
Â�officers craved for combat experience in order to burnish their
prestige. The Egyptian president also hoped to become the
benevolent patron of Gulf security, finally erasing the disastrous
legacy of Nasser’s Yemen war.
â•… Assad had much more to gain in terms of Saudi largesse and
post-Soviet realignment. But, always shrewd and patient, he let
the Bush administration up the ante. In October 1990, Washing-
ton tacitly approved Syrian intervention in Christian Beirut,
where the Maronite stronghold of Aoun’s followers was overrun
(the defeated general took refuge in the French embassy, the
only Western country to condemn the Syrian invasion).
â•… Both Mubarak and Assad knew full well that their population,
as in every Arab country beyond the Gulf, was supporting Sad-
dam’s vibrant attacks against Israel, America and its royal proté-
gés. The Egyptian and Syrian despots could afford blatantly to
ignore public opinion. But their fellow Mamluk, Ali Abdullah
Saleh, was too new at the command of a unified Yemen to swim
against the popular wave of pro-Iraqi solidarity.
â•… The same happened with King Hussein of Jordan: East Bank-
ers had prospered from the trade and smuggling with Iraq dur-
ing its war against Iran (1980–88) and Palestinians were
fascinated by the ‘new Saladin’ who dared to strike Israel with
SCUD missiles. ‘No East, no West, Iraq is best’, ‘Israel is a can-
cer, SCUD is the answer’ were some of the slogans painted in
downtown Amman in support of Saddam (in English, so the
Western press would get the message).
â•… The Muslim Brotherhood was also swept away by this power-
ful undercurrent. The Islamist leadership had to choose between
its financial backers (in the Gulf) and its popular supporters (on
the Arab street). The Brotherhood opted for the latter (and con-
91
demned the US deployment in Saudi Arabia), while trying to

appease the former (opposing the annexation of Kuwait). This
position infuriated the Saudis, who felt betrayed after so many
decades of generous support for the Muslim Brothers.
â•… Saudi Arabia was not slow in retaliating against the Brother-
hood, cutting its stipends, expelling its cadres from their official
positions, and even from the Kingdom. The downgraded Broth-
ers were replaced by loyalist Salafis, also described as ‘quietist’
or ‘scientific’, who preached allegiance to the Saudi throne. A
radical minority condemned both Salafi blind conformity and
the Brotherhood’s populist tendencies. This minority called for
jihad against Saddam and America, until its most vocal leader,
Usama Bin Laden, had to leave Saudi Arabia.
â•… The closing months of 1990 saw a clear differentiation,
throughout the Saudi–Iraqi crisis, between the three trends of
‘Islamist’ Brotherhood, ‘Salafi’ conservatism and ‘jihadi’ extrem-
ism. In January 1991, the US-led coalition launched a devastat-
ing air campaign against Iraq and in the final days of the
following month a mass land offensive wiped out the Iraqi
defences and liberated Kuwait.
â•… The Iraqi opposition believed the moment was ripe to rise
against Saddam’s regime. In March 1991, most of the Kurdish
north and the nine Shia-majority governorates, south of Bagh-
dad, fell to armed insurgents. Entire military units defected in
defiance of the defeated autocrat.5 But the Bush administration
did not want revolutionary change in the Middle East, so the US
army stood aside while the remnants of Saddam’s forces quelled
the Iraqi resistance. The ‘new Saladin’ killed tens of thousands
of Iraqis to restore its absolute power, and the aborted uprising
was officially called ‘the page of betrayal and treason’.6
â•… Washington abandoned the Iraqi rebels, even though it would
have supported an anti-Saddam coup.7 Strict UN sanctions were
imposed on Iraq, leaving Saddam a free hand on his domestic
front, but boxing him in within his country’s borders. Saudi Ara-
92
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
bia was perfectly happy with the liberation of Kuwait, since it

feared Iranian influence in post-Saddam Iraq. The Egyptian and
Syrian Mamluks had been lavishly rewarded for their contribu-
tion to the US-led Coalition, and they could use Saddam as an
ideal bogeyman to keep pumping financial support from the Gulf.
â•… The Iraqi dictator was therefore spared, but his Arab allies
were severely punished by the Gulf countries. Hundreds of thou-
sands of Yemeni and Jordanian nationals were expelled from
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The com-
bined effect of this mass repatriation and the loss of remittances
was serious for the already fragile economies of Jordan and
Yemen. This compelled King Hussein and Ali Abdullah Saleh to
foster consensus amid such a volatile political and economic
environment (the Yemeni constitution of May 1991 guaranteed
free elections and a multi-party system, even though the first
pluralistic elections would be held only two years later).
â•… Meanwhile America’s leaders felt the clock was ticking for the
USSR and therefore worked to establish a post-Soviet ‘new
world order’. The Middle East seemed, after the forceful libera-
tion of Kuwait, the best region to promote such a US-inspired
‘order’. This paved the way for the October 1991 Madrid Peace
Conference involving Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (along
with a Palestinian delegation under the Jordanian flag). George
H. W. Bush courteously invited Mikhail Gorbachev to join him
Â€
as a co-sponsor of the event, even though the Soviet Union

would disintegrate soon afterwards.
â•… Madrid was a failure in terms of the ‘peace process’ and there
was no breakthrough in the parallel talks that were held. Still, it
consolidated US leadership in the Middle East. Jordan was
then absolved from its pro-Saddam transgressions, thanks to its
Â€
peace option with Israel and its containment of Palestinian

nationalism. And Syria was strongly committed to a Pax Amer-
icana that would jeopardize neither its alliance with Moscow or
with Tehran.
93
â•… Ali Abdullah Saleh’s rehabilitation took much longer and he

had to endure the lasting resentment of the Saudi royal family.
On top of that, a unified Yemen presented a strategic threat as
far as Saudi officials were concerned, which is why they dis-
creetly assisted the Southern secessionist movement that pro-
claimed a Democratic Republic of Yemen (DRY) in Aden, in
May 1994. Washington condemned the split, so Riyadh had to
keep a low profile, letting the DRY collapse after a few weeks.
In October, Saleh was elected president through a parliamentary
vote in a still deeply divided country.
â•… The ‘first wave’ of the Arab quest for democracy struck the
Algerian regime at its very core, but it had been absorbed within
the broader Middle East by the Kuwait crisis and its aftermath.
Egyptian Mamluks, and their Syrian equivalents even more so,
had benefited from the confrontation where they served as mer-
cenaries of the Gulf countries, under US leadership. This episode
proved how the classical oil dividend could be multiplied by the
geopolitical bounty attached to the ‘new world order’. It would
take ten more years for the Algerian and Yemeni Mamluks to
find their own way to plug directly into those resources.
The Generals’ War
The Algerian top brass closely scrutinized Washington’s passiv-

ity as Saddam Hussein quelled the March 1991 Iraqi uprising by
means of a terrible bloodbath. They became convinced that the
now sole superpower was far more interested in stability, even
in its ‘iron fist’ version, than in democracy, especially if this
opened the gates to Islamist unpredictability. It was crucial for
the Algerian military to rely on, at least, the benign neglect of
America, now that USSR was disappearing from the scene.
â•… The generals who toppled Bendjedid in January 1992 also
paid close attention to the French reaction. Some key actors in
the coup, like Nezzar or Belkheir, had started their careers as
94
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
NCOs in the colonial forces before defecting to the FLN, where

they were known as DAF (‘Defectors from the French Army’).
During the power struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, they had to
claim and reclaim their nationalist credentials and to join the
fray against the mythical ‘French party’ (hizb Fransa).
â•… On the opposite shore of the Mediterranean, French politi-
cians laboured under a severe guilt complex towards Algeria for
decades, given the horrendous toll of its ‘liberation war’. Fran-
çois Mitterrand, elected President in 1981, struck a major gas
deal with Chadli Bendjedid the following year: the French gov-
ernment would pay an additional 14 per cent on top of the going
market price as a substantial contribution to Algerian develop-
ment.8 But the French negotiating team discovered that their
Algerian counterparts were less interested in development issues
than in securing the rulers’ grasp over this new income stream.9
â•… The aura of ‘socialist Algeria’ therefore faded in the eyes of
the socialist French president. He knew too well how any clear-
cut statement about the post-1988 crisis would be rejected as
intolerable interference from the former colonial power. So,
when asked in a press conference about Bendjedid’s overthrow,
Mitterrand was careful to describe such a ‘resignation’ as a
‘rather unusual act’. After having solemnly recalled his respect
for Algerian sovereignty, he advised ‘the Algerian leaders’ to
‘resume the necessary democratization, for which free elections
are a prerequisite’.10
â•… This comment, no matter how cautiously expressed, was
received by the Algerian military with self-righteous fury. The
official propaganda machine turned this isolated quote from
Mitterrand into a whole volume of arguments depicting the FIS
as the sinister creation of French neo-colonialism with, of
course, the army as the brave defender of Algerian indepen-
dence. This revamping of the ‘liberation struggle’ narrative
might have appeared far-fetched, but it was soon echoed
throughout the government-controlled media.
95
â•… Nezzar was no Boumediene. In true Mamluk style, he believed

the supreme interests of the Algerian state were best served when
equated with the vision of the top brass and the preservation of
its corporative interests. Bendjedid’s sacking was not the open-
ing act of a personal dictatorship, but the result of a collective
initiative endorsed by the decision-makers, the ominous déci-
deurs whose shadow loomed over Algeria as it bled throughout
its new civil war.
â•… Many lists of the so-called decision-makers circulated and
they were all probably accurate, since this amorphous entity was
not a structured body, but rather a coalition of major power-
brokers (and warlords fighting against a significant proportion
of their fellow citizens, whom they branded as ‘terrorists’). But
it is fair to assume that the January 1992 nucleus comprised the
following generals: ministers Nezzar (defence) and Belkheir
(interior), chief of staff Guenaizia, DRS chief Mediene, land
forces chief Mohammad Lamari, and gendarmerie chief Ben
Abbès Ghezaiel.
â•… We have seen that these discreet ‘decision-makers’ had chosen
a collective front leadership, the Higher State Council (HCE), to
be publicly charged with executive power in the coming two
years. In order to buttress the nationalist legitimacy of this HCE,
the military ‘decision-makers’ brought back Mohammad
Boudiaf (one of the FLN ‘founding nine’) from his twenty-eight-
year exile. Boudiaf, as chair of the HCE, was officially the Alge-
rian head of state, but he had absolutely no leverage over the
real power centres.
â•… In February 1992, the State of Emergency was reinforced,
soon leading to the dissolution of the FIS (as a party) and of the
Islamist-led municipalities. Dozens of protesters were killed after
Friday prayers. Thousands of opponents were detained, some-
times transferred to the Sahara relegation camps, while an
increasing number of ‘suspects’ went missing. Boudiaf might
have believed (rightly) that this devastating repression was only
96
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
fuelling the radical insurgency. Anyway, he was killed in June by

one of his bodyguards, during a political rally at Annaba.
â•… Boudiaf’s assassin, a junior officer with controversial links to
the DRS, was first portrayed as an Islamist ‘lone wolf’, before
the investigation revealed major breaches in presidential secu-
rity. The real mastermind behind the Annaba murder was never
uncovered, but this drama proved how Mamluk-fuelled violence
would not spare any quarter. Boudiaf’s successor as HCE chair
was the innocuous Ali Kafi, a former colonel in the anti-French
guerrilla forces, turned ambassador after 1962, and now secre-
tary general of the veterans’ organization, a stronghold of FLN
orthodoxy and patronage.
â•… During spring 1992, the military announced ‘the dismantling
of two-thirds of the subversive groups’.11 The FIS had indeed
suffered terrible blows (its two leaders, Abassi Madani and Ali
Benhadj, received twelve-year sentences from a military tribu-
nal). But the FIS was vulnerable because of its legalist approach,
while close-knit jihadi groups, each with its own commander/
émir, had prepared for a confrontation that they deemed inevi-
table. Those jihadi organizations eventually formed the loose
coalition of the Islamic Armed Group (GIA).12
â•… An unprecedented escalation of violence occurred in 1993 and
1994, with up to 500 people killed each week. A special anti-guer-
rilla corps was set up based on elite units drawn from the army,
gendarmerie and police, with an initial force of 15,000 members,
soon to be quadrupled.13 The shadow of the hooded ‘Ninjas’, as
the police commandos were nicknamed, loomed over the country.
Militias were formed initially for self-defence, then to assist the
military against the insurgency, in an ominous re-enactment of the
French-led harkis (auxiliaries) against the FLN. Communal
Â€
guards were recruited en masse to patrol and safeguard urban

centres, once the military had ‘cleared’ them of ‘terrorists’.
â•… The Algerian Mamluks wanted nothing less than the ‘eradica-
tion’, as they declared, of the so-called ‘terrorists’, a catch-all
97
category that amalgamated Islamist and jihadi activists, but also

secular opponents of the military junta. Diplomatic relations
were severed with Iran, and with Sudan, accused of supporting
terrorism in Algeria. But the expectations of a quick and defini-
tive victory in spring 1992 had faded away. The need to adapt
to a sustained war forced the ‘decision-makers’ to a major
reshuffle of their power structure in July 1993.
â•… Nezzar left the defence portfolio to a fellow general, Lamine
Zeroual, who had been marginalized since 1990. Since Zeroual
had no personal constituency within the armed forces, Nezzar
retained substantial power from behind the scenes even though
he was ‘off duty’. Mohammad Lamari became chief of staff,
while Guenaizia was exiled to the Algerian embassy in Switzer-
land. Mediene’s deputy at the DRS, Colonel Smaïn Lamari, was
promoted to general as a sign of the major role played by mili-
tary intelligence in the conflict.
â•… Kasdi Merbah, who had run the Military Security (SM, now
DRS) under Boumediene, had acquired the status of ‘godfather’
in the intelligence underworld. His killing in an eastern suburb
of Algiers, in August 1993, left Algerians stricken, no matter
how prepared for the worst they were since Boudiaf’s assassina-
tion. Merbah’s son, brother and driver were shot dead in the
same ambush, which the authorities blamed on the GIA. The Â€
FIS, on the contrary, accused the regime itself of this murder.

â•… In January 1994, Zeroual succeeded Kafi as HCE chair. His
conciliatory tone appeased the outside world, while the violence
in Algeria continued unabated. This time, Belkheir opted for a
golden exile in Switzerland, where his friend Guenaizia was
already ambassador. The new minister of the interior, Meziane
Cherif, was a civilian, but a fanatical ‘eradicator’. Nezzar kept
pulling many of the strings from the wings.
â•… The GIA had five successive commanders during those two
years. Some émirs were killed in combat, others were purged or
disappeared in murky circumstances. Rival Islamist groups
98
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
accused the military, and especially the DRS, of manipulating

and infiltrating the GIA in order to divide, radicalize and isolate
the insurgency.14 French-speaking professionals and intellectuals
became routine targets for GIA killings, before the jihadi com-
mandos started attacking foreigners as well.
â•… By the end of 1994, estimates circulated that about 40,000
people had been killed in nearly three years of civil war. The
military repression, far from containing the guerrilla forces, had
boosted them from 2,000 fighters in 1992 to 22,000 in 1993
and 40,000 in 1994, when the FIS, tired of waiting for a politi-
cal breakthrough, launched its own armed wing, the Islamic Sal-
vation Army (AIS). Such human devastation led the main
political parties to gather on neutral territory in Rome to discuss
a way out of the crisis.
â•… The talks, held under the auspices of the Sant’Egidio Catholic
community, prepared the adoption, in January 1995, of a ‘plat-
form for a political and peaceful solution’. The FLN had, signif-
icantly, joined forces with the FFS and the FIS (along with Ben
Bella’s MDA and other smaller groups) on that occasion. But the
Algerian Mamluks, now fully dissociated from the FLN, refused
any ‘political solution’ that would turn back the clock to the
1991 electoral logic.
â•… The military junta set the stage for a radical revamping of the
political scene. First, an alleged attempted breakout from the
Serkadji prison, in February 1995, was treated as a ‘mutiny’ and
savagely dealt with by the authorities: more than a hundred
detainees were killed, including many FIS officials. Second,
Mahfoudh Nahnah, a reformed Muslim Brother who had
always distanced himself from the FIS, launched his Movement
of Society for Peace (MSP, or Hamas in its Arab acronym).
â•… Finally, presidential elections were scheduled for November
1995. The FLN, FIS and FFS, in line with their Sant’Egidio plat-
form, called for a boycott. But the turnout was impressive, even
if it was far below the official 71 per cent: war fatigue had
99
driven the population to the polls, in the hope of halting the

disaster. On election day, some 350,000 military personnel were
deployed15 (to control slightly fewer than 30 million Algerians).
Zeroual won with 61 per cent of the vote, against 25 per cent
for Nahnah, who had attracted a significant chunk of the former
FIS’s electoral support.
â•… The new president could now impose a ‘national dialogue’ on
his own terms. The FIS, still illegal, remained excluded, but the
FLN and the FFS were invited in to the political fold. Zeroual’s
political adviser, Ahmed Ouyahia, became his first prime minis-
ter of the new era. In November 1996, amendments to the
seven-year-old constitution were approved by referendum: the
Berber identity of Algeria was enshrined alongside to the Arab
and Islamic one; any religion-based party was banned; and the
president could run for only two terms of office.
â•… Parliamentary elections were held in June 1997 and a new
presidential party, the National Democratic Rally (RND), was
established a few months before the vote. The state machine
fully backed the RND, which won 156 of the 380 seats (69 for
the MSP, 62 for the FLN and 20 for the FFS). Pro-regime ana-
lysts hailed the fact that the system was so pluralistic that the
ruling party had not reached a clear-cut majority. But others
underlined the de-legitimization of those parties that had domi-
nated the 1991 elections, and were now banned (FIS) or margin-
alized (FLN and FFS).
â•… From that moment on, official figures about electoral turnout
had very little to do with the actual reality, but became mile-
stones to calibrate the relative importance of the various elec-
tions. Since the official turnout for the presidential vote in 1995
was 71 per cent, the one set for the 1997 parliamentary contest
was 65 per cent (with unofficial estimates around 45 per cent,
and only 36 per cent in Algiers). European observers denounced
various irregularities, even though the Arab League team com-
plimented the Algerian authorities.
100
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
â•… This institutional updating took place against the background

of a horrendous wave of mass killings (punctuated by bomb
explosions in urban centres). Some 4,000 civilians were killed in
1997 in a series of attacks against defenceless localities where
many were mercilessly butchered. The climax of horror was
reached at Bentalha, in late September, and at Relizane, at the
end of December, with hundreds of innocent people massacred
in each place. These crimes were mainly attributed to the GIA,
its internal purges, the all-out war declared against the rival AIS,
and the terror spiral unleashed against any kind of dissent.16
â•… Others accused the military of passive complicity (especially
in greater Algiers) at the least, and at the worst of waging a
‘dirty war’ against the population itself,17 in order to ‘eradicate’
not only the Islamist networks, but also their political base. For-
eign human rights NGOs called for an international investiga-
tion into the massacres. Amnesty International estimated that
around 80,000 people had been killed during the six years of the
crisis, accusing security forces and pro-government militias as
well as ‘Islamic groups’.18
â•… This descent into hell certainly broke the backbone of the
insurgency. In September 1997, the AIS accepted a ceasefire.
One year later, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat
(GSPC) pledged to fight only the security forces and seceded
from the GIA, then downsized to only a shadow of its former
self. Massacres were still frequent, but their scale was smaller in
1998 than in 1997. The military had seemingly abandoned the
folly of ‘eradication’ and seemed ready to tolerate a measure of
‘residual terrorism’ (after General Smaïn Lamari, the DRS dep-
uty chief, had conducted secret talks with the AIS).19
â•… This reality check dealt a fatal blow to Zeroual’s power. An
unprecedented press campaign targeted the president’s military
adviser, Mohammad Betchine, a former intelligence general,
forcing him to resign. The head of state, whose mandate ended
only in late 2000, had to concede defeat: Zeroual announced his
101
withdrawal and set anticipated elections for early 1999. Such an

aborted experience reopened old wounds inside the Mamluk
camp. After years of dealing in a consensual way with the worst
crisis of independent Algeria, the top brass appeared more con-
fused than divided.
â•… The three pillars of the system (Mohammad Lamari as chief
of staff, ‘Tewfik’ Mediene as DRS chief and Ghezaiel as gendar-
merie chief until 1997) agreed to let one of their fellow plotters,
the Swiss-based Belkheir, design an exit formula. With Zeroual
now out of the game, the option of a retired general was no lon-
ger valid. But Belkheir, unable to think outside the Mamluk
frame, rewound the tape of the power struggles of the previous
decades. He stopped at year 1980, when Bendjedid had pushed
Bouteflika into exile.
â•… Boumediene’s minister of foreign affairs had been living in
Abu Dhabi for most of those eighteen years. Belkheir convinced
the military ‘decision-makers’ that Bouteflika was the best
choice, at least by default: he would let them run the country
while rejuvenating some of the international prestige of 1970s
Algeria. The fact that Bouteflika could be considered a ‘new’
man was a startling indication of how fossilized the Mamluk
vision had become through years of security intrigue and coun-
ter-insurgency planning.
â•… But the main actor of the 1992 coup, retired General Nezzar,
remained strongly prejudiced against Bouteflika. He accused
him of opportunism and cowardice, calling him a nag (canas-
son).20 Nezzar claimed that Bouteflika had coveted the presi-
dency in 1994 throughout his private meetings with the military
‘decision-makers’, but that he had finally dropped out for fear
of an Islamist victory in the civil war.21 Belkheir tried to appease
Nezzar, to no avail. The Bouteflika operation went ahead as
planned and the side-lined Nezzar continued to vent his frustra-
tion to the media.
â•… In December 1998, Bouteflika declared he was running as an
‘independent’ candidate for the presidential race. The state
102
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
mobilization on his behalf was so blatant that the six other can-
didates withdrew before the April 1999 vote. But the regime
insisted on still submitting their ballots, along with Bouteflika’s,
to the Algerian electorate. In this unique situation, Bouteflika
romped home with 73 per cent of the votes cast against six chal-
lengers who refused to have their votes counted.
â•… The most revealing dimension in such a bizarre contest was
the 12.5 per cent votes that went in favour of Ahmed Taleb
Ibrahimi. Not only had this veteran minister of Boumediene and
Bendjedid refused to run, like the other five opponents; but he
had kept accusing the military intelligence (DRS, former SM) of
various crimes, while reaching out to the militants of the banned
FIS. Thus a highly symbolic vote had been cast in defiance of the
Â€
military’s ‘Islamist terrorism’ narrative.

â•… Official participation was set at 60 per cent, but the real turn-
out was closer to the disturbing figure of 23 per cent.22 This was
not the most promising début for the ‘independent’ head of
state. Bouteflika therefore decided to play it safe and appointed
as his cabinet head the very same Belkheir who had occupied
that position under Bendjedid. A civilian outsider in this Mam-
luk world, the Algerian president now had to bring the war to a
close without upsetting his military kingmakers.
Bouteflika’s Reconciliation
The new president enjoyed a very personal revenge when he was

sworn in just after his frustrating plebiscite. Amar Benaouna, the
chief of protocol who bestowed upon him the insignia of the
supreme rank of the Algerian Republic, had chaired in 1980 the
FLN investigation committee that had charged Bouteflika with
embezzlement and subsequently expelled him from the party.
Benaouna could only now cry publicly when honouring the new
head of state. But while the regime old guard was settling its
accounts, Algeria remained engulfed in violence and despair.
103
â•… In June 1999 Bouteflika mentioned in a press conference a

death toll of more than 100,000 in the course of the civil war.23
Not a day passed without fresh casualties. Relatives of the ‘miss-
ing’, the colloquial designation for those citizens abducted by
the security apparatus, kept demanding even a modicum of truth
(5,000 missing citizens was the conservative estimate). The FIS
military and political wings were calling for the implementation
of (secret) agreements accepted by the Algerian regime.
â•… Bouteflika dramatically ordered the release of more than
2,000 political detainees on 5 July 1999, Independence Day.
Â€
Two months later, a referendum was held on one question: ‘Do

you support the President’s general approach to achieve peace
and civilian reconciliation?’ Officially, the turnout was set at an
unbelievable 85 per cent, with 98.6 per cent of the vote being
positive. Bouteflika had managed to compensate for the (rela-
tive) humiliation of his presidential poll in April 1999 by having
the population identify him the following September as the great
defender of the elusive peace that so many Algerians had been
longing for.
â•… A presidential amnesty was offered to insurgents who agreed
to lay down their weapons before January 1990. Government
sources announced that some 5,500 Islamist guerrillas were dis-
armed and pardoned through this process.24 Hardened terrorists
were therefore treated with more clemency than some political
opponents who remained in detention without ever having car-
ried a gun. Abassi Madani and Ali Benhadj, the two civilian
leaders of the ex-FIS, had been released from jail in 1997 only to
be put under house arrest, while seasoned AIS combatants, once
they were pardoned, were free to start a new life.
â•… The Algerian Mamluks had forced their red line on president
Bouteflika, even though he insisted on remaining his own min-
ister of defence; the military were ready to accept the end of hos-
tilities and to reintegrate their former enemies, but they would
never tolerate the reconstitution of an Islamist party. This is why
104
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
Ahmed Taleb Ibrahimi’s Wafa party was never authorized. The

two most powerful generals, Lamari as chief of staff and Medi-
ene as DRS chief, would not budge on that issue, and they
imposed as minister of the interior ‘Yazid’ Zerhouni, who had
run military intelligence from 1979 to 1982.
â•… The political impasse was imposed at a heavy price on the
Algerian public, with a monthly toll of some 200 killed. Local
riots flared each time a defiant community sought to push its
own demands or protest against the state. The traditionally res-
tive Kabylia experienced a ‘dark spring’ in 2001, with dozens of
protesters killed by the security forces. Even Algiers was rocked
by violent demonstrations in favour of the Berber language and
Kabylian autonomy.
â•… The crisis of the Algerian state was even more shocking when
hundreds of civilians died from devastating floods in Bab el-
Oued in November 2001. Interestingly, this Algiers neighbour-
hood had been a stronghold of the FLN during the ‘liberation
war’ against France, and Islamist cells had operated there dur-
ing the 1990s. This led some observers to blame the catastrophic
floods on the cementing of the sewage system by the security
forces, anxious to close such ‘terrorist’ escape routes.
â•… Ali Benflis, Bouteflika’s prime minister since August 2000,
was also leader of the FLN. When he visited Bab al-Oued after
Â€
the floods, he was stoned and expelled by the furious popula-

tion. Three weeks later, by contrast, Bouteflika mingled with the
locals. However, the Algerian president had come with his
French counterpart, Jacques Chirac, while excited youngsters
shouted for ‘Chirac’ and for ‘visas’ (to France).
â•… Bouteflika, hoping to appease the Kabylian unrest, encour-
aged an amendment to the Algerian Constitution that upgraded
Berber as the ‘national language’ (Arabic being the ‘official’ one)
in April 2002. This fell far short of stopping the cycle of riots
and strikes in Kabylia, where the gendarmerie and the police
were often loathed (and fought) as occupying forces. A bomb
105
attack killed 35 people in Larbaa (25 km south of Algiers), mar-

ring the fortieth anniversary of Algerian independence; a tragic
reminder of how terrorism was still a deadly threat.
â•… The president sacked Benflis and chose Ouyahia as his new
prime minister in May 2003. He knew that the top brass trusted
Ouyahia, who had already run the government under Zeroual.
Chief of staff Lamari felt bold enough to challenge Bouteflika
publicly in the Egyptian press: ‘our democratic experience is
incomplete, but we are at the beginning of the path. Democracy
is not a decision, it is the result of many years of struggle.’25
â•… The defiant general claimed responsibility for the January
1992 coup against a ‘suicidal process’.26 He also endorsed three
revealing figures: 150,000 killed in the civil war and a number
of ‘terrorists’ reduced in a decade from 27,000 to ‘around only
700, which does not represent a threat to the Republic and its
institutions’.27 Bouteflika, warned in such a blatant way, had to
renounce any grand deal with the ex-FIS or Wafa. He could only
liberate Madani from his house arrest. The released Islamist
leader soon settled in Qatar, while Benhadj refused any presi-
dential pardon.
â•… For his second run as an ‘independent’ candidate in April
2004, Bouteflika had no more serious challenger than his former
PM, Ali Benflis, the champion of the FLN. Bouteflika came out
Â€
on top with 85 per cent of the vote against 6.5 per cent for Ben-
flis, with a 58 per cent official turnout that nobody could be
even bothered to satirise. Deprived of an electoral triumph for a
second time, Bouteflika tried to reiterate his 1999 ‘concord’
manoeuvre to reboot his personal legitimacy.
â•… A ‘charter for peace and national reconciliation’ was drafted:
reformed insurgents would be pardoned, except in cases of mass
killings, bomb attacks and rape; but the FIS would remain
banned and the ‘missing’ would disappear into official oblivion.
Bouteflika had to concede this major denial of justice to his
unrepentant top brass. In September 2005 a referendum was
106
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
held on the charter, with 97 per cent approval (but official turn-
out as low as 11 per cent, for instance in the Kabylian province
of Tizi Ouzou).
A Presidential Mummy
The Algerian Mamluks had their quiet moment of glory when

Bouteflika, acting as minister of defence, promoted three of
them to the supreme rank of army general (général de corps
d’armée) in July 2006. Mohammad Lamari was the only one
ever to have attained this distinction, back in 1995. Retired, he
advanced to the same lofty position his loyal successor as chief
of staff, the Russian-speaker Ahmad Gaïd Salah. The two other
promotions involved the main plotters of the 1992 coup: ‘Tew-
fik’ Mediene, the irremovable DRS chief, and Abbès Ghezaïel,
the former gendarmerie chief, now in charge of ‘coordinating’
military operations from a modest office at the ministry. Gue-
naizia, their fellow plotter in 1992, had retired from the army
long ago, but he had organized this game of musical chairs as …
deputy minister of defence.
â•… People could vote, referendums could be held, laws could be
passed. While Bouteflika could be president and minister of
defence at the same time, the real decision-makers never loos-
ened their grip on power (for instance, their protégé at the min-
istry of interior, ‘Yazid’ Zerhouni, retained this portfolio for
eleven years under Bouteflika).
â•… The military clique knew how to play on the president’s
(poor) health and (great) ambition. Bouteflika had spent Decem-
ber 2005 in Paris, where he was operated on for a stomach com-
plaint at the Val-de-Grâce military hospital. Though the irony of
the president being cured by the former colonial power did not
go unnoticed among the Algerian public, Bouteflika had suc-
ceeded in being identified with the ‘reconciliation’ and the end
of the nationwide bloodbath.
107
â•… The president’s brother, Said Bouteflika, had officially become

his ‘special adviser’. Said’s rising influence clashed with Belkheir’s
clout, and the director of the cabinet had to leave the Mouradia
Palace, the seat of the presidency, to become ambassador to
Morocco. The resulting confusion between government affairs
and family business eventually played into the hands of the intelliÂ�
gence apparatus, ready to document shady deals and dirty secrets.
â•… Abdelaziz Bouteflika spent hours entertaining his foreign hosts
at the Mouradia, and his long-winded speeches left his visitors
with a disturbing feeling of unreality. The Algerian president was
obsessed with his own re-election, while the constitution limited
him to two five-year mandates. He therefore devoted considerable
time and energy to having the constitution amenÂ�ded by a public
vote in parliament (21 MPs dared to oppose the ‘reform’ measure
against 500 who supported it) in November 2008.
â•… Bouteflika could no longer pursue the fiction of running as an
‘independent’ so he was officially endorsed by the FLN for the
April 2009 presidential contest. It was no surprise that he gar-
nered 90 per cent of the vote, compared to 4 per cent for Louisa
Hanoune, a veteran Trotskyite activist (who multiplied sixfold her
2004 result). The Algerian presidential plebiscites looked increas-
ingly like the Tunisian ones, with Ben Ali’s glory magnified by
docile foils. In both countries, the real turnout was abysmal.
â•… But Ben Ali was ruling Tunisia, while Bouteflika enjoyed only
the appearance of power (along with substantial benefits for his
relatives and himself). In 2010 a wave of unprecedented scan-
dals rocked the Algerian nomenklatura and its major institution,
the $56 billion SONATRACH petrochemical conglomerate
(then the top oil company in Africa and twelfth biggest in the
world). Chakib Khalil, appointed minister of energy by Boutef-
lika in 1999, had to resign after nearly eleven years in office (he
settled in the US and remained there till an international warrant
was eventually issued against him). Some analysts accused Medi-
ene and the DRS of fuelling these ‘SONATRACH scandals’.28
108
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
â•… As chief of staff Lamari had declared as early as early as 2003,

jihadi terrorism did not constitute a ‘threat to the Republic’. The
GIA had been swept away, leaving only his splinter group GSPC
as an active outfit. Bouteflika’s ‘national reconciliation’ had suc-
cessfully drawn hundreds of fighters away from the insurgency.
Meanwhile the GSPC commander (émir) Abdelmalek Droukdel
abandoned his trademark ‘Algerian jihad’ and turned global by
pledging allegiance to Usama Bin Laden on the fifth anniversary
of the 9/11 attacks.
â•… In January 2007, GSPC became officially al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). It struck twice in Algiers, in April and
December 2007, with coordinated suicide attacks that mixed
‘local’ (Algerian) targets and ‘global’ ones (the UN headquarters
in Algeria). But the military managed to secure Greater Algiers
in the following months, containing AQIM in the Kabylia moun-
tains (the infamous ‘triangle of death’ between the three prov-
inces of Boumerdes, Tizi Ouzou and Béjaïa).
â•… Droukdel, cornered in his Kabylian stronghold, had to rely
increasingly on his two subordinates in the Sahara region,
Mokhtar Belmokhtar and Abdelhamid Abu Zeid, to keep AQIM
‘global’. Both of them established their rear bases in Northern
Mali, with Belmokhtar targeting Mauritania, while Abu Zeid’s
commandos were roaming from southern Tunisia to northern
Niger. The Algerian army therefore succeeded in rolling back the
jihadi threat at the cost of imperilling the security of the neigh-
bouring states in the Sahel.
â•… Bouteflika and the military leadership watched with absolute
dismay as the Tunisian popular uprising washed away Ben Ali’s
dictatorship in January 2011. Algeria experienced a few days of
urban riots that were soon quelled. The regime deflected the
protest by lifting the State of Emergency (enforced since 1992),
even though demonstrations remained banned in Algiers. Gen-
erous pay hikes were granted (up to 300 per cent for university
professors), a $30 billion social plan was adopted and $150 bil-
109
lion were allocated to a gigantic and ambitious scheme of pub-

lic works.
â•… This impressive generosity was accompanied by a seemingly
overwhelming media campaign that set out to refute the revolu-
tionary character of the Tunisian and Egyptian upheavals. Alge-
ria’s liberation war against France was presented as the one and
only ‘revolution’, while official pundits lamented repeatedly that
Algeria had paid dearly for democratic experiments that were
ultimately strengthening Islamist ‘terrorism’.
â•… The NATO air offensive launched in March 2011 against the
Qaddafi regime was sharply criticized as the latest manifestation
of a Western plot, with sinister ramifications in Israel and the
Gulf. Algeria portrayed itself as the citadel of Arab nationalism
and pride, besieged on all sides: by destabilized and ‘jihadized’
Libya and Tunisia in the east; by AQIM and its Malian partners
in the south; and, of course, by US-friendly Morocco in the west.29
â•… Algeria was more than ever determined to assert in Mali its
role as the sole regional power. As in the domestic arena, civil-
ians, in this case diplomats, occupied the front stage, while the
DRS military were leading from behind. In the autumn of 2012
they favoured talks between the Malian government and Ansar
Eddine, a jihadi Touareg group that had taken over the north-
ern part of the country in alliance with AQIM. The Algerian
Â€
intelligence believed that Ansar Eddine could be won back and

split off from AQIM.
â•… In January 2013, this gamble collapsed when Ansar Eddine
and AQIM advanced towards Bamako. The Malian authorities
demanded the immediate intervention of France. Bouteflika
made offers (opening Algerian air space to French warplanes or
effective Algerian closure of the southern border) that the army
could not refuse. The French offensive, with a significant contri-
bution from Chad, defeated Ansar Eddine and AQIM. Some Â€
700 out the estimated 2,000 jihadi fighters died in combat,

including AQIM commander Abdelhamid Abu Zeid.
110
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
â•… Algerian militant Abu Zeid had managed to exclude his rival
compatriot Belmokhtar from al-Qaeda in November 2012.
While the French rollback was underway in Mali, the now dis-
sident Belmokhtar masterminded a mass attack on the Algerian
oil complex at In-Amenas in January 2013. The plant was run
by Statoil, the Norwegian oil company, in a joint venture with
SONATRACH. Never had hydrocarbon-related installations
Â€
been attacked in two decades of Algerian terrorism.

â•… The military reacted with predictable ferocity to this unprec-
edented challenge. An all-out assault involving helicopters and
air-to-ground missiles left twenty-nine terrorists dead, but also
forty hostages of ten different nationalities. Belmokhtar claimed
responsibility for the disaster on behalf of a ‘true al-Qaeda’,
before amalgamating his supporters with the survivors of the
Malian debacle in a new jihadi outfit named Al-Mourabitoun.
â•… The investigation report commissioned after the January 2013
assault was highly critical of the Algerian army, of its incapacity
‘to detect and prevent the attackers’30 and of its ‘lack of imagi-
nation’: ‘an attack on In-Amenas should not have been entirely
inconceivable’, especially since ‘there were strong economic
incentives for the Algerian military to protect this critical
national infrastructure’.31
â•… The Algerian Mamluks had been caught off-guard and a mer-
ciless blame game ensued between the DRS and the armed forces.
The former was accused at best of intelligence failure, at worst of
having imposed a confrontational line that had proved fatal for
the hostages.32 ‘Tewfik’ Mediene, intelligence czar since 1990, had
seen his fellow plotters of 1992 abandon the scene (like Nezzar)
or die peacefully (Smaïn Lamari in 2007, Belkheir in 2010,
Mohammad Lamari in 2012). He was left alone to face the chief
of staff Gaïd Salah. The showdown between the two army gener-
als was not about the future of Algeria, but about leadership
within the military institution, in typical Mamluk style.
â•… On 27 April 2013, Bouteflika was again admitted to the
Â€
French Val-de-Grâce hospital, after a minor brain seizure. A
111
total black-out was imposed on any information about the pres-

ident’s health. After forty-seven days, Bouteflika was shown on
state TV receiving General Gaïd Salah and Prime Minister
Abdelmalek Sellal in Paris. But it was another month before the
now wheelchair bound Bouteflika could return to Algeria.
â•… Gaïd Salah would however play the Bouteflika card for all
that is was worth. In September 2013, he replaced Guenaizia as
deputy minister of defence. He therefore became the real minis-
ter, since Bouteflika held the portfolio only in name. But the
general remained chief of staff and even transferred a minor part
of the DRS under his direct authority. ‘Tewfik’ was weakened,
but far from defeated.
â•… In February 2014, Amr Saadani, the FLN secretary general,
launched a vicious attack against Mediene, demanding his resig-
nation. Bewildered Algerians watched the secretive decision-
makers lash out at each other for ten full days. A truce was
reached on the basis of the re-election of Bouteflika in return for
preserving the DRS’s power structure. PM Sellal became cam-
paign manager for the invalid president, communicating on his
behalf in a surrealistic run-up to the elections.
â•… Former PM Benflis enlisted as the main contender, just as in
2004, but he was much more pugnacious than a decade earlier.
Activists also organized a protest movement called ‘Barakat’
(Enough), opposing a fourth mandate. Former president Zer-
oual, along with others, criticized Bouteflika’s move. However
strong the opposition, the president was re-elected with 81 per
cent of the vote in April 2014. Benflis, credited with 12 per cent,
denounced the state’s fraudulent polls and even claimed victory.
Bouteflika had cast his ballot from a wheelchair. It seemed that
a puppet president was not enough for the Algerian Mamluks,
who had now imposed a mummy as head of state.
*
Arab Mamluks have every reason to be fascinated by their Alge-
rian counterparts. The ‘decision-makers’ (décideurs) never fell
112
THE ALGERIAN MATRIX
into the trap of promoting one-man rule after they deposed

Bendjedid for the crime of accepting an electoral result. They
succeeded in preserving the cohesion of their hard-core nucleus,
maintaining the inevitable tensions at a level that would be sus-
tainable by their regime as a whole.
â•… In retrospect, the whole 1991–2014 cycle could be described
as a generational transition from the generals promoted at the
end of Bendjedid’s mandate (the ‘colonel’ glass ceiling previously
enshrined by Boumediene) to a new wave of officers trained dur-
ing the ‘black decade’ of the 1990s. But the fact that seventy-
four-year-old Gaïd Salah could embody this ‘changing of the
guard’ also proved how the system had fossilized, exemplified
by the ‘living dead’ Bouteflika at the helm.
â•… No matter how loud they bragged about their nationalist cre-
dentials during the ‘liberation war’ against France, the 1992
coup-mongers did not have a tremendous military record to
offer. By contrast, the newcomers had indeed fought and killed
‘terrorists’ for years, using incidentally the same terminology
against the Islamist insurgents that the French military had
coined for the nationalist guerrillas in 1954–62.
â•… The horrendous tolls of the ‘liberation war’ (some 250,000
killed) and of the civil war (at least 150,000 dead, according to
the chief of staff himself) were comparable. And the military
clique that had grounded its legitimacy in the first bloodbath in
1962–5 had succeeded in reinvigorating the same anti-civilian
ethos during this second Algerian catastrophe. Of course, the
people were the chief victims of such collective dispossession.
â•… The Algerian military would balk at the idea of being the true
disciples of Berthold Brecht. But they achieved what the German
playwright had jokingly envisaged after the 1953 riots in East
Berlin: the people got it wrong, so change the people. The price
that Algerian society paid for its massive vote against the system
in 1991 (much more than a positive Islamist vote) was just stag-
gering. Mass killings, forced displacements and generational
113
exile transformed profoundly an Algerian public who had

learned in the hardest manner possible how to stay docile and
why it was best to do so.
â•… Algerian GDP per capita approached the $5,500 target in
2012, making the country one of the richest of the continent.
This bounty did not prevent more than a quarter of the popula-
tion from dreaming of emigration:33 110,000 Algerians left their
country during the ‘black decade’ of the 1990s, compared to
840,000 during the fifteen years following Bouteflika’s election
in 1999.34 So the ongoing stagnation has proved more devastat-
ing for the long-term hopes of the Algerian youth than the hor-
rors of the civil war.
â•… Meanwhile, Algeria became the first African state to spend
more than $10 billion a year on its military budget,35 at an
unprecedented 5 per cent share of GDP in 2013. So, no matter
how distressed a country may be, Mamluks know how to take
care of their constituency. And what is true of Algeria applies
also to the other Arab kleptocracies.
114
5
THE RISE OF THE SECURITY MAFIAS
The Turkish military caste and the modern Arab Mamluks share
the same in-bred feeling of ownership towards their nation, its
resources and production, its political future and even the fate
of their compatriots. They believe in their indisputable mission,
no matter how obscure the historical roots of such a legitimacy
narrative have become. Yet, as I have shown earlier in this book,
Atatürk’s epigones have much stronger nationalist credentials
compared to their Arab counterparts, who have hijacked their
independence from the hands of the actual, mostly civilian, free-
dom fighters.
â•… In Turkey, the military ethos was celebrated as the supreme
moral code, in order, initially, to fulfil the ‘progressive’ or
‘socialist’ promises of the nationalist ‘revolution’. Soon this
authoritarian credo served as a convenient whitewashing device
for all the excesses in which the new masters indulged. Consti-
tutional guarantees and legal restraints were good enough for a
‘people’ often caricatured as the ‘masses’. Citizenship and its
rights remained off-limits if they implied any curbing of the self-
proclaimed elite, of its power and its greed. The new rulers were
not above the law; they were, ultimately, the law.
â•… Political scientist Steven Cook used the enlightening expres-
sion ‘military enclaves’1 to describe this relatively affluent coun-
115
ter-society, preserved and alienated from the rest of their fellow

countrymen. The much-fabled Officers’ Clubs are one of the
privileged places where the security elite mingle, plot and rejoice.
But military-only facilities can extend to exclusive kindergartens
and boarding schools, to modern hospitals and private beaches,
and they sometimes include whole residential areas in highly-
guarded gated communities.
â•… Hafez al-Assad or Ali Abdullah Saleh were only two among
the thousands of lowly officers who made their way to the top,
thanks to the military fast-track and various privileges. The
class-based grudge of the underprivileged peasantry and their
revengeful bias towards the former ruling class of businessmen
and landowners should be given serious consideration.2 Obvi-
ously, the hijacking of independence by the Arab Mamluks
involved its own share of class struggle and retribution, through
agrarian reform, land seizures and industrial nationalization.
â•… Once the new militarized elite had consolidated its power,
they became even more exclusive than the previous rulers. First,
they locked the gates to social promotion and contained the
swelling ranks of university graduates in an unnerving limbo
(either underpaid, considering their academic qualifications, or
unemployed, for lack of job opportunities). Second, they cemenÂ�
ted a two-tiered army, where the conscripts were barely treated
better than the ‘mere’ civilians (let us not forget how the Egyp-
tian military massacred more than a hundred of rank-and-file
recruits in February 1986).
â•… The military enclaves could then flourish as a secluded oasis
monopolizing national resources. Social endogamy became the
norm, while political weddings were matched with the sons and
daughters of the moguls of liberalization. Those privileged safe
havens were increasingly connected with the hubs of globaliza-
tion in the Gulf, Europe and USA, a process facilitating offshore
transfer. Chapters 3 and 4 of this book have shown how the mil-
itary clique could be divisive and unstable, yet they stood as one
116
united body when their perceived core interests were attacked,

wrapped up in ruthless defence of the ‘regime’.
â•… This is where the Turkish top brass diverged from the Arab
Mamluks in the 1990s: the Deep State developed in Turkey as
an antidote against the progressive empowerment of the civilian
politicians, but it ultimately failed to thwart the AKP victory in
2002; the subsequent scandals involving the Deep State were
therefore manifestations of its irreversible weakening, not of its
resilience. During the same decade of the 1990s, Algeria showed
an alternative path for the Arab Mamluks.
â•… The Algerian ‘decision-makers’ managed to impose their rule
and vision of power, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian
lives. They did not want to relinquish any substantial power, but
nor did they wish to rule Algeria as a fully-fledged military
junta. With five heads of state in seven years (including, in 1992,
the deposed Bendjedid and assassinated Boudiaf), the Algerian
Mamluks succeeded in clinging to power without risk of public
exposure.
â•… This leading from behind the scenes was more suited to a
shadow state or a parallel state than a Deep State. That is where
the ‘fifth column’ or the ‘domestic enemy’ narrative provides the
Deep State with its mission and its resources. The counter-insur-
gency against the Kurdish PKK guerrillas buttressed the networks
of the Turkish Deep State and the Algerian military waged an all-
out war against ‘terrorists’, associated with a foreign existential
threat, which helped them to revamp their power structure.
â•… During the 1990s, the Egyptian security apparatus also had to
face a jihadi campaign, even if its intensity was much lower than
the Algerian one and than the Syrian insurgency of the previous
decade. But all those big or small ‘civil wars’ were crucial to the
rejuvenation of the repressive apparatus. President Saleh in
Yemen confronted the Southern separatists in 1994, and his vic-
tory gave much more gravitas to his presidency of unified Yemen
than the formal reunification of 1990.
117
â•… In reference to Charles Tilly’s famous argument according to

which ‘War makes states’,3 one might add that for the Arab
Mamluks ‘civil wars make (and strengthen) Deep States’. The
issue of war financing, at the core of Tilly’s reasoning, is also
key to the Arab civil wars and the repressive apparatus that they
fed and magnified. War is costly, especially when it is waged
against a significant section of the local population, labelled as
‘terrorist’ and/or ‘separatist’.
â•… Thus the seemingly endless Arab domestic conflicts cannot be
understood without a proper perception of the income financing
them, in a war economy that sometimes became its ultimate
objective. The military cliques have morphed into multi-faceted
protection networks, far beyond the realm of security concerns.
The oil bounty has been essential in the successful upgrading of
the repressive structures through civil wars. But geopolitical
income has also played a key role in stabilizing the worst forms
of domination.
The Arab Dons
I have heard this same joke told dozens of times in Algiers, Cairo
or Damascus. It always spins off a similar theme, one Arab
leader visiting another, before his former host returns the visit. I
heard it told of Hafez al-Assad, Husni Mubarak, Moammar
Qaddafi, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, Chadli Bendjedid or Ali
Abdullah Saleh as the two main characters (since the guest is
supposed to outwit his host, a vast series of combinations is pos-
sible). But the punchline relied on the two presidents, their gran-
diose palaces… and a bridge.
â•… Since this story could go on at length, I’ll take the fun out of
it and summarize it as follows. Leader A visits leader B and is
awed by the magnificence of his palace. The tour of the presi-
dential facilities ends up on a grand balcony where A asks B for
the secret of all this wealth. B answers shrewdly ‘The bridge’,
118
before showing an unfinished bridge in the middle of the land-

scape and smiling towards one of his pockets.
â•… Later, B is invited back by A, who treats him to a private tour
of his own presidential palace, even more luxurious than B’s
Â�residence. At the end of the visit, the two leaders rest on a panoÂ�
ramic balcony where B interrogates A about all this muniÂ�ficence.
A: ‘The bridge!’ B: ‘But what bridge? There is no bridge in sight.’
A: ‘Well, you are absolutely right.’ Then A smiles knowingly and
taps his suit pocket.
â•… The Arab Mamluks have certainly not unleashed their preda-
tory instincts overnight. They often set out as a bunch of dedi-
cated and patriotic officers, with a compelling sense of mission
and the urge to dismantle what they perceived as a decaying sys-
tem. But the very dynamics of conspiracies and patronage forced
them to reward allegiances and redistribute largesse. We saw,
for instance, how Field Marshal Amer behaved like some sort of
Santa Claus for his military clientele, in order to challenge Nass-
er’s presidential authority.
â•… The opacity of the military budgets, and of the security struc-
ture as a whole, also paved the way for major personal or collecÂ�
tive appropriations. ‘National defence’ had only to be mentioned
to bypass any kind of administrative monitoring. In Algeria, the
much-coveted status of veteran (mujahid/in) of the anti-French
liberation war gave access to vacant property and multi-faceted
privileges. The summer of 1962 therefore witnessed a dramatic
swelling of the army ranks, after the ceasefire with France, but
during the fierce struggle with the domestic resistance. Even if
some of these veterans had impeccable nationalist credentials, a
great number of them were profiteers, who had merely to bribe
officials in order to join the military elite.
â•… The disastrous Egyptian expedition in Yemen, from 1962 to
1967, offered unexpected opportunities for individual enrich-
ment and social promotion.4 There was no customs control for
returning servicemen, which opened the way for large-scale
smuggling. Veterans from Yemen were given absolute priority
119
for land allocation, housing attribution and car acquisition. Stu-

dent scholarships and special medical care were often attached
to questionable ‘battlefield’ promotions. Amer’s personal mili-
tary secretary was even arrested in 1966 for reselling goods
acquired under the fake names of supposed widows of Egyptian
‘martyrs’ who had fallen in Yemen.5
â•… One decade later, the Syrian occupation of most of the Leba-
nese territory proved far more beneficial for the expeditionary
force than the Egyptian adventure into impoverished Yemen.
The local population, bewildered by their Syrian ‘brothers’’
inextinguishable greed, routinely described them as ‘locusts’.
Hafez al-Assad took good care to ensure regular rotations of
combat units in Lebanon, in order to maximize the placating
impact of such a bounty. This proved crucial to securing the loy-
alty of the main Alawi generals during the 1984 showdown with
Rifaat al-Assad, the president’s brother.
â•… On a more legitimate side of the economy, the military appa-
ratus opened new avenues for large scale heavy industry and the
construction business. They benefited from cheap manpower,
their skills in mass engineering, their control over key infrastruc-
tures and their monopoly over strategic trade. Diversified con-
glomerates expanded during the 1980s, like the Syrian Milihouse
(standing for Military Housing establishment, but involved in a
wide scale of industries), the Egypt-based Arab Organization for
Industrialization (AOI)6 and the Egyptian National Service Proj-
ects Organization (NSPO).
â•… During the Iran–Iraq conflict of 1980–88, the Egyptian arma-
ment industry was boosted by Saddam Hussein’s war effort.
Egyptian officers were employed as military ‘advisers’ since
Arab solidarity would not sanction the word mercenary. Field
Marshal Abu Ghazala controlled these very profitable networks,
in addition to the AOI and the NSPO. But the end of the Gulf
Â€
War terminated this golden era and brought the demise of Abu
Ghazala himself. Field Marshal Mohammad Hussein Tantawi
became the new minister of defence in 1991.
120
â•… When President Mubarak disposed of Abu Ghazala, not only

did he marginalize the most popular man in Egypt, but also
masterÂ�minded the incorporation of the top brass into crony cap-
italism. Abu Ghazala had repeatedly justified the enlargement of
the military economy by the ‘self-sufficiency’ motto.7 In fact,
those new economic activities were heavily subsidized and they
consumed a significant share of the public finances. The armed
forces as a whole benefited from this ambitious upgrading and
expansion.
â•… On the contrary, Tantawi privileged the army hierarchy in his
attribution of the ‘loyalty allowance’: a retiring top officer
would not only benefit from this substantial premium, but also
augment his military pension with lucrative positions in state-
owned companies, in civil bureaucracies or in the ‘consulting’
business. Political loyalty was explicitly connected with the pros-
pect of this second career, financially far more attractive. Any
dissent, even minor, would be sanctioned by early retirement
and/or absence of promotion over the rank of major.8
â•… The Mamluks’ grip over Egypt therefore grew even tighter
during the 1990s. Presidential appointees, such as provincial
governors, largely came from the top brass9 and key ‘civilian’
ministers usually had a military background, for instance in avi-
ation or local development. The ‘privatization’ of state-owned
companies did not foster a free-market logic, but a more inti-
mate co-optation between retired officers and their protégés.
Just as the military hierarchy had been connected to crony cap-
italism in the past, now it amalgamated a new generation of glo-
balized capitalists—prospering under the comfortable umbrella
of the Egyptian state—into its patronage networks.
Dancing with the Mob
In Yemen during the 1990s, ‘privatization’ took the form of dis-

mantling the socialist regime prevailing in the former Southern
121
Republic. Ali Abdullah Saleh’s victory in 1994 against the

Southern separatists, associated with the Yemeni Socialist Party
(YSP), ended up in Aden with a massive confiscation by the
presidential clan not only of YSP properties, but also of the pri-
vate assets of the exiled YSP leaders.10
â•… Using the ‘restoration’ of private property in the South as an
excuse, President Saleh’s henchmen launched a major campaign
of brutal expropriation. The office of land registry in Aden was
locally described as the ‘office of plunder and theft’.11 Public
records had to be copied and hidden to prevent their destruction
or alteration by greedy bureaucrats. A gang of Northern tribes-
men went so far as to forge a three-century-old deed of property,
claiming a part of Aden’s harbour… that was at that time deep
under water!12
â•… The Algerian civil war of the 1990s had the unexpected effect
of fostering job creation (mainly, but not exclusively, in the
security sector), of boosting investment in the oil and gas indus-
tries, and of nurturing the ‘grey’ zone of trabendo activities
(even though an increasing number of these import–export com-
panies were legal).
â•… Algerian Mamluks and their clients were the main victors in
this murderous game, even though Islamist warlords had their
share of conflict-generated bounty. One of the main challenges
of the ‘dialogue’ under president Zeroual, then of the ‘reconcil-
iation’ under his successor Bouteflika, was in fact the integration
and the co-optation of reformed insurgents, as soon as their
war-related financial resources could be ‘laundered’.13
â•… Political scientist Luis Martinez explained that the so-called
‘black decade’ has ‘favoured conditions for a “plunder econ-
omy” from which warring elites and leading personalities
profit’.14 He added: ‘the civil war has been accompanied by a
privatisation of violence which has led to the private accumula-
tion of economic goods’.15 However, the military hierarchy was
quick to disband the local militias, once the main insurgent
122
threat was over, in order to avoid losing control over this ‘priva-
tization’ process.
â•… The land border between Algeria and Morocco was opened in
1988—the year the one-party system collapsed in Algiers—and
closed again in 1994. Unable to challenge the Moroccan military
victory in the Western Sahara (with a ceasefire observed since
1991 by the Polisario guerrillas), the Algerian Mamluks had
found this devious way to put pressure on their western neigh-
bour. But the main casualties were among the Moroccan popu-
lation of the border provinces, who depended heavily on
Algerian cross-frontier trade.
â•… What began as a tit-for-tat act by Algiers against Rabat has
frozen into a twenty-year border closure. The repeated calls by
Morocco and the various international pleas (including from
the World Bank) left the so-called Algerian decision-makers
Â€
unnerved, since they discovered how sponsored smuggling with

the neighbouring kingdom could become extremely profitable.
â•… Oil is the main smuggled product, but subsidized medicines
and basic commodities also find their way into Morocco. Con-
sidering that the Algerian military outposts are only a few km
away from each other,16 organized networks have to pay some
form of protection in order to cross this densely patrolled bor-
der. They are therefore less vulnerable than the individual oil-
smugglers (called helaba on the Algerian side of the border17 and
kamikaze on the other side,18 because of the amount of inflam-
mable material they transport at high speed).
â•… So even in times of peace, the state-imposed restrictions on a
strategic border can generate sizeable profits for military lead-
ers. But all these shady deals fade in comparison with the crime
industry the Syrian army directly sponsored in occupied Leba-
non. Plundering the neighbouring country was the main Syrian
activity in the 1980s, but the next decade saw a growing (and
highly profitable) bipolarity between the state-fettered Syrian
market and the free-for-all Lebanese land of opportunity.
123
â•… The Assad clan and the top-ranking generals controlled both
sides of the border and adjusted the discrepancies between the
two economic zones in order to maximize their patronage reve-
nues. Military-only roads were ‘rented’ by the hour to criminal
networks. Shabbiha (ghost-like) smugglers, loyal to prominent
Alawi gang-leaders, drove their fast cars along the Mediterra-
nean coast.19 Tobacco soon appeared too cheap a commodity
and drugs then became the new focus.
â•… We have seen how the Turkish Deep State coalesced, at the
same period, around intelligence officials and criminal dons,
united in fighting the Kurdish separatist guerrillas of the
PKK. But the main Syrian military intelligence service, led by
Â€
general Ali Duba, not only protected Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK
chief, in the very city of Damascus; they also extracted a signif-
icant profit from the heroin laboratories that the PKK had estab-
lished on the Lebanese plain of the Bekaa, on the Syrian
border.20 So the clash between Turkish and Syrian intelligences
over the PKK only exacerbated the existing Kurdish turf war
over drugs.
â•… In October 1998, Ankara massed troops on its southern bor-
der to force the Syrian regime to abandon Öcalan. Bashar al-
Assad, the heir apparent, convinced his father Hafez to drop
such a risky Kurdish ‘card’. The PKK leader was removed to
Moscow. From there, he moved to Greece, then to Kenya, where
he would eventually be captured by Turkish intelligence. Bashar
al-Assad, fully backed by the declining Syrian dictator, had
defeated Duba in this inter-Alawite showdown.
â•… When Hafez al-Assad died in June 2000, Bashar succeeded his
father as planned (and was ‘elected’ as the sole candidate for the
presidency with 97.3 per cent of votes cast). He then cajoled the
Western powers with unprecedented calls for a ‘modernizing’ of
Syria. Trained in London and married to a financial consultant,
the new ‘Lion of Damascus’21 was well versed in the interna-
tional lingo of ‘liberalization’. However his model was far from
124
California. Rather, it was explicitly China, where a one-party

system had generated formidable wealth without relinquishing
absolute power.
â•… This is how the second-generation of Syrian Mamluks started
to ‘privatize’, one decade after their Algerian, Egyptian and
Yemeni counterparts. The Duba-led criminal pattern had been
seriously hampered by the October 1998 crisis with Turkey. The
Syrian dons had to move into ‘legitimate’ business, the key word
becoming ‘partnership’. Just as their fathers had played on both
sides of the border with Lebanon, their Syrian heirs benefited
from the ‘privatization’ bounty on one side, and from their new
‘partnerships’ in the private sector on the other.
â•… The beacon of this crony capitalism was Rami Makhlouf, the
most prominent of Bashar al-Assad’s many cousins. He was a
‘partner’ in nine out of the twelve new private banks. His multi-
faceted empire, from real estate to mobile phones and import–
export, was valued at some $3 billion.22 But in this opening
decade of the millennium, Makhlouf had emulators throughout
the ruling class in Syria. And the fabulous wealth he accumu-
lated mirrored the fortunes siphoned off by second-generation
Arab Mamluks. ‘The bridge! What bridge?’
Blood for Oil
There is much written about the ‘oil curse’: some authors raise
the argument that the oil-induced redistribution-state is a fertile
ground for corruption and civil strife per se, while others extol
the counter-examples of Norway, or even Indonesia, to under-
mine this thesis.23 The Arab Mamluks did not rely on the oil
bounty in order to hijack the post-colonial independent states
and establish their military dictatorships. Questioning the histor-
ical trajectory of the process may help clarify this crucial issue.
â•… Chapter 2 showed how Wahhabism provided the Saud family
with an ideology on which to establish their ‘Saudi Arabia’. This
125
state-building creed was also sharply hostile to the Arab Nahda

and its dynamics of collective emancipation. So the oil-induced
bonanza, after the Second World War, was largely invested by
Riyadh in undermining nationalist regimes, with a special focus
on Syria. (During the 1950s, major fluctuations in the Damas-
cus gold market were often connected to the arrival of an air-
plane from Saudi Arabia!)24
â•… The Egyptian expedition into Yemen transformed the south-
ern neighbour of Saudi Arabia into the main battlefield of the
‘Arab cold war’ raging between US-backed King Faysal and
Soviet-supported Nasser. While the Egyptian forces were until
1967 directly involved in combat, the Saudis mainly acted
through generously paid protégés. The oil-related largesse was
key to this war by proxy. Once the Egyptian forces had with-
drawn, the nationalist dynamics empowered the Republican
leadership, besieged in Sanaa, to sustain and repel the Saudi-
sponsored onslaught.
â•… So oil alone could not win the day. In 1970 King Faysal had
to recognize the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) in Sanaa. He even
had to live with the 1974 ‘corrective’ coup that saw YAR join
the military club already staffed by Algeria, Syria and Egypt.
And even if Saudi influence was denounced in the 1977 killing
of President Hamdi, the shock of this murder did not derail the
Mamluk logic now at work in Sanaa.
â•… Characterized by his survivor mentality and his deceptive
manoeuvres, Ali Abdullah Saleh proved a difficult partner for
Riyadh. Saudi largesse would not buy his loyalty, but he worked
effectively to channel and oversee most of it, thereby diverting it
from his rivals. Saleh let Saudi-inspired Salafist groups operate,
only to counter-balance them with the Muslim Brotherhood. He
also diversified his Gulf connections by attracting into Yemen
the newly independent United Arab Emirates. (Sheikh Zayed,
the ruler, considered the Yemeni province of Marib as the cra-
dle of his family.)
126
â•… The discovery of oil in the region of Marib, in 1984, enabled

President Saleh to be less dependent on Saudi Arabia. Without
oil-related revenues, the Yemeni leader would probably never
have succeeded in unifying the country under his authority in
1990 and later absorbing the trauma of the Saudi sanctions
(Riyadh wanted then to punish Saleh for supporting the Iraqi
occupation of Kuwait). Two years later, the discovery of oil in
the Southern province of Hadramaut—the so-called Wadi al-
Masila—further strengthened the Yemeni president’s power.
â•… Saleh was adamant about controlling the oil resources for his
own benefit and in redistributing it in a classical patron/client
relationship. This monopolizing of oil revenues certainly fuelled
the flames of Southern separatism and of the 1994 civil war. But
Saleh’s victory only tightened his control on the Wadi al-Masila
oil field. Canadian Occidental (Canoxy), the production opera-
tor, had to transfer its headquarters from Aden to Sanaa, while
Mohammad Ismail, one of the president’s uncles, became mili-
tary commander of the oilfield sector.
â•… Ismail pressured Canoxy, first into contracting him as their
security provider, then in hiring a large number of Northerners
instead of the local employees.25 This exclusion naturally led to
increased tension with the local population, an unprecedented
number of incidents, and even sabotage, which in turn aggra-
vated Ismail’s ‘protection’ fees. We shall explore below when
discussing the jihadi nemesis how the Wadi al-Masila pattern
might serve as a metaphor for the Arab Mamluks’ blackmail of
Western powers, in order to extract a ‘protection’ bounty
against a threat that they largely generated themselves.
â•… Before the end of the 1990s, oil production had reached a
level of 400,000 barrels a day, with one fourth for local con-
sumption. While Yemen remained a small oil producer, from
2000 to 2009 the hydrocarbon sector accounted for 20–30 per
cent of GNP, 80–90 per cent of Yemeni exports and 70–80 per
cent of government revenues.26 More than 50 per cent of these
127
revenues were spent on the presidential office, armed forces and

security services, all tightly connected to Saleh’s closest circle.
On top of that ‘official’ hijacking, Yemeni specialist Stephen
Day considers that ‘President Saleh and his family raked in bil-
lions of dollars’ from oil revenue, before it was even included in
government accounts.27
â•… Oil was not only the main official and unofficial resource for
the Yemeni Mamluks. It was also the key factor in government
spending, generating another source of parallel revenues, since
subsidies on fuel and diesel represented one fifth of official
expenditure. In 2008 political scientist Sarah Philips estimated
that half of this subsidized gasoline was pumped and smuggled
into ‘illegal’ yet well-protected networks.28 Even programmes
designed for the underprivileged ended up benefitting the mili-
tary elite and its clients.
â•… Contrary to Yemen, Algeria had been a long-term major
player in the international oil market. The first oil shock in 1973
gave President Boumediene the financial means of his ‘socialist’
policy, as the second oil shock in 1979 kept Bendjedid’s ‘liberal’
policy afloat. We have seen how the 1986 oil counter-shock con-
tributed to the collapse of the one-party system, two years later,
with civil war raging during the ‘black decade’ of the 1990s.
â•… In 1999, the hydrocarbon sector accounted for 95 per cent of
export receipts and 60 per cent of government resources.29 At
the same time, the offshore assets of the Algerian billionaires
were estimated at $40 billion.30 Political scientist Luis Martinez
concludes that the Algerian ‘military clique’,31 ‘instead of nego-
tiating an “exit from authoritarianism” or imploding’, morphed
into a ‘mafia regime’, since ‘mafias emerged and ensured secu-
rity for the new rules of the game’.32
â•… The issue of the ‘oil curse’ is therefore less relevant than the
tenacity of the Arab Mamluks in exploiting their country’s
national resources after they hijacked the post-colonial indepen-
dent state. The mafia paradigm is thus a useful means of under-
128
lining the predatory ferocity of the forces unleashed in times of

armed challenge (by the Islamist guerrillas in Algeria or South-
ern separatists in Yemen): even though this was a civil war, the
war bounty was to be monopolized by the sole victors.
â•… Oil consolidated President Saleh’s power far beyond his wild-
est expectations and oil kept the Algerian ‘military clique’ pros-
perous and affluent all through the ‘black decade’. But national
oil was only a minor resource for the Egyptian and Syrian Mam-
luks (with three to five times less oil production than Algeria).
For Mubarak in the 1990s and Assad junior after his father’s
death in 2000, expanding crony capitalism was the main prize.
â•… Let us then escape the ‘oil curse’ and follow the mafia lead.
The former single parties suffered in all the Mamluk regimes
from an existential and structural crisis that led to their losing
the political monopoly and/or becoming hollowed out shells,
dedicated to the nostalgic recitation of long-discredited slogans.
This crisis of the ‘mass parties’ laid bare the regime’s apparatus
of repression, which was only too keen to ensure that everyone
followed the new rules of the game.
â•… This is how, here with oil, there without it, security services
and praetorian guards took the front line in defending not only
the Mamluk regimes, but their day-to-day plundering of the
country. ‘Privatization’ went hand in hand with increased inter-
ference in the state’s political policies in the public sphere and in
the private sphere of oppressed individuals. But the ‘security
mafias’ in Egypt and Syria, to coin a colourful oxymoron, came
to rely on a fascinating source of income that was much thicker
than oil.
The Israeli Jackpot
We have seen how the Arab Mamluks established their ruthless

regimes on the ruins of the anti-Israeli resistance. Husni Zaim
opened the sequence of military coups in 1949, followed three
129
years later by Nasser, Amer and the so-called Free Officers. In

Syria as in Egypt, the power struggles among the ruling clique
were far more absorbing than the actual confrontation against
the ‘Zionist enemy’. This is a key factor in understanding the
disaster of the June 1967 war, which ended with the Israeli
occupation of the Egyptian Sinaï and the Syrian Golan (along
with East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip).
â•… The Black September conflict in Jordan in 1970, between loy-
alist forces and the PLO guerrillas, was the turning point
towards the two ‘corrective’ movements in Egypt and Syria.
Nasser collapsed and died after sponsoring a ceasefire that was
a cover-up for the Palestinian defeat. His successor Sadat was
adamant in his resolve to regain Sinaï, even at the cost of Pales-
tinian rights. Assad was far more hostile to the PLO, since he
had ascended to supreme power by backstabbing the Black Sep-
tember Palestinians.
â•… Sadat and Assad both led their countries into the October
1973 joint offensive against Israel. They enjoyed the full back-
ing of King Faysal of Saudi Arabia, who considered he had won
the ‘Arab cold war’, now that Sadat had expelled thousands of
Soviet advisers from his country. After initial setbacks on both
fronts, Israel retook the initiative and reversed the course of the
battle. Incensed by the United States’ unconditional support for
the Israeli counter-offensive, King Faysal decided to cut Saudi oil
exports by 10 per cent, with an additional 5 per cent monthly
reduction until an effective Israeli withdrawal was completed.
â•… The Saudi embargo was soon enforced by the other Arab oil
producers. Oil prices quadrupled in a matter of weeks. This first
‘oil shock’ was partly psychological, since non-Arab producers,
especially Iran, compensated for some of the slashing of produc-
tion. This game-changer brought unprecedented wealth to Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and the four Gulf states that had reached full
independence as recently as 1971. Billions of dollars were allo-
cated to Syria and Egypt as a pledge of ‘Arab solidarity’.
130
â•… The Arab Mamluks knew quite well how to exploit this
incredible bounty for their own personal benefit. It did not need
much sophistication to plug into Gulf largesse. For instance,
Assad sent his vice premier for economic affairs to Riyadh, just
after the conflict with Israel. King Faysal benevolently asked for
‘a list of projects with some figures’.33 So the vice premier, who
had come empty-handed, drafted a document based on calcula-
tions he did on site with his pocket calculator and went home
with a virtually blank cheque!
â•… The oil embargo was eventually lifted when Henry Kissinger
brokered two parallel disengagement agreements between Israel
and Egypt on one side, and Israel and Syria on the other. The
demand for a full withdrawal from the territories occupied in
1967 had been forgotten, even though the Gulf money kept
flowing in: King Faysal promised an additional $350 million to
Syria during his visit to Damascus in January 1975.34 (Two
months later, the Saudi monarch was killed by a distant relative,
a murder routinely attributed to an Israeli plot by Arab conspir-
acy fans.)35
â•… That is where Sadat and Assad parted ways: the former con-
sidered that only a fully-fledged Pax Americana could bring
back the Sinaï, while the latter abandoned any hope of recover-
ing the Golan, contending himself with the US guarantee
extended to his regime through the Syrian–Israeli ceasefire. This
is why the Syrian Mamluks reacted with such ferocity to the
challenge of the PLO forming an alliance with the leftist militias
in neighbouring Lebanon.
â•… Such a revolutionary coalition could jeopardize the triangular
deal on the Golan Heights involving Syria, Israel and the
USA. So those two countries approved tacitly, with the corre-
Â€
sponding ‘red lines’, the Syrian invasion of Lebanon to crush the

PLO–leftist forces, in the summer of 1976. The agreement
reached in Riyadh the following October secured two victories
for Assad: the confirmation of the Gulf’s financial support; and
131
the Arab endorsement of the Syrian occupying force in Lebanon,

under the flag of a so-called Arab Deterrence Force.
â•… The Syrian regime benefited to an even greater extent from the
Gulf oil bonanza following the US-sponsored Camp David peace
talks between Egypt and Israel. In November 1978, the Arab
summit held in Baghdad sharply condemned the negotiations. A
delegation led by the Lebanese PM was sent to Sadat with
the proposal of a massive Arab aid plan to Egypt, in compensa-
Â€
tion for the termination of the Camp David process. Sadat

answered that ‘all the billions in the world could not buy Egypt’s
dignity’.36
â•… The truth was that Sadat was advantageously replacing Arab
‘billions’ by American ‘billions’: over $2 billion in civilian aid
and more than $1 billion in military aid were pledged by Wash-
ington in the Camp David package (with parallel generosity
towards Israel). Meanwhile, in Baghdad, Syria reaped the lion’s
share ($2 billion) of Arab financial support for the ‘confronta-
tion states’.
â•… Those mind-boggling figures demonstrate how the Egyptian
and Syrian Mamluks had succeeded in transforming their rela-
tionship with Israel into a grandiose form of moral blackmail in
order to generate a stream of unprecedented income from their
outside sponsors. The fact that Egypt was at ‘peace’ with Israel
while Syria was at ‘war’ (with not a single shot fired since 1974)
was less important than the belief in both countries that this for-
eign support was their due. The Syrian regime even dared to
threaten some Gulf states, through Damascus-friendly terrorist
organizations, when the aid pledged in Baghdad was not dis-
bursed in time.37
â•… All this re-alignment occurred while the Islamic revolution
was shaking Iran, cutting oil production there by 75 per cent.
Such turmoil provoked great instability on the international
markets and caused a second ‘oil shock’ in 1979. Syria, now
firmly hooked on Gulf cash reserves, was a main beneficiary
from these oil price hikes.
132
â•… Far from tilting the Assad regime towards ‘confrontation’

with Israel, this affluence allowed it to finance a merciless cam-
paign against the Muslim Brotherhood: the military re-conquest
of Aleppo went on for many months in 1980 and caused thou-
sands of casualties; in March 1982, some 12,000 soldiers
crushed an Islamist uprising in Hama and destroyed one third of
the historic city.
â•… The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 was basically all
about targeting the PLO and its local allies. A ceasefire was
quickly reached between Israel and Syria, even though some
3,000 Syrian soldiers were trapped and besieged in Beirut (where
they conspicuously left the Palestinian guerrillas to defend the
front lines). But the ‘new cold war’ that the Likud government
pretended to wage in the Middle East, with the support of the
Reagan administration, prompted Moscow to upgrade dramat-
ically its help to Damascus.
â•… Thousands of Soviet advisers were dispatched to Syria, with a
large number assigned to man the latest generation of Warsaw
Pact missiles. The number of Syrian tanks swelled from 3,200 to
4,400, with a comparable increase in combat aircraft (from 440
to 650) and air defence sites (from 100 to 180). From 1982 to
1986, the Syrian armed forces doubled in size, reaching
400,00038 (for a population of some 11 million).
â•… Hafez al-Assad completed this dramatic consolidation of his
regime while consistently avoiding any direct hostility with Israel
(he even fought and expelled PLO guerrillas from Northern Leb-
anon at the end of 1983, thereby concluding the anti-Palestinian
cleansing campaign inaugurated the previous year by the Likud
government in Beirut and southern Lebanon). He played rough
and dirty, but through various proxies, without ever exposing
himself. And he forged a strategic alliance with Ayatollah Kho-
meini and his Islamic Republic of Iran.
â•… This unholy alliance between Damascus and Teheran proved
how deceptive the ‘Arab nationalist’ discourse of the Syrian
133
Mamluks could be. Assad had designed a complex web of ‘part-

nerships’ where his regime was always on the receiving end: oil
from Iran, weapons from the Soviet Union and cash from the
Gulf, where the Iranian bogeyman worked superbly to stimulate
‘generosity’ towards Syria.
â•… The Lebanese ‘Party of God’ (Hezbollah) was created in 1982
through a joint venture between Syrian and Iranian intelligence.
This Shia militia eliminated its local rivals to secure the monop-
oly of its ‘Islamic resistance’ over the anti-Israeli insurgency.
Therefore, Assad could safely fuel the flames of armed struggle
in south Lebanon, while enforcing an impeccable ceasefire with
Israel on the Golan Heights.
â•… Compared to the sophistication of Syrian ‘protection’, the
Egyptian Mamluks looked pretty straightforward. When
Mubarak succeeded Sadat after his assassination in October
1981, he had yet to oversee the Israeli evacuation of the last sec-
tor of occupied Sinai. Egyptian sovereignty was fully restored in
April 1982, which gave Israel a free hand to invade Lebanon
two months later. But Mubarak had secured considerable US
military aid, essential for the ruling clique.
â•… The Egyptian president, while being far less proactive on the
civilian side of the American largesse, made sure that his armed
forces would receive $1.3 billion each year from Washington.
This incredible sum was supposedly based on a 2/3 ratio
between US military aid to Egypt and to Israel.39 The calculation
was far more complex, but the net result was that Mubarak
defended his top brass with a dedication that probably explains
how he could with little fuss eventually marginalize Field Mar-
shal Abu Ghazala.
â•… During the autumn of 1990, the Egyptian and Syrian Mam-
luks, who had gone their separate ways for the past fifteen years,
joined ranks again on Saudi soil: this ‘defence shield’ was aimed
at deterring Saddam Hussein’s menacing moves towards the
Gulf countries and served as the Arab fig-leaf for the US-led
134
‘Desert Storm’ campaign to liberate Kuwait. Once again, the

Israeli dimension was crucial, with Egypt and Syria fighting (at
least symbolically) Iraq in Kuwait, while Iraqi SCUD missiles fell
on Israeli territory.
â•… The stage was then set for the 1990s, with a return to the par-
adoxical stability of the pattern adopted by the Egyptian and
Syrian Mamluks. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991, the mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO in
1993, and the Israeli–Jordanian peace treaty in 1994, Husni
Mubarak kept cashing in $1.3 billion a year of military aid,
while Hafez al-Assad played off shrewdly his Gulf, Iranian and
Russian backers. Bashar al-Assad would follow in his father’s
footsteps, compensating for his minor talent through his tena-
cious greed.
*
Arab Mamluks have demonstrated an exceptional capacity to
survive at any cost, especially when this cost is paid by their own
population. After having hijacked the post-colonial independent
states, they secured their (quasi) monopoly of national resources
and their ubiquitous patronage over the public sphere. Later,
they succeeded in expanding their domination through a ‘priva-
tization’ that would benefit their protégés or themselves. Egyp-
tian Mamluks were the pioneers of this crony capitalism, but
soon their Arab counterparts joined the fray.
â•… ‘Security mafias’ emerged in the 1990s as the key actor in this
process, amalgamating the intrusive power of the repressive
apparatus and the aggressive solidarity of the mafia networks.
The resilience and robustness of such regime-inspired violence
could only be fuelled by significant income, whether indigenous
or imported. This is why Tunisia remained a police state under
Ben Ali, unable to play in the Mamluk league, since it kept on
racketeering its own citizens, without a substantial income to
live off.
135
â•… As discussed earlier, this income could be multi-faceted and het-

erogeneous. Oil alone would not have saved the Algerian ‘deci-
sion-makers’ from the trials of the ‘black decade’. Ali Abdullah
Saleh needed more than oil to complete his two ‘unifications’ of
Yemen, the peaceful one in 1990, and the military one four years
later. This is the main difference with the Libyan and Iraqi totali-
tarian systems, which relied essentially on oil to avoid breakdown
during the international embargos of the 1990s.
â•… The largesse of foreign donors might not be sufficient either,
even though it was clearly crucial to the prosperity of Assad and
Mubarak’s regimes. The Mamluks enjoyed the ability to black-
mail their patrons, be it directly in the Syrian case, or more sub-
tly in the Egyptian one. Vulnerable Jordan, a major recipient of
international generosity, could never dream of achieving such a
feat, and King Hussein had to swallow his pride repeatedly to
placate angry donors.
â•… So the ‘security mafias’ needed a no-strings-attached income
to operate, to redistribute and, ultimately, to reproduce them-
selves. The cash dimension of this income was indexed on the
geopolitical environment that was supposed to optimize its value
for the Mamluks’ benefit (European vulnerability towards
energy and immigration for Algeria, security of Israel for Egypt,
and so on). But this century opened with a strategic earthquake
that proved immensely profitable for the Arab dictators.
136
6
THE ‘GLOBAL TERROR’ NEXT DOOR
Arab Mamluks have fought and survived armed insurgencies

inspired by their Islamist opponents. From 1979 to 1982, the
Syrian regime resisted, suppressed and ultimately eliminated a
military uprising led by the local branch of the Muslim Brother-
hood. Their liquidation convinced not only the Syrian Brother-
hood, but also the organization as a whole in the Islamic world
that ballots should prevail over bullets in order to reach power.
â•… This legalist aggiornamento alienated the mainstream Islamist
movement from a galaxy of radical groups for whom ‘jihad’
against the ‘infidel’ regimes remained the guiding imperative.
One of these jihadi outfits managed to assassinate President
Sadat in Cairo, in October 1981, but the subsequent uprising in
Upper Egypt was thoroughly crushed. It would take more than
ten years for the jihadi militants to reconstitute a critical mass
and launch a new terror campaign, in March 1992.
â•… The Gamaa Islamiyya (Islamic Group), inspired by the US-
based Egyptian sheikh Omar Abderrahmane, vowed to topple
Mubarak’s regime. It targeted government officials, security
forces and secular intellectuals in a string of assassinations that
brought the expected armed response from the military. The
Christian Coptic minority and foreign tourists were also victims
of this terror campaign.
137
â•… This low-intensity conflict in Egypt also had major interna-

tional ramifications, with Arab jihadis trying to turn their strug-
gle ‘global’. Sheikh Abderrahmane was arrested and sentenced
to life imprisonment in New York after an attack on the World
Trade Center (six were killed in a car bomb attack in February
1993). This detention prompted Ayman Zawahiri, the leader of
a rival group called the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, to try to surpass
the Gamaa in high-profile terrorism.
â•… Zawahiri was based in Sudan and, already a close associate of
Usama Bin Laden, he was considered his deputy in the top-secret
al-Qaeda organization. The dictatorial regime in Khartoum, a
mix of Islamist radicals and military adventurers, provided a
safe haven for a large number of terrorist groups of various
shades. The Sudanese diplomatic service even offered the cover
of its immunity for a major attack in neighbouring Ethiopia.
â•… On 26 June 1995, President Mubarak landed in Addis Ababa
Â€
to participate in an African summit. General Omar Suleiman,

whom he had appointed head of the General Intelligence Depart-
ment (GID) two years earlier, had insisted that the president
travel with his own armoured car. Suleiman had prevailed upon
the Egyptian diplomats and their Ethiopian hosts.1 This decision
saved Mubarak’s life when he fell into a jihadi ambush (two
Egyptian bodyguards and three attackers were killed).
â•… This foiled regicide brought the full wrath of the Egyptian
regime down on the jihadis, while international sanctions were
voted against Sudan. Zawahiri spent the next two years on the
run all over the world, before he reunited with Bin Laden in
May 1997: the two jihadi leaders had found a new shelter in
Taliban-run Afghanistan. In Egypt, the repression increased,
with thousands of arrests (according to some commentators, the
figure may have reached 20,000) and the predictable iron fist
counter-insurgency.
â•… The toll became so unbearable on the Gamaa Islamiyya that in
July 1997 they convinced the jailed sheikh Abderrahmane to
138
endorse their call for an end to violence. But Zawahiri managed

to lure a military leader of the Gamaa into organizing, along with
his ownIslamic jihad, the massacre of fifty-eight Swiss tourists in
Luxor in Islamic jihad in November 1997. The public shock gen-
erated by such slaughter, instead of re-igniting the jihadi flame,
had the opposite effect of terminating the insurgency.
â•… More than a thousand people were estimated to have been
killed in Egypt during this 1992–7 jihadi trial by fire. These fig-
ures pale beside the horrendous toll of the parallel Algerian
‘black decade’, with one hundred times more casualties in a
country whose population numbered only 40 per cent of that of
Egypt. But Egyptian jihadism had proved to be intimately woven
into a ‘global jihad’ that would gain its full meaning with the
9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, masterminded from
Afghanistan by Bin Laden and Zawahiri.
â•… Egyptian and Algerian leaders rushed to say that they had
been fighting al-Qaeda for the past ten years and that they had
felt pretty isolated in their own private wars. The assertion was
certainly far-fetched since, with the exception of the Zawahiri’s
minor contribution to the 1992–7 terror campaign, the jihadi
insurgency in both Algeria and Egypt was basically indigenous.
But such discourse struck a deep chord with the George W. Bush
Â€
administration as it braced itself for a ‘global war on terror’.

â•… Arab Mamluks would also take advantage of a softer oil shock
that would—though without the dramatic impact of the two pre-
vious ones—bring back affluence whether directly (as in Algeria)
or indirectly (through the Gulf largesse). ‘Security mafias’ had
extended their clout all over the public sphere, but the global war
on terror gave them the unexpected privilege of international inte-
gration. ‘Black holes’ were not only tolerated, they became part
of a world web of ‘dirty wars’ against ‘terrorists’.
â•… Egypt rose as a main partner in the rendition programme and
the torture by proxy it involved on behalf of the USA.2 Algeria
collaborated more in information-sharing and adjusted its inputs
139
on its preferred domestic targets. Intelligence barons became

regular guests at Western think tanks and meetings held by the
sensitive ‘security sector’, while their American and European
counterparts competed for their cooperation. This was the high
tide for the Mamluk ‘security mafias’.
Back to the Past in Yemen
Al-Qaeda was something of a family story in Yemen. The Bin

Ladens originated from the Southern Yemeni province of Hadra-
maut before emigrating into Saudi Arabia and settling in Jeddah,
Usama’s birthplace. Just after he founded al-Qaeda in Pakistan,
Bin Laden ran his first operations in 1988 on behalf of his secret
network against South Yemeni officials, especially in Hadram-
aut.3 This covert anti-communist guerrilla operated with the full
knowledge and support of both the North Yemeni and Saudi
intelligence apparatus.
â•… The unification of the country under Ali Abdullah Saleh in
April 1990 led al-Qaeda’s sponsors to force it to terminate its
activities in Yemen, now that the Marxist straw man had been
incorporated into a Sanaa-run Republic. This was the first crisis
between Bin Laden and the Saudi security services that had until
then facilitated his operations, without being fully aware of the
clandestine dimension of al-Qaeda. The breach became
unbridgeable after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990,
when Bin Laden condemned both the Saudi alliance with the
USA and Yemeni support for Iraq.
â•… He was expelled from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, from where
he resettled in Sudan. There Bin Laden devoted al-Qaeda to an
ambitious anti-US jihad, but the opening salvo of such a grand
design was rather a flop: in December 1992, a bomb attack on
a 5-star hotel in Aden missed the intended target, namely Amer-
ican servicemen en route to Somalia, instead killing an Austrian
tourist and a Yemeni employee.4
140
â•… However, rather than turning against al-Qaeda, Yemeni secu-

rity jailed a high-profile Afghanistan ‘veteran’, Tareq al-Fadhli,
whose anti-communist activism in the Southern province of
Abyan had become a nuisance since the 1990 reunification. But
when the 1994 civil war erupted, Fadhli was swiftly released and
his tribal shock troops played a significant role in the victory of
President Saleh against the Southern separatists.
â•… In genuine Mamluk style, Fadhli was rewarded with a key
position in the ruling party, the General Congress of the People
(GCP). Saleh commissioned his own strong man (and fellow
tribesman) General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar to deal with Fadhli
and the other Yemeni ‘veterans’ from Afghanistan.5 But this
arrangement did not involve al-Qaeda, who carried out a major
suicide attack in the harbour at Aden in October 2000, destroy-
ing USS Cole and killing seventeen American servicemen.
â•… Saleh granted only limited cooperation to the FBI investiga-
tion team after the attack, in order to maintain full control over
the Yemeni chessboard. But he understood the global impact of
9/11 and enthusiastically enrolled in the US-led global war on
terror. George W. Bush received his Yemeni counterpart in
Â€
November 2001 at the White House. US advisers and advanced

weaponry started pouring into Yemen, where ‘suspects’ were
rounded up by the thousands, sometimes deported, and most of
the time brutalized.
â•… The Republican Guard was the main recipient of American
largesse. Nobody seemed troubled in Washington that the spear-
head of the ‘counter-terrorism’ campaign was also the regime’s
praetorian guard, commanded by the son of the Yemeni ruler,
Ahmed Ali Saleh. The Political Security Organization (PSO), or
Yemeni intelligence, founded in 1992, had been sidelined after
the USS Cole fiasco by a new National Security Bureau (NSB),
whose deputy director (and real chief) was Ammar Mohammad
Saleh, one of the president’s nephews.
â•… Therefore the ‘globalization’ of the war on terror led to the
Saleh family tightening their grip on an ever-expanding security
141
apparatus. Ahmed Ali Saleh’s Republican Guard grew rapidly

from ten to eighteen brigades. The Jordanian special forces that
were the backbone of the monarchy (King Abdullah II had com-
manded the Jordanian special forces before succeeding his father
Hussein in 1999) served as a model.
â•… Yahya Mohammad Saleh, Ammar’s brother, and another of the
president’s nephews, boosted the paramilitary Central Security
Forces (CSF) at the ministry of the interior. The counter-terrorism
branch of the CSF was generously supported by the USA.6 In the
Republican Guard even more than in the CSF, higher wages, bet-
ter weaponry and various benefits were credited to Saleh’s clan,7
ensuring the personal loyalty of those elite fighters.
â•… US generosity brought some results in the anti-al Qaeda strug-
gle. In November 2002, the leader of the local branch of the
jihadi network, Qaïd Sinan al-Harithi, nicknamed Abu Ali, was
killed in a drone strike in the Marib desert. (The official version
was that his car exploded carrying a bomb, but the Pentagon
could not help bragging about this CIA success in its ‘covert
war’.)8 Over the next three years, no fewer than twenty-three
major al-Qaeda operatives were captured and taken to Sanaa
central prison.
â•… Yemeni Mamluks seemed to have designed the best formula
to extract the most from this monopolized income. They had
found an antidote for the declining oil bonanza, soon to be
depleted by the absence of significant reserves, now that they
had plugged into the US global war on terror. They had escaped
the ordeal suffered by their Saudi neighbours, who were con-
fronted in 2003–4 by a fully-fledged terror campaign by al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). And in Yemen,
defending the Saleh regime was the top priority for these newly
trained and equipped ‘special forces’.
â•… This income-upgrading process could have gone astray, in
February 2006, when the twenty-three top al-Qaeda detainees
all managed to escape together from Sanaa central jail. The
142
prison breakout was monitored by US satellites, and the CIA

was incensed that a 140m long tunnel could have been dug out
of the facility. Accusations of corruption and deception flew
between Sanaa and Washington. Saudi Arabia, anxious that
there were eleven of its nationals among the runaway jihadis,
relieved the tension.
â•… Eventually, President Saleh benefited from this jail break: the
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states pledged to Yemen a
$5.5 billion aid package, and the USA resumed its security coop-
eration. Even though only ten per cent of the mooted GCC aid
was actually disbursed (for want of any transparency),9 the
Yemeni anti-terror show was back on the road. Al-Qaeda in
Yemen focused its attacks on foreign tourists, Western expatri-
ates and embassies, contrary to the insurgency dynamics of
AQAP in Saudi Arabia10 which extracted a heavy toll on the
local security forces.
â•… In January 2009, the disbanded Saudi networks regrouped in
Yemen, where they merged into the indigenous jihadi outfit to
form a revamped AQAP. Nasir al-Wuhayshi (aka Abu Basir),
Â€
one of the Sanaa jail escapees, became the first Yemeni leader of
this Yemen-based AQAP, with a Saudi deputy at his side. The
jihadi discourse went vibrantly revolutionary and attacks started
targeting security services.
â•… President Saleh then faced major challenges from all sides.
Most of the parliamentary opposition had coalesced into the
Joint Meeting Parties (JMP) and forced the ruling GCP to can-
cel the 2009 elections. The Southern Movement (Hirak, in Ara-
bic) opposed the presidential clan’s predation in the former
PDRY. Tariq Fadhli quit the GCP after fifteen years and joined
Â€
Hirak. And last but not least, a Zaydi insurgency was devastat-
ing the northernmost Saada province, with Saleh launching a
‘scorched earth’ offensive against this so-called Houthi move-
ment (the guerrilla was entitled ‘Believing Youth’, but was led
by the Houthi clan).
143
â•… The Yemeni president stubbornly held his ground and reaped
an unexpected benefit from an AQAP-foiled terror attack on a
US airline. On Christmas Eve 2009, a Nigerian carrying a bomb
was arrested on board an Amsterdam–Detroit flight. It was soon
proved that the terrorist had been trained, equipped and
instructed by AQAP in Yemen.
â•… Less than a year into office, the Obama administration
decided to dramatically increase US support for Yemeni security:
military aid boomed from $67 million in 2009 to $155 million
in 2010.11 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a
top-level international conference about Yemen in January
2010, and a ‘Friends of Yemen’ group was then constituted in
London under the auspices of the USA and Britain.
â•… President Saleh’s propaganda succeeded in associating his
political rivals with the jihadi menace, for instance playing on
Fadhli’s joining the Southern separatists. With insecurity reach-
ing unprecedented levels in Yemen, Western intelligence agen-
cies were finding it increasingly difficult to screen the regime’s
allegations. The Yemeni president could also revert to his Gulf
donors, where the jihadi straw man always worked his magic,
along with the alleged links between Zaydi Houthis and pro-Ira-
nian Shia hardliners.
â•… The economy was in a shambles, while civil strife and armed
insurgencies had impoverished Yemen even more. Jihadi com-
mandos, cornered in the Marib region a decade earlier, were
now active in the Shabwa, Abyan and Hadramaut provinces as
well. Ali Abdullah Saleh was determined to conclude the succes-
sion plan that would—as in 2000 Syria—benefit his heir appar-
ent Ahmed Ali, head of the Republican Guard.
â•… An outrageous failure in Yemen, the so-called global war on
terror had nevertheless served the Yemeni Mamluks extremely
well. They had even managed to create a two-tier army, with a
privileged presidential stratum lavishly supplied by foreign
donors under the ‘anti-terrorist’ rubric, as against an ill-equipped
144
mainstream army, bearing the brunt of the merciless counter-

insurgency in the far North.
â•… Two decades earlier, we saw how one of President Saleh’s
uncles had imposed his ‘protection’ regime on a Canadian oil
company operating in the southern province of Hadramout.
This blunt blackmail only worsened the security environment
for oil production, since excluded Southerners retaliated through
sabotage. As a consequence of this deterioration, protection
taxes rose to unprecedented heights.
â•… The global war on terror saw the Yemeni Mamluks replicat-
ing this operation on a far larger scale, oil now being replaced
by ‘anti-terrorism’ as a strategic commodity for the Western
leaders. The more this global war was waged in Yemen, the
greater the jihadi threat became, largely fuelled by the exclusive
sectarian policies of the ‘anti-terrorist’ warlords. This pattern
would prove even more perverse in Syria.
The Syrian Triple Game
Bashar al-Assad could also play the al-Qaeda tune to Western

decision-makers after 9/11: Usama Bin Laden, whose mother
was Syrian, had been inroduced to radicalism by a Syrian
Islamist in Jeddah;12 Abu Musab al-Suri, the Syrian ‘architect of
global jihad’,13 was the chief trainer at the main al-Qaeda camp
in Afghanistan, while being an ‘adviser’ to Mullah Omar, the
Taliban leader.14 The Assad regime traded on its past history
and claimed to have been fighting the same terrorist enemy dur-
ing their 1979–82 insurgency as the one who had now struck
New York and Washington.
â•… No lie was too big for the Syrian Mamluks. Decades of
involvement in international terrorism, with Hafez al-Assad
granting his protection to Carlos or Abu Nidal, left some scars.
In 1986, a Jordanian operative of Syrian air force intelligence
(the one in charge of overseas operations) was jailed in London
145
for an attempted bomb attack against an Israeli passenger air-

craft. But the West had rehabilitated Assad senior when he
joined the US-led coalition against Iraq in 1990. So far, Assad
junior was given the benefit of the doubt.
â•… Syrian security officials, like their Algerian and Egyptian
counterparts, were more than eager to share information with
the CIA about ‘high-value targets’, as al-Qaeda militants were
labelled, either dead or alive. Bashar al-Assad also relished see-
ing the global war on terror aimed at his regional rivals: in Pal-
estine, Yasser Arafat was vilified as ‘Israel’s Bin Laden’15 by
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was top
of the US list of the ‘Axis of Evil’.
â•… In September 2002 George W. Bush addressed the UN Gen-
Â€
eral Assembly, accusing Iraq of ‘supporting terrorist organisa-

tions’, adding that ‘al-Qaeda terrorists who escaped Afghanistan
are known to be in Iraq’.16 These jihadis had in fact found shel-
ter in the Kurdish northern region, out of reach of Saddam’s
regime, but the US president needed this al-Qaeda ‘smoking gun’
to force his way into the war. Two months later, Syria joined the
unanimous vote of the Security Council in passing resolution
1441, warning against ‘any further material breach of Iraq’s
obligations’.17
â•… However, Bashar al-Assad did not support the US invasion of
Iraq in March 2003, since he feared his regime would be next in
the so-called democratizing campaign of the Middle East. His
various intelligence agencies started cooperating with the rising
Sunni insurgency on the other side of the 600-kilometre Syrian–
Iraqi border. Of course, Damascus claimed to an angry Wash-
ington that controlling such a porous border was beyond its
capabilities.
â•… This was a ‘win–win’ game from the Syrian Mamluks’ point
of view: the American occupying force was stuck in Iraq proper
and would not dare to extend its operations towards neighbour-
ing Syria; Assad, through his unofficial support of the Iraqi
146
insurgency, had a new card to play with in the regional and

international arena (mainly with the Gulf states and with the
USA); and all the fighters and weapons being smuggled through
Syria to Iraq were heavily taxed by intelligence officials.
â•… This Iraqi bonanza became even more palatable for the Syrian
godfathers when they were forced out of Lebanon by the Spring
2005 ‘Cedar Revolution’, after nearly three decades of plunder-
ing occupation. Just as when Bashar al-Assad had absorbed the
blow of the US invasion of Iraq before retaliating through radi-
cal proxies, so now he swallowed the humiliation of his ousting
from Lebanon, but let numerous jihadi activists sneak into Trip-
oli, the main city of northern Lebanon.
â•… In August 2006, a new organization named Fatah al-Islam
appeared in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared, close
to Tripoli. Only a fraction of those jihadi militants were Pales-
tinian (there was for instance a strong Saudi contingent), but
many of them had already fought in Iraq. They discussed with
the al-Qaeda senior leadership (AQSL) the prospect of becom-
ing its branch for the Levant (bilad al-Shâm), as a logical follow-
up to the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI), the
local al-Qaeda franchise.18
â•… Fatah al-Islam provoked the Lebanese army into a siege of the
Nahr al-Bared camp, which continued from May to August
2007. Hundreds of casualties fell in the battle, but the remain-
ing jihadi nucleus managed to escape safely. This could only be
explained by intervention on the part of Syrian intelligence,
which later rid itself of Fatah al-Islam’s leader. As political sci-
entist Bernard Rougier underlined, Assad’s regime needed the
jihadi threat both to exist and to be controlled, since ‘a key com-
ponent of its [the regime’s] survival stems from the comparison
he nurtures abroad with a worse threat than itself’.19
â•… Syria’s playing with jihadi fire proved costly in October 2008,
when the US army, infuriated by Damascus’s support for the
Iraqi insurgency, raided one of its bases near the Syrian town of
147
Abou Kamal. Bashar al-Assad got the message loud and clear:
during the following years, the Syrian security barons kept a low
profile, even though they never suspended their active coopera-
tion with the jihadi networks.20 The rising star in Baghdad was
the Syria-friendly PM Nouri al-Maliki, a former exile in Damas-
cus during Saddam’s dictatorship, which also contributed to this
deceptive manoeuvre.
â•… Assad’s regime had handled with cool-blooded sophistication
the global war on terror on its own doorstep, making the most
of this threatening development. It had demonstrated that dedi-
cated Mamluks could use the al-Qaeda bogeyman against their
domestic opposition without even halting their continuing col-
laboration with authentic jihadi networks. This was a lesson
that Bashar al-Assad would soon put into practice on a much
larger and more devastating scale.
*
The Arab security mafias were the best equipped to benefit from
the post 9/11 international reshuffle. They had the anti-terrorist
discourse, the operational background, the sensitive files and,
most important of all, the required absolute absence of scruples.
Chapter 4 showed how the Algerian Mamluks had managed
through this new environment to extricate themselves from their
black decade in isolation. However, their Yemeni counterparts
remained unmatched in their ability to extract foreign support
and expand their power against the backdrop of a parallel
expansion of the local jihadi menace.
â•… The US invasion of Iraq (and the ensuing chaos it generated)
allowed Bashar al-Assad and Husni Mubarak to play on nation-
alist sympathies (and the popular fear of instability) to resist any
pressure for change. In 2005, the Egyptian autocrat had to run
against other challengers, for the first time since his accession to
power in 1981 (neither Nasser nor Sadat ever had any con-
tender). Mubarak still won 88 per cent of the vote, while his
148
police harassed opposition leaders, despite official and repeated

US protests.
â•… The colossal material aid that Washington was granting to
Cairo played into the hands of the Mubarak regime rather than
the reverse, since it was earmarked to buy US weapons and
other goods whose producers were lobbying in DC on behalf of
Egypt. When in 2005 Congress discussed the mere prospect of
allocating part of the $1.3 billion military aid to development
projects, the self-righteous uproar of the Egyptian Mamluks was
impressive (and effective).21 A few months later, the Muslim
Brotherhood got 88 supposedly independent MPs elected (out of
454), but the regime made it clear that this was the upper limit
of what it could tolerate.
â•… In Syria, more than a million Iraqi refugees had crossed the
border during America’s post-Saddam occupation, and these
became de facto the best propagandists for the Assad regime.
Their heart-breaking accounts of civil war, widespread looting
and unbridled crime made the Syrian population shiver at the
prospect of such a disaster hitting them. In addition to that, the
historical Iranian breakthrough in relations with the new regime
in Baghdad, under the cover of the American protectorate, con-
vinced Gulf donors to enhance their generosity towards the
Mamluks in Syria, and even more so in Egypt.
â•… But the global war on terror would not last for ever, and the
newly elected President Obama wanted to withdraw from Iraq
first, and then from Afghanistan. Arab Mamluks were still able
to rely on the oil bonanza, either produced locally or derived
from outside sponsors. At the end of the 1980s the first (aborted)
wave of democratization in the Arab world had coincided with
the demise of the Soviet Union and the oil counter-shock. Now
stability was the name of the game in the diplomatic lexicon,
and oil prices reached historical highs.
â•… This explains why the dynamics of the second wave of democ-
ratization were much more indigenous and durable: a new Arab
149
generation went on the streets to demand the end of the nizâm,

meaning both the ruling ‘regime’ and the corrupted ‘system’ it
nurtured. Some called it the ‘Arab Spring’. Yet an Arab revolu-
tion would be more appropriate, since the regime/system was
deemed unable to reform itself. A leaderless and non-violent
uprising was threatening the very foundations of the most
entrenched dictatorships.
â•… This movement started at the end of December 2010 in Tuni-
sia, where the security mafia was too centred on the presidential
family (Ben Ali and his Trabelsi in-laws) and too police-oriented
to see off the challenge of civilian protests. Once the armed
forces had refused to crush the demonstrations, the Tunisian
autocrat was forced to flee to Saudi Arabia on 14 January 2011.
Â€
â•… It took only twenty-seven days to topple the twenty-three-year

old Ben Ali regime. In every Arab country the situation seemed
unpredictable. However, the Mamluk cliques were the most vig-
ilant of all: they were aware of the revolutionary menace and
were ready to absorb its initial impact. They were also prepar-
ing to strike back with all their might.
150
7
THE STORY OF TWO SQUARES IN EGYPT
Husni Mubarak could not but feel supremely confident in his thir-
tieth year of presidential rule. The November 2010 parliamentary
elections were so conspicuously controlled by the security appa-
ratus than all the opposition parties eventually boycotted them.
Even the Muslim Brotherhood, which had initially expected to
reiterate its 2005 electoral breakthrough, had opted out after the
first round, blatantly marred by government manipulation.
â•… Mubarak had succeeded Sadat in 1981 because he was his
deputy, but he never designated a vice president himself. He was
keeping an alternative open between his son Gamal, a living
symbol of crony capitalism, who had built his own base inside
the ruling party (NDP/National Democratic Party), and Omar
Suleiman, the military head of the General Intelligence Depart-
ment (GID). The security czar had increased his power through
the US-led global war on terror, while ‘Mubarak Junior’ was
charming foreign investors and Davos Forum guest stars.
â•… The Egyptian president did not want to choose his own suc-
cessor, since he had no wish to alienate either constituency (the
security apparatus associated with Suleiman or the compradore
bourgeoisie rallied behind Gamal). In the Mamluk handbook
the safest bet was the spymaster option, because Suleiman com-
151
bined the domestic and international clout that were key to the
ruling clique. But the Egyptian despot was obviously tempted by
the dynastic scenario, first implemented at Hafez al-Assad’s
death in 2000 on behalf of his son Bashar (in Yemen, Saleh was
forcefully pushing in favour of his son Ahmed, commander of
the Republican Guard).
â•… Gamal Mubarak’s main weakness in this Mamluk-run world
was his lack of any military credentials. That was also what he
boasted about when he claimed to be able to reform Egypt. In
fact, such ‘reform’ was only intended to maximize the profits of
the tiny minority of Egyptian businessmen plugged into the
global economy. For the overwhelming rest of the country, it
was survival as usual. As economist Samer Suleiman put it:
‘Egypt’s story in the last quarter century had been the story of
regime success and state failure.’1
â•… This regime victory over national interests was the main driv-
ing force for the takeover of Tahrir Square in the middle of
Cairo by tens of thousands of peaceful protesters on 25 January
Â€
2011. Inspired by the Tunisian revolution, they shouted that ‘the

people want to topple the regime’, and Tahrir (Liberation)
became a collective aspiration as much as an urban centre.
Despite a violent crackdown involving live ammunition, the
opposition activists held their ground and the demonstrations
extended countrywide.
â•… Mubarak sacked his prime minister on 28 January 2011,
Â€
replacing him with Ahmed Shafiq, a former general from the air
force like himself. The next day, he appointed Omar Suleiman as
vice president. But the police had lost control of the streets and
tried to regain them in an unprecedented way: criminals were
released from eighteen prisons and dozens of police stations2 in
order to scare the population away from revolutionary protests.
â•… On Tahrir Square, waves of police-supported hoodlums,
named baltaguiyya, attacked the demonstrators, often on camel
or horseback. This ‘Battle of the Camel’, waged on 2 February,
Â€
turned out to be a revolutionary success. Everywhere, the secu-
152
rity forces, already blamed for their brutal repression, were now
accused of having betrayed the country by unleashing criminal
violence against the population, instead of protecting it. Police
stations were attacked, sometimes looted and burnt, along with
NDP headquarters. Neighbourhood vigilantes organized local
patrols and checkpoints.
â•… The Mamluk top brass contemplated with horror their whole
system on the verge of collapse because of the stubbornness of the
82-year-old president, who insisted on remaining in power until
the end of his fifth term in September 2011. The armed forces had
managed to dissociate their public image from the police bogey-
man, even though they had been actively engaged in the repres-
sion of the protests (and abuses carried out against detaineees).
â•… Local accounts of fraternization between demonstrators and
soldiers contributed to this enhancing of the military’s popular
credentials. ‘The people and the army are united like fingers of
one hand’ was a common rallying cry. On 6 February, Suleiman
Â€
opened a ‘national dialogue’ with various opposition parties,

including the Muslim Brotherhood, but the protesters on Tahrir
demanded nothing less than Mubarak’s ouster.
â•… Mubarak reluctantly agreed to transfer most of his powers to
Suleiman and to relinquish leadership of the army on the eve-
ning of 10 February. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces
Â€
(SCAF) therefore convened without the president. At dawn, on

11 February, a human wave of protest surrounded the presiden-
Â€
tial palace. Suleiman went on state TV to announce that

Mubarak ‘has entrusted the SCAF to administer the nation’s
affairs’.3 The now deposed president was flown from Cairo to
the Sinai resort of Sharm al-Sheikh.
A Not So Revolutionary Coup
Although the Tunisian revolution has been celebrated on 14 Jan-

Â€
uary, the date Ben Ali fled the country in 2011, interestingly the
153
Egyptian revolution has been associated with 25 January, the

Â€
first day of the anti-Mubarak protests on Tahrir Square. For the

Egyptians themselves, their uprising has been perceived as an
open-ended process at best and at worst as an aborted liberation
struggle. Mubarak’s fall was not just a dramatic achievement,
but also a total game changer.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks stood ready to remain the major ben-
eficiaries of the new rules, the way their Algerian counterparts
had maintained their upper hand at the cost of a fully-fledged
civil war. The parallel between Bendjedid’s deposition in Janu-
ary 1992 and Mubarak’s in February 2011 has seldom been
drawn, but it deserves attention. In both cases, a military coup
was implemented against the constitutional head of state. But
the so-called Algerian decision-makers preferred to remain in the
shadows, while the Egyptian SCAF came out as the official exec-
utive power.
â•… Field Marshal Mohammad Hussein Tantawi, minister of
defence since 1991, chaired the supreme military council through
his seniority over the twenty plus other members (SCAF mem-
bership has oscillated between 20 and 25, according to the
reshuffle of the top brass). The main players in the SCAF seemed
to be Generals Sami Hafez Anan, the Chief of Staff, and Sedki
Sobhi, commander of the Third Army. The SCAF’s most junior
member was Abdelfattah Sisi, director of military intelligence
since 2010.
â•… The SCAF could first count on an exceptional unity of views
among its components (or at least, on their shared resolve to
keep any dissent silent).4 The Mamluk elite’s behaviour matched
its belief that its collective fate was at stake. (The same process
occurred in Syria, but with President Assad still in power, while
the Yemeni Mamluks would soon split between pro-Saleh and
his opponents, bringing the country to the verge of civil war,
and therefore prompting direct Saudi interference.)
â•… This strong cohesion within SCAF contrasted sharply with the
power struggles that had plagued the Free Officers six decades
154
earlier. It was also a significant advantage for the Egyptian

Mamluks in a country agitated by revolutionary fever, with
activists of all shades exploring the possibilities of free speech at
last. The only Egyptian body that could match the military’s dis-
cipline was the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Therefore one
should not be surprised about the polarization of the post-
Mubarak scene—be it positive or negative—between the SCAF
and the MB.
â•… The myth of a ‘clean’ and ‘patriotic’ army as opposed to a
‘dirty’ and ‘repressive’ police force was also key to consolidating
the prestige of the new rulers. Contrary to the non-Mamluk
Tunisian army, they had not deposed the dictator to pave the
way for democratic transition. They had moved in to protect
their domination and privileges. Their preferred formula was to
have a civilian front, Algerian-style, yet they made it very clear
that they were ready to go all the way in their power bid.
â•… During three long weeks, the Shafiq government that
Mubarak had appointed just before his fall was kept in place.
However, popular pressure grew so strong that the SCAF desig-
nated Essam Sharaf as the new prime minister on 3 March 2011.
Â€
Sharaf, a respected professor who had joined the anti-Mubarak

Tahrir protests, soon had to admit that the real power remained
in the hands of Tantawi and his fellow generals.
â•… The SCAF had no problem in sacrificing civilian leaders of the
security apparatus to appease the public’s outrage. It was also
settling long-term accounts with police chiefs who had benefited
from Mubarak’s bias (police budgets had soared sevenfold dur-
ing the previous decade, compared to a ‘mere’ doubling of the
armed forces’ spending).5 Habib al-Adly, minister of the interior
from 1997 to 2011, was soon charged with embezzlement (but
significantly not for having ordered the killing of protesters).
â•… Meanwhile, Omar Suleiman disappeared from the official
stage after two weeks of being vice president. The SCAF had no
interest in him now that he had fulfilled his only mission, the
155
announcement of Mubarak’s resignation. The new head of the

GID was a SCAF member, General Murad Muwafi, previously
governor of Northern Sinaï. Israel, who had betted until the last
day on Mubarak’s remaining in power, was relieved to find
long-time partners in leadership positions.
â•… The adamant commitment of the SCAF to the peace treaty
with Israel was also crucial for the US renewal of the $1.3 bil-
lion military aid package, disbursed annually. The Egyptian rev-
olution had not raised the Camp David issue and the Muslim
Brotherhood only promised to hold a referendum on the treaty,
but the SCAF’s warmth towards Israel facilitated the continua-
tion of associated income flows to the Mamluk regime.
â•… It took the popular assault on various State Security posts, in
the early days of March 2011, to force the SCAF to act against
the much-hated political police. However, State Security was
simply renamed National Security and its powers remained
nearly intact. The much-publicized purge of State Security was
just cosmetic, since most of the ‘purged’ officers were eligible for
retirement (or were transferred to other police departments).6
â•… So the Egyptian Mamluks had restored their hegemony over
the security apparatus, while sending all the right signals to the
USA and Israel in order to safeguard their strategic income.
With the limited cost of deposing Mubarak, they had managed
to absorb the worst shock of the revolutionary protests. Now
they needed a constitutional formula that would consolidate
their upgraded power structure.
â•… Paradoxically, the Muslim Brotherhood became the SCAF’s
closest ally during this volatile period. The Islamist organization
had proved ready to strike a deal with Suleiman, to the dismay
of the Tahrir activists, days before Mubarak’s fall. They were
now open to a tacit agreement with the top brass in order to
hold general elections that they were confident of winning. In
this fool’s bargain, the MB dreamed of turning the clock back to
1952–4, when Islamist support for the Free Officers was aimed
156
at securing Neguib’s presidency, only to have this plot crushed

by Nasser.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks had not doubts about the MB long-
term objective, but they eagerly welcomed their help in curbing
the revolutionary fervour throughout the country. One promi-
nent MB lawyer from Alexandria was appointed by the SCAF to
the eight-member committee in charge of drafting constitutional
amendments. In a record ten days, this committee proposed
strictly functional amendments: judicial monitoring of the elec-
tions, limitation to two successive four-year terms of the presi-
dency, and the obligation to appoint a vice president in the first
two months of the mandate.
â•… Those limited amendments were presented to a popular refer-
endum on 19 March 2011. The MB joined the SCAF in actively
Â€
campaigning for a yes vote. The revolutionary coalition, on the

other hand, called for a totally revised constitution and argued
that a no vote would be the safest means to establish a new
Republic. This path was the one that would be followed in Tuni-
sia, with a public commitment to convene early elections for a
Constitutional Assembly.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks had no intention of loosening their
grip on power, and as long as they could elicit Islamist support,
they felt confident about the success of their restoration plan.
The referendum saw a sweeping victory of the yes contingent
(77 per cent) with an estimated 60 per cent turnout. No major
incident marred this electoral triumph for the SCAF, now offi-
cially legitimized as the supreme executive authority over the
‘transition’ period.
Bullets and Ballots
One month after the referendum, a military court passed a three-

year jail sentence to an Alexandria blogger who had accused the
armed forces of active participation in the repression. This was
157
a clear warning to the ‘revolutionary youth’, which the SCAF

was still praising on its Facebook page, the official mouthpiece
of the collective leadership. In one of its many ‘letters to the
Egyptian people’, the SCAF claimed ‘all the legal measures taken
lately were only directed toward thugs who terrorize the people
of Egypt’.7
â•… After having pledged to protect the protesters from any harm,
the military leadership reversed its policy and left a puzzling
security void during the next wave of demonstrations. In late
May 2011, tens of thousands of people again gathered in Tahrir
Square to call for a ‘second revolution’. A minority of them were
shouting for Tantawi and the SCAF to resign. Liberal and
nationalist forces were worried about the rapid convening of
general elections that would boost the well-organised MB (with
its new legal political branch, the Freedom and Justice Party).
â•… One basic demand of the Tahrir protesters had been the repeal
of the State of Emergency (imposed after Sadat’s killing in 1981,
it had been renewed every three years ever since). But the SCAF
retorted that its repeal could only be considered once the streets
were cleared of protesters. The military top brass dismissed as
mere ‘rumours’ the accusations made by human-rights activists
of the reported detention of up to 12,000 political prisoners.8
â•… On 8 July 2011, an open-ended sit-in was convened in Tahrir
Â€
Square to press for dramatic changes. Tantawi’s deputy at the

ministry of defence, the SCAF member Mohsen al-Fangary,
went on TV to address the protesters in a ‘threatening’ manner
that was received very negatively. A disillusioned protester com-
mented: ‘Statements always come very late, just like with
Mubarak, and are not satisfactory. We are not thugs, we are
revolutionaries demanding justice.’9
â•… The paternalistic tone of SCAF leaders towards the ‘revolu-
tionary youth’ was indeed a caricature10 reminiscent of the mix
of benevolent cajoling and stubborn scolding of the last speeches
of Mubarak. But direct violence soon followed these paternalis-
158
tic admonitions. On National Day, 23 July 2011, hundreds of

Â€
protesters were injured while marching to the SCAF headquar-

ters at the ministry of defence. The infamous baltaguiyya that
the Mubarak regime had unleashed on Tahrir were back on the
streets, now posing as SCAF supporters.11
â•… Two months later, Wael Ghonim, one of the icons of the
Egyptian revolution, published an open letter to Marshal Tan-
tawi: ‘Accusations of treachery have targeted individuals who
oppose SCAF policies under the premise that they are trying to
sabotage the trust between the people and the army. However,
some of the accused were at the frontlines of a revolution that
the SCAF has described as one of the historical moments in the
life of our nation.’12
â•… With the State of Emergency still enforced, activists were now
routinely condemned by military courts on criminal grounds.
Despite these widespread human rights abuses, fifteen parties
met on 1 October 2011 with Chief of Staff Anan to grant their
Â€
public support to the SCAF. Among the main signatories of such

Â€
an endorsement was Mohammad Morsi, the leader of the MB

political branch. The newly-founded Salafi Nour Party was also
part of the move, which deepened the divide between SCAF-
friendly Islamists and Tahrir revolutionary militants.
â•… The ghost of a military–Islamist alliance haunted post-Mubarak
Egypt during autumn 2011. On 9 October, Christian Coptic
Â€
activists demonstrated in front of state TV against the official

cover-up of sectarian violence. The military crushed the rally
and killed twenty-five protesters with live ammunition. The
anchor-woman on air called Cairo residents to come and assist
the soldiers ‘under attack by the Christians’.13
â•… The SCAF Facebook page published no ‘letter to the Egyptian
people’ during the month following the massacre. It was even
more of a shock when a cabinet office published a list of ‘supra-
constitutional principles’ enshrining how the SCAF were above
the law. Moreover, the military hierarchy could select 80 out the
159
100 members of the future Constitutional Assembly, and it was

declared that the defence budget would remain undisclosed.
â•… The slogan ‘The people want the downfall of the marshal’
(Tantawi) became increasingly popular in the subsequent protest
marches. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brothers were campaigning
for the parliamentary elections, scheduled to take place from
28 November 2011 to 11 January 2012. Their main rivals were
Â€ Â€
the Salafi Nour Party that had enlisted a new generation of mil-
itants, contrary to the ‘veteran’ members of the MB-run Free-
dom and Justice Party (FJP).
â•… The contrast could not have been greater between downtown
Cairo, where anti-SCAF protesters were falling every day under
security force firing, and the rest of Egypt, where elections were
being held under an appearance of normality. Revolutionary
groups, increasingly fragmented, were now weaker on Tahrir
than the Ultras, the generic term to designate the battle-hard-
ened soccer fans, who had a long record of clashes with the
police, rather than with the army.14
â•… General Sisi, who was the SCAF’s most junior member, was
in charge of the relationship with the young activists. Empower-
ing the director of military intelligence with such an outreach
mission was typical of the Mamluk mentality. And when the
revolutionary delegates complained about the victims of the
repression in a closed meeting with Sisi, they were appalled at
his reply: that he lost more men whenever he went on military
manoeuvres.15 The time for courtesy calls, let alone authentic
dialogue, was obviously over.
â•… The first round of legislative elections saw a sweeping major-
ity in favour of the Muslim Brothers (37 per cent) and the Nour-
led Islamic Bloc (24 per cent). Shortly afterwards, the SCAF
sacked Sharaf and appointed as head of government Kamal
Ganzouri, who had already been prime minister under Mubarak
from 1996 to 1999. The ministry of information was preserved,
thereby ignoring one of the most popular revolutionary demands,
160
and a retired general who had run the armed forces morale
department inherited the portfolio.
â•… When the three rounds of parliamentary procedure were com-
pleted, the Islamists confirmed their initial victory with 37 per
cent to the MB/FJP and nearly 25 per cent for the Salafi Bloc.
With 235 MPs out of 498, the Muslim Brotherhood got the sec-
retary general of its political branch, Saad Qatatni, elected as the
new Speaker. While the cycle of Tahrir violence had alienated
the revolutionary youth from the general public, the tacit agree-
ment between the Islamists and the SCAF seemed to have been
mutually beneficial.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The military top brass was very clear in issuing its red lines to
the elected parliament, despite the latter’s democratic legitimacy
based on a 54 per cent official turnout. SCAF member General
Mukhtar al-Mulla announced that the legislative majority would
‘not have the ability to impose anything that the people do not
want’.16 The government remained responsible only to the
SCAF, and when Prime Minister Ganzouri addressed MPs on
31 January 2012, it was to stress the need to maintain the State
Â€
of Emergency.
â•… The following day, in Port Saïd, a football match between the
Cairo club Al-Ahly and its local rival Al-Masry ended up in a
massacre: seventy-four people, mostly Cairo Ultras, were killed
when Al-Masry supporters attacked them, with the security
forces standing by. Police passivity together with staunch sup-
port of the SCAF by Al-Masry fans led quickly to accusations
that the revolutionary Ultras had fallen into a merciless trap.
â•… Some Tahrir shock troops had indeed died in the bloodbath.
And this tragedy, occurring one year after Mubarak’s fall, proved
that the Egyptian security remained unfit to handle mass move-
ments without provoking catastrophic outcomes. Ultras and revoÂ�
161
lutionary activists now shared the same hatred for the SCAF and
accused the Islamists of passively endorsing military repression.
â•… Tantawi suggested deploying two helicopters to evacuate the
injured victims, revealing his incapacity to grasp the magnitude
of the slaughter. He then proclaimed a day of national mourn-
ing, but when returning to Cairo, the soccer stars of the Al-Ahly
team refused to greet him at the airport. The SCAF leader even-
tually went on TV with a threatening and elliptical statement:
‘The people know the culprits.’17 The ministry of the interior
was besieged in Cairo by Ultras calling for revenge, while some
radicals even shouted ‘Death to Tantawi’.
â•… Not only had the Egyptian Mamluks been unable to restore
calm in the country after one year in command, but they had
also erected so many stumbling blocks on the way to a decent
political transition that they had generated an institutional
impasse. The Muslim Brotherhood seized the opportunity by
appointing a 100-member constitutional commission with two-
thirds of its members being Islamists (and only six women). The
liberal members soon withdrew from the commission, nipping it
in the bud. The escalating showdown between the SCAF and the
MB had thus paralyzed the post-Mubarak political order. Both
rival forces now simply hoped for victory in the presidential
elections scheduled for the end of May 2012.
â•… The SCAF’s delaying tactics had denied the constitutional pro-
cess its original meaning and deprived the elected assembly of
effective power. They contributed directly to the polarization of
politics through the presidential elections. The MB had repeat-
edly pledged not to have a candidate of its own, and had even
excluded one of its top officials, Abdelmoneim Aboul Foutouh,
when he declared his candidacy. But the failure of the Islamist
constitutional manoeuvre led the MB to reverse its presidential
stance entirely.
â•… Brotherhood strongman Khayrat al-Shater was nominated as
their official candidate. An alternative challenger, Mohammad
162
Morsi, was also registered to avoid any military veto on Shater,

who had been jailed for years under Mubarak and pardoned in
2011 by the SCAF. This jail record, even though it was political
Â€
rather than criminal, was indeed used to reject Shater’s applica-

tion. The main Salafi contender, Hazem Abu Ismail, was also
vetoed because of the alleged dual citizenship (American and
Egyptian) of his mother.
â•… The SCAF had therefore excluded from the presidential race
the two charismatic leaders of the MB and the Salafi movement.
The remaining Islamist contenders were the MB dissident Aboul
Foutouh and the unglamorous apparatchik Morsi. The military
favourites were the retired general Ahmed Shafiq, who had been
Mubarak’s last PM (and first SCAF head of government), along
with former foreign minister Amr Moussa. One outsider, Ham-
din Sabbahi, claimed the Nasserist legacy.
â•… On 23 and 24 May 2012, 46 per cent of the registered voters
Â€
went to the polls. The drop in the electoral turnout, compared

to the 54 percent of the legislative elections, could largely be
explained by the dissatisfaction of the public after the dis-
empowerment of the members of parliament. Morsi gained 24.8
per cent of the vote, followed by Shafiq (23.6 per cent), Sabbahi
(20.7 per cent), Aboul Foutouh (17.5 per cent) and Moussa
(11.1 per cent). A revolutionary coalition between Sabbahi and
Aboul Foutouh could have easily topped the competition, but
the divisions between nationalists, liberals and non-MB Islamists
had paved the way for a dramatic showdown between Morsi
and Shafiq.
â•… The SCAF could still rely on its constitutional watchdog, a
redoubt of Mubarak nostalgia, whose mission was to protect the
constitution adopted under Sadat in September 1971 and
amended by referendum in March 2011. All the members of the
Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) had been designated by
Mubarak and its president was specially chosen by the deposed
president to smooth the way for a dynastic transmission of
power between Husni and Gamal.
163
â•… On 14 June 2012 the SCC deemed unconstitutional the legis-

Â€
lative electoral law and therefore dissolved the parliament

elected five months earlier. The MB-dominated constitutional
commission was also dissolved on the grounds of being the cre-
ation of a supposedly illegal parliament, in the same way as the
recent law banning Mubarak’s dignitaries from political office
had been abrogated.
â•… To cut a long story short, the SCAF had simply erased through
this coup de force sixteen months of political transition, depriv-
ing the country of a parliament and a viable constitution. Egyp-
tian Mamluks were now concentrating all the executive and
legislative powers in their own hands. They were betting on pop-
ular fear of the unknown to secure the victory of their champion
Shafiq. But their cynical gamble backfired.
â•… On 16 and 17 June 2012, the official turnout fell to 35 per
Â€
cent, more than ten points fewer than during the first round.
Many disillusioned voters rejected the proposed alternative
offered to them: either Islamist or military candidates. This pop-
ular disaffection favoured the militant networks of the Brother-
hood, while disgruntled revolutionaries, like Aboul Foutouh or
Ghonim, voted for Morsi to force Tantawi’s clique out of office.
Just after voting closed, the SCAF issued a ‘constitutional decla-
ration’ that granted the military the upper hand in any dispute
with the future president.
â•… Morsi was eventually proclaimed the winning candidate with
51.7 per cent of the ballots (13.2 million votes, which meant 0.8
million more than Shafiq). He was sworn in on 30 June 2012 by
Â€
the Supreme Constitutional Court and appeased the SCAF with

his first statements. But once in power the new president moved
quickly: on 9 July, he reinstated the dissolved MB-dominated
Â€
constitutional commission; one month later, he reshuffled the

military hierarchy, appointing Tantawi and Enan as ‘presiden-
tial advisers’ (the SCAF’s leading duo was granted immunity
through this move).
164
â•… Abdelfattah Sisi, the head of military intelligence, became min-

ister of defence, while Sedki Sobhi was promoted to chief of staff.
The various top generals were replaced by their deputies (includ-
ing Murad Muwafi, leaving the GID to Rafaat Shehata) and were
generously compensated by public sinecures. The Muslim Broth-
ers were duped into believing that they had finally subdued the
Egyptian Mamluks. But the Deep State was soon busy undermin-
ing the first democratically elected president of the country.
Ten Months of Covert War
The Egyptian Mamluks were tempted to ‘suspend’ the electoral

process in June 2012, as their Algerian counterparts had done in
January 1992. But they were convinced that their constitutional
manipulation had ensured iron-clad guarantees on the preserva-
tion of their power. More important, they were deeply aware of
the formidable task any new government would have to face,
with the Egyptian economy in shambles, and they were proba-
bly relieved to leave the domestic frontline to a civilian author-
ity ready to pay the political price of making long-awaited and
painful reforms.
â•… One presidential source described Tantawi and Enan trapped
in an office, their mobile phones deactivated, while Sisi, until then
head of the military intelligence, was sworn in as minister of
defence by Morsi in a nearby room.18 This daring move occurred
on 12 August 2012, a few days after a major security breach in
Â€
the Sinai (sixteen Egyptian soldiers had been killed by a jihadi

combat cell in Rafah, which then travelled 15 km on Egyptian ter-
ritory, before being eliminated as soon as it had crossed the Israeli
border). Tantawi and his chief of staff could reasonably be held
responsible for such a fiasco. Israel and the USA therefore stayed
calm when Tantawi and Enan were deposed.
â•… But the parallel image of Tantawi out and Sisi in, portrayed as
Morsi’s masterstroke, could also be interpreted as a generational
165
changing of the guards among the Egyptian Mamluks. Tantawi,

born in 1935, and Enan, born in 1948, were replaced by prom-
ising generals in their late fifties. Contrary to the October 1973
generation, Sisi and his peers had no combat record. In true
Mamluk endogamous style, Sisi transferred his command of mil-
itary intelligence to his fellow general Mahmoud Hegazy, whose
daughter had married one of Sisi’s sons.
â•… A former military attaché in Saudi Arabia, Sisi would soon
prove to be a shrewd politico. He even duped the local and for-
eign media into believing he was a ‘notorious Islamist’.19 Mean-
while, he kept channels open with the opposition that had
coalesced into a National Salvation Front (NSF). He also
remained popular among the dignitaries and beneficiaries of
Mubarak’s era, designated by the pejorative term fouloul.
â•… Last but not least, Sisi kept the armed forces out of domestic
security, while the Islamist government appeared as insensitive
as the SCAF had been to human rights abuses (during the first
100 days of Morsi’s office, 34 people were reported killed by the
police, and 88 cases of torture registered).20 Keeping behind the
scenes, while the Muslim Brotherhood was taking all the blame,
proved both smart and efficient.
â•… There was another reason for this ostensible low profile: the
reshuffling and rearming of the Deep State. This concept,
imported from the Turkish public debate, had become a popu-
lar point of discussion in the Egyptian media during the winter
of 2012. When Nasser, Sadat or Mubarak were in power, there
was no need for the Mamluk-run state to go ‘deep’. The January
2011 mass protest forced the military top brass, rebranded as
the SCAF, to pay lip service to the ‘revolutionary youth’ and to
play political games with the newly legalized parties, most prom-
inently the MB-led FJP.
â•… Issandr al-Amrani, one of the most astute observers of the
Egyptian scene, summarized SCAF’s performance through the
first year of the revolutionary process as follows: ‘Apart from
166
gross incompetence, the army’s actions have another explana-

tion: reassertion of a “Deep State” that was badly bruised dur-
ing the January 2011 uprising and took some time to regain its
footing.’21 The dissolution of the former presidential party
(NDP)and the public rejection of Mubarak-era figures forced the
Mamluks to run ‘deep’ into alternative partnerships.
â•… One ally to contain and eventually roll back the revolution
was obviously the judicial hierarchy, which did a great job of
sabotaging the democratic transition by any means necessary.
The other more unexpected partner was the delinquent baltagu-
iyya. Instead of being hired by party bosses, as was the standard
practice in the heyday of the now defunct NDP, the ‘loyalist’
hoodlums were controlled more or less directly by the ‘security’
agencies, especially the ‘civilian’ GID (led by a general, a mem-
ber of the SCAF).
â•… This tripartite alliance between militarized intelligence, polit-
icized judiciary and criminal gangs that slowly emerged in Egypt
in 2011–12 is reminiscent of the nefarious triad that was the
trademark of the Turkish Deep State during the 1990s. In both
instances, the priority target was at first the leftist movements
(Kurdish or Turkish in Turkey, ‘revolutionary youth’ in Egypt).
But this was perceived as the easiest part of a struggle that
would eventually be waged against the Islamist threat.
â•… In June 2012, the Deep State threw all its weight behind
Shafiq in the presidential campaign, and was defeated. This left
the Egyptian Mamluks in a state of shock, blaming Tantawi,
Enan and Muwafi for such a failure. This might also explain
why Morsi’s ousting of this military trio did not generate a
stronger reaction from the other SCAF members. In purging the
top brass, Morsi helped it to absorb the traumas of January
2011 and June 2012 with a renewed aggressiveness.
â•… Sisi had only to wait for Morsi to make mistakes, and the
Egyptian president wasted no time in that respect. On 16 Novem-
Â€
ber 2012, Morsi sent his prime minister, Hisham Qandil, into
167
the Gaza Strip, for the past two days under bombardment dur-
ing the Israeli offensive codenamed ‘Pillars of Smoke’. This
unprecedented move contributed substantially to deterring an
Israeli ground assault on the Hamas-run enclave. A ceasefire was
brokered under Egyptian auspices on 21 November, since Israel
Â€
and Hamas would not talk face to face.

â•… Barack Obama called his Egyptian counterpart twice during
the Gaza crisis and ‘commended President Morsi’s efforts to
pursue a de-escalation’.22 This American blessing, combined
with pressure from MB hardliners, convinced the Islamist head
of state that the time was ripe for a bold move. On 22 Novem-
Â€
ber 2012, he published a ‘constitutional declaration’ that gave

him exceptional powers and immunized him from the judiciary.
One week later, the constitutional commission, although boy-
cotted by the liberals, hastily finalized a constitutional draft that
incorporated most of the Islamists’ demands.
â•… Mohammad al-Baradeï one of the leaders of the NSF opposi-
tion coalition, accused Morsi of ‘appointing himself Egypt’s new
Pharaoh’.23 Tens of thousands of protesters soon rallied in Tah-
rir Square to denounce Morsi, while MB offices were attacked
in Alexandria and in several other cities. In Damanhour, for
instance, a fifteen-year-old Muslim Brother was celebrated by
the Islamists as a ‘martyr’ because he died defending the party’s
local headquarters. But the opposition accused local gangs of
being responsible for the killing that deeply divided the city
between pro and anti-Morsi.24
â•… What happened in Damanhour was experienced in many other
places in Egypt. The Deep State had only to cunningly encourage
the growing splits that were isolating the Islamists in power from
the people, even though it is impossible to claim it actually took
part in murderous provocations. On the contrary, Sisi called pub-
licly for national reconciliation and pledged that the armed forces
would never support one camp against the other.
â•… Morsi’s decision to push the MB-drafted constitution through
a referendum ignited Egyptian politics. On 5 December 2012,
Â€
168
waves of protesters marched to the presidential palace of Heliop-

olis. Military tanks moved in, but stayed put. Thousands of MB
activists gathered to defend Morsi’s palace and attacked the
peaceful protesters. Increasingly violent clashes went on all
night, with at least ten people killed by live firing, mostly
Islamists. In Ismaïliya and Suez, MB party offices were attacked
and looted.
â•… The following day, Morsi, who had escaped from his besieged
palace during the night, accused the protesters of being ‘hired
thugs’. He based this claim on their ‘confessions’, admitting that
dozens of them had been illegally arrested and abused by MB
members. Islamist activists had even established a makeshift
detention centre at one of the gates of the presidential palace.25
Morsi appeared increasingly as a party leader, covering up the
illegal activities of his fellow Islamists, instead of ruling as a
president for all Egyptians.
â•… Morsi’s ‘constitutional declaration’ of November 2012 mir-
rored the SCAF ‘constitutional declaration’ in June 2012. But
the Egyptian Mamluks had been defeated by the polls, while the
Muslim Brotherhood could bet on a victory through the referen-
dum. The turnout on 15 and 22 December was just 32.9 per
Â€
cent, revealing the constant and puzzling diminution in popular

participation. But the constitution was approved by 63.8 per
cent of those who voted.
â•… The divisive legality on which Morsi was building his power
proved fatal to his popular legitimacy. The more the Muslim
Brotherhood believed it was ‘winning’, the more confrontational
the relations between their supporters and the rest of the popu-
lation became. Even the Salafi militants, who had actively
backed the MB-drafted constitution, were now antagonized by
Morsi’s party tactics.
â•… The liberal opposition had downgraded its hopes and was
now hoping to get a mere one third of parliamentary seats in the
coming elections, just enough to block any constitutional reform
169
(that had to be approved by two-thirds of the MPs). The

repeated call for a ‘national dialogue’ fell on deaf ears, with
activists on both sides clashing in the streets in what looked
increasingly like a blind vendetta. Morsi denied the formula of
a national unity government that Baradeï was proposing, and
which the NSF thought was the only way out of the crisis.
â•… The political impasse and the confrontational environment
generated the perfect conditions for the Deep State’s operations.
Historians of the next generation will no doubt be able to recon-
struct with documented sources the exact chronology of this
covert destabilization. And maybe they will have the benefits of
filmed research, echoing the landmark Spirale that Armand
Mattelart made about the carefully planned campaign against
Allende’s Popular Union in Chile in 1973.26
â•… At this stage, one can only point to the successive indicators
of a mounting escalation of subversion against the Muslim
Brotherhood. In a country where conspiracy theories abound, it
would be inappropriate to try to invest irrelevant meaning into
the sequence. But by merely outlining the various stages of mil-
itary mobilization is indeed revealing, given that most of the
attention at that time was devoted to the political showdown
between the MB and the NSF, now joined by the Salafis.
â•… For obvious strategic reasons the Suez Canal had always stood
at the core of the Mamluks’ priorities. The Brotherhood’s head-
quarters had been repeatedly attacked in that part of the coun-
try and Port Saïd witnessed the massacre of the revolutionary
Ultras. The second anniversary of the Egyptian revolution, on
25 January 2013, saw violent anti-MB protests, especially in
Â€
Suez, where the army was deployed to ‘secure strategic institu-

tions’.27 Protesters routinely condemned ‘the Brotherhoodization
of the state’ and the government’s alleged ‘begging to Qatar’.28
â•… Qatar had indeed pledged generous financial help to Egypt,
doubling its aid package from $2.5 to $5 billion.29 However, the
Gulf emirate was perceived not as a neutral partner, but rather
170
as the political patron of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout

the Arab world. The increased polarization between Qatar and
Saudi Arabia, despite the two monarchies being Wahhabi, had
also contributed to repeated crises between Cairo and Riyadh,
alienating even further the Saudi-backed Salafis from the Qatar-
supported MB.
â•… The day following the ‘second anniversary’ riots, the political
flames were fiercely fanned when a Cairo court condemned to
execution twenty-one Port Saïd residents accused of taking part
of the anti-Ultra massacre. The extreme severity of the verdict,
in a country where few security personnel responsible for pro-
testers’ death had ever been convicted during the past two years,
was received with outrage in Port Saïd.
â•… Immediately after the verdict, the prison in Port Saïd where
the defendants were detained was attacked by gangs armed with
firearms. Police stations were also assaulted in other parts of the
city. By that evening, at least thirty people had been killed,
including two policemen. Contrary to Suez where the army had
moved in swiftly after the first clashes, in Port Saïd the military
kept a low profile. On 27 January 2013, an enraged Morsi
Â€
imposed a curfew in Suez, Port Saïd and Ismailiya.

â•… The local population openly defied the curfew, expressing
their vocal hatred for both the police and the Muslim Brothers.
The military sent clear signals as to where they stood (they even
organized evening soccer competitions with the residents in
Suez).30 The slogan ‘One hand’ celebrating the alliance between
‘the army and the people’ became ubiquitous again. Thousands
of Port Saïd residents went so far as to sign a petition calling
explicitly for the military to topple Morsi.31
â•… In Cairo, the brutality of the Port Saïd verdicts at least had the
effect of appeasing the Ultras, who toned down their attacks
against the Muslim Brotherhood. But they were soon replaced
by masked activists who called themselves Black Block and
whose aggressiveness was totally focused on the Islamists: ‘We
171
will fight until victory, which means Morsi and his regime have
to go. Then, we do not care who will be president, as long as he
takes care of the country.’32
â•… It was the first time in post-Mubarak Egypt that a ‘revolution-
ary’ force had preached both anonymity and all-out war against
the Brotherhood. In Port Saïd, after weeks of clashes between
local gangs and the police, the army took full control of the city
in early March 2013. The military were welcomed by the
relieved population, while opposition officials openly bet on a
showdown between the army and the MB: ‘The army is back at
the table. We have to be careful that the military does not eat all
the cake. But nothing stops us using them to prevent the Muslim
Brothers eating all the cake either.’33
â•… Secret meetings were then held at the Navy Officers Club in
Cairo, between top generals and opposition leaders. Their con-
clave led to a daring conclusion: ‘if the opposition could put
enough protesters on the street, the army would step in, and
forcibly remove the president’.34 Mubarak-era loyalists joined
the talks, including Hany Sarie el-Din, the lawyer of the impris-
oned magnate Ahmad Ezz, who symbolised Gamal-inspired
crony capitalism.
â•… This inclusion of wealthy businessmen in the anti-MB coali-
tion was crucial, as Morsi tried desperately to secure a long-
awaited deal with the IMF on a $4.8 billion loan. But IMF
demands to cut government subsidies on basic commodities
would have been politically suicidal for the Muslim Brother-
hood. So the downward spiral meant a constant deterioration in
living standards of Egyptians (25 per cent youth unemployment,
rising inflation, combined with 10 per cent wage cuts).35
â•… Parallel to the Navy Officers Club top-level meetings, the
General Shehata-run GID had done its homework on the grass-
roots organizers. They ‘identified young activists unhappy with
Morsi’s rule’ since they thought the army and ministry of the
interior were ‘handing the country to the Brotherhood’.36 The
172
first working sessions started in mid-March 2013. Six weeks

later, the ‘Tamarod’ (Rebellion) movement was launched.
â•… Mahmoud Badr and the four other liberal founding members
decided that the movement’s target would be collecting 15 mil-
lion signatures on a petition calling for Morsi’s resignation. The
self-proclaimed purpose was to challenge the legitimacy bestowed
on the elected president by more than 13 million voters in June
2012. This was quite a strange approach to democratic process
and institutions, to say the least, since nobody could check the
validity of the signatures thus collected.
â•… The five founders of Tamarod came from the Baradeï-linked
opposition to Mubarak, as did Wael Ghonim and some of his
associates from the January 2011 uprising. But the Tahrir activ-
ists had then called for a fully-fledged ‘revolution’, while the
‘rebellion’ goal of Tamarod could placate the Mubarak-era
grandees, many of whom supported Tamarod financially.37
â•… Meanwhile, a powerful group of ‘independent’ media were
attacking not only Morsi’s rule, but his very legitimacy as an
elected president. The Arabist blog described a ‘relentless media
machine demonizing and delegitimizing the Morsi administra-
tion far beyond its self-inflicted damage’.38 The Muslim Broth-
erhood felt under attack from all sides and reacted by a renewed
aggressiveness that in turn sharpened its political isolation and
its militant rhetoric.
â•… This positioned Sisi and his fellow Mamluks at the very heart
of the political scene, just where they wanted to be. On 15 May
Â€
2013, the minister of defence issued no less than five public mes-
sages, all posted on his Facebook page, that were avidly com-
mented on throughout the political spectrum. The first message
was a solemn denial of any personal ambition: ‘the notion of
inviting the army into the country’s political life again is
extremely dangerous, it could turn Egypt into another Afghani-
stan or Somalia’.39
â•… Sisi also warned the media against any attack on the military
establishment: ‘the army follows what is published about it and
173
it does not like to see its officers and soldiers offended’.40 So

much for freedom of expression. But the military supremo was
also keen on stressing that the Mamluk grand design of a phar-
aonic ‘Suez Canal Development Axis Project’ would go ahead as
planned under the supervision of the armed forces and the GID.
â•… Morsi’s supporters felt reassured that the top brass would
stick to its corporatist interests and its neutral stand. One of the
Islamist officials declared: ‘in the Muslim Brotherhood, we did
not believe that the army would act against a government that
has revived Egypt’s prestige home and abroad’.41 Interestingly,
pro-Morsi activists were stating his ‘prestige’, not his democratic
credentials, as his main asset. The stage was set for the final
showdown.
A Summer of Blood
The Tamarod campaign was now going at full speed, with police
and administration officials openly supporting it. Anti-Morsi
activists claimed they had now reached their target of 15 million
signatures. A mass protest march was scheduled for 30 June Â€
2013. One week ahead of this much-anticipated deadline, Sisi’s

tone turned far less benevolent than it had been in mid-May.
â•… ‘We have a week during which a great deal can be accom-
plished. This is a call that is just motivated by the love of the
nation.’ The minister of defence urged ‘understanding, consen-
sus and genuine reconciliation’, before adding in an ominous
threat that the military ‘will not remain silent while the country
slips into a conflict that will be hard to control’.42
â•… On 29 June 2013, Tamarod announced that it had gathered the
Â€
unverifiable number of 22 million signatures. The following day,

millions of people took to the streets of Egypt. Impressive pictures
of the human tide were taken from the air by military planes (Air
Force planes also performed elaborate stunts, painting smoke
hearts and Egyptian flags above the protesters). Morsi showed no
174
sign of backing down, even though the ‘one hand’ of the military–
Tamarod alliance was now looming over his own head.
â•… On 1 July 2013, Sisi issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Morsi,
Â€
urging him to reach an agreement with the opposition. Mah-

moud Badr, on behalf of Tamarod, called publicly for the army
to step in.43 There were strong indications that the military were
ready to move anyway.44 On 3 July, three of the Tamarod
Â€
founding members met with Sisi, to the dismay of the two oth-
ers. Soon afterwards, the first democratically elected president
of Egypt was arrested and held incommunicado by the military.
MB leaders were targeted in a sweeping campaign.
â•… The military coup was described, consistently with the Tama-
rod narrative, as a ‘revolution’, while Sisi declared, in true
Orwellian style, that he was still not seeking power, at the very
moment when he was grabbing it brutally: ‘The armed forces
could not close their eyes to the movement and demands of the
masses calling them to play a national role, not a political role,
as the armed forces will be the first to proclaim that they will
stay away from politics.’45
â•… Once he had paid lip service to his repeated promises to ‘stay
away from politics’, Sisi went on with an explicit warning: the
army ‘will confront with all its might, in cooperation with the
ministry of interior, any violation of public peace’.45 The Tahrir
dream of the army defending the people from the police was
gone; it was now the entire security apparatus that was united
against any dissent. Such a public address was broadcast live,
with the military, administrative and judiciary hierarchy sitting
around a standing Sisi, along with the sheikh of Al-Azhar, the
Pope of the Coptic Church … and the leader of the opposition
front (NSF).
â•… Mahmoud Badr fully endorsed Sisi’s coup on behalf of Tam-
arod, alienating a significant sector of the liberal activists who
had hoped for a peaceful solution. One of the five founding
members of Tamarod was in shock: ‘What state TV read was as
175
if it had been written by the army, it threatened the Brother-

hood, told them they would use force if necessary.’47 Tamarod’s
state of grace had been as short as the 48-hour ultimatum Sisi
issued to Morsi.
â•… Adly Mansour, whom the deposed president had nominated
as head of the Supreme Constitutional Court in May 2013,
became the interim president. He soon chose the opposition
leader Baradeï as deputy. This civilian front left all real power in
the hands of Sisi, who had announced the suspension of the con-
stitution. The power cuts and gas shortages that had aggravated
Morsi’s unpopularity disappeared with a speed that gave credit
to the thesis of an organized destabilization.48
â•… Sisi appointed Shehata as Mansour’s security adviser and
replaced him at the head of the GID with one of his closest asso-
ciates: General Mohammad Farid al-Tohamy had been Sisi’s men-
tor when he was director of military intelligence and, after 2004,
of the Administrative Oversight Authority. This neutral title hid a
Nasser-founded secretive bureau that kept the security apparatus
in line through so-called ‘anti-corruption campaigns’.
â•… Morsi had ousted Tohamy in September 2012, after repeated
accusations that he had covered up massive financial irregulari-
ties on behalf of Mubarak’s cronies, including the presidential
family. One Western diplomat described Tohamy as ‘the most
hard-line, the most absolutely unreformed. He talked as though
the revolution of 2011 had never even happened.’49 Tohamy’s
appointment indicated that Sisi was seriously considering not
only a crackdown on the Muslim Brothers, but also their com-
plete eradication now that the coup was over.
â•… On 5 July 2013, twenty-five people died during clashes between
Â€
pro-Sisi and pro-Morsi activists all over the country. Thousands

of supporters of the former president gathered for an open-ended
sit-in in front of the Republican Guard Club, in the North-East of
Cairo, where they believed Morsi was detained. Before dawn on
8 July, the sit-in was attacked by the military and police with live
Â€
176
ammunition. At least fifty-one people were killed. Most of the

local media did not even bother to report the massacre.
â•… A few hours later, Mansour published a ‘constitutional decla-
ration’ that prepared the ground for drafting a new constitution.
Legislative elections would then be organized, prior to a presi-
dential vote. It was obvious that the ‘interim president’ was only
Sisi’s mouthpiece, since even Mansour’s deputy had not been
informed of such a declaration. The army remained explicitly
above the law in this proclamation.
â•… In Damascus, Bashar al-Assad warmly congratulated Sisi for
having deposed Morsi (one of the last decisions of the Islamist
president had been to sever diplomatic relations with the Assad
regime, relations that resumed immediately after the coup). In
Algiers as well, Bouteflika and his government lent their full sup-
port to Sisi’s coup. The icon of the Yemeni revolution (and
Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2011) Tawakul Karman was barred
from entering Egypt by the military leadership. This was a clear
signal of their support for Ali Abdullah Saleh, even a year and a
half after he had left office in Sanaa.
â•… Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait announÂ�
ced an exceptional aid package of $12 billion to Sisi’s Egypt.
Qatar—the main financial backer of the Muslim Brothers, espe-
cially in Egypt—was now vilified by the Cairo media. The Doha-
based Al-Jazeera satellite TV was even accused of ‘intoxicating’
the Egyptian people on behalf of the Brotherhood. The Egyptian
Mamluks could therefore combine the endorsement of their Syr-
ian and Algerian counterparts with the unlimited generosity of
Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.
â•… On 26 July 2013, Sisi called the ‘Egyptian people’ to demon-
Â€
strate their support for his fight against Muslim Brotherhood

‘terrorism’.50 Millions took to the streets that day, also celebrat-
ing the anniversary of the Free Officers’ coup in 1952. Dozens
were killed in clashes with Islamist supporters. A ‘museum of the
revolution’ was now erected in Tahrir Square, but it was dedi-
177
cated only to the struggle against the Muslim Brothers, under

the symbolic patronage of Nasser, Sadat and Sisi.51
â•… Hunted away from Tahrir, tens of thousands of pro-Morsi
demonstrators, including entire families, were now regrouped in
two mass sit-ins, one in Rabia al-Adawiya, in Madinat al-Nasr,
the other on Al-Nahda square, near the university of Cairo.
They kept demanding Morsi’s reinstallation to power. The min-
isters of foreign affairs of the USA (John Kerry) and of the Euro-
pean Union (Catherine Ashton) tried to broker the resumption
of a ‘national dialogue’ between the Sisi and Morsi camps. But
on 7 August 2013, the new regime rejected any concessions,
Â€
thereby ending any hopes for international mediation.

â•… One week later, the two sit-ins were forcefully broken up,
with hundreds of people killed in Rabia al-Adawiya. Armoured
tanks and indiscriminate sniping cleared the mass gatherings at
a horrendous cost. Human Rights Watch denounced ‘the most
serious incident of mass unlawful killings in modern Egyptian
history’.52 From 14 to 18 August 2013, more civilians were
Â€
killed than during the 18 days of the January 2011 revolution

(at least 928, compared to 846 in 2011).53
â•… Most of the casualties occurred in Cairo, while Islamist activ-
ists ‘retaliated’ against Coptic citizens and buildings (twenty-five
churches were attacked in ten of Egypt’s twenty-seven provinces
on 14 and 15 August 2013).54 There was also evidence of armed
Â€
resistance to the crackdown, since the number of policemen

killed in those five days of bloodshed was three times higher
than in January 2011.55
â•… Baradeï resigned from his vice presidency, in protest against
the massacre. But a lawsuit was soon filed against him for
‘betrayal of (the people’s) trust’.56 Baradeï knew first-hand how
the judiciary worked hand in glove with the armed forces, and
he therefore fled Egypt. The liberal fig leaf on the military coup
had served its purpose from Sisi’s point of view and could now
be utterly discarded.
178
â•… A police general interviewed on the record by the French

newspaper Le Monde was very candid about the targets of the
repression: ‘We need six months to liquidate or jail all the Mus-
lim Brothers. It is not a problem for us, we already did that in
the nineties.’ He added that ‘we have to detain or kill their lead-
ers, thirty top leaders and 500 mid-rankers, and then the others
will go home’.57 The police and the army threw all their forces
into this ‘war’, with a constant link drawn between the then still
legal Brotherhood and the jihadi groups that had been defeated
two decades earlier.
â•… One might wonder if the international community’s passivity
in the wake of the Egyptian slaughter did not convince Bashar
al-Assad that he could escalate the war against his own popula-
tion without significant risk. In the early hours of 21 August
Â€
2013, pro-regime forces bombed insurgent-held neighbourhoods

of Damascus with a combination of gas-loaded and conven-
tional rockets. Around 1,400 people were killed in the attack,
most of them through chemical strikes.
â•… Sisi’s Egypt, along with Bouteflika’s Algeria, dismissed the
accusation of war crimes against the Syrian dictator and stood
firmly opposed to any ‘aggression against Syria’.58 Mamluks
vowed to close ranks in order to protect one of their own, no
matter how horrendous the massacres he had committed. Inter-
estingly, Sisi did not shy away from contradicting his generous
Gulf backers when it came to solidarity with his fellow Mamluk
from Damascus.
â•… In Egypt, the dynamics of the all-out repression soon exceeded
its initial target. Some 2,000 alleged ‘Brothers’ were detained in
the course of a month. On 23 September 2013, the Egyptian jus-
Â€
tice declared the Muslim Brotherhood illegal and confiscated all

its properties. Two weeks later, an ecstatic pro-Sisi crowd cele-
brated the fortieth anniversary of the ‘October War’ on Tahrir
Square. Dozens of pro-Morsi demonstrators were killed when
trying to access Tahrir. The bloodshed was barely reported in
179
the local media. The square associated with the anti-Mubarak

revolution was now firmly back in the hands of the Egyptian
Mamluks.
Sisi the Superstar

‘In Sisi we trust.’ This banner was waved by a 50-year-old Cairo
fan of the minister of defence, who said in October 2013: ‘Sisi is
the best. He knew how to rid us of the Muslim Brothers and
how to confront the United States.’59 The schizophrenic idea that
the Egyptian military were a model of anti-American steadfast-
ness had spread as fast as the conspiracy theories describing the
MB as a CIA puppet. One of the SCAF mouthpieces went as far
as threatening live on TV to ‘slaughter Americans in the streets’
if Sisi were harmed in any way.60
â•… Sisi mania was running wild in an Egypt that had forgotten that
the pale Mansour was still, nominally, its president. Al-Ahram
celebrated the saviour general in understated prose: ‘Yes, the eagle
has landed. His bronze, gold skin, as gold as the sun’s rays, hides
a keen, analytical fire within. He challenges the world not with
bellows and bravura, but with a soft, sombre reproach.’61 T-shirts,
posters, mugs and souvenirs appeared on sale as the full parapher-
nalia of a personality cult swept across Egypt.
â•… A hero always needs a villain. Morsi, the deposed president,
still claiming his legitimacy from within his defendant’s cage,
was accused of spying for Qatar, conspiring with Hamas, and,
on top of that, of incitement to murder, looting and destruction
of the economy. Meanwhile, Mubarak was released and even
praised Sisi in a rare interview: ‘the people want Sisi and the
people’s will shall prevail’.62 Luminaries of the Mubarak era
were lining up behind Sisi, while exiled ‘businessmen’ reached
‘reconciliation’ agreements (settling corruption charges against
cash compensation) in order to return to their homeland.63
â•… The fierce crackdown against the Muslim Brothers continued
and was also extended to the remnants of the ‘revolutionary
180
youth’ who refused to join Sisi’s fan club. Since neither the main-
stream Islamist nor the leftist protesters had fallen into the trap
of armed violence, they were systematically linked with the
growing jihadi threat. The Egyptian military had launched mas-
sive anti-jihadi campaigns in the Sinai Peninsula, codenamed
Eagle in August 2011, Sinai in August 2012 and … Desert Storm
in August 2013. But, far from curbing the militant surge, those
operations had further alienated the local Bedouins and consol-
idated the popular base of the jihadi groups.
â•… Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM, literally the ‘Champions of Jeru-
salem’) had emerged as the strongest of those groups. Originally
active in the Sinai, with Israel as its main target, it had increas-
ingly begun to attack the security forces in a retaliatory logic for
their alleged ‘crimes’. ABM had also extended its reach into
downtown Cairo, where it attacked the minister of the interior,
Mohammad Ibrahim, on 5 September 2013. He escaped the
Â€
assassination attempt, but on 24 December ABM claimed the

Â€
suicide bombing of a police station that killed sixteen people in

Mansoura in the Nile Delta, 120 km north of Cairo.
â•… The following day, the Muslim Brotherhood was officially
labelled a terrorist organization. Egypt therefore joined the
exclusive club of countries who had branded as terrorist the his-
toric matrix of Islamism, along with Israel (towards Hamas),
Syria (where mere membership of the Muslim Brotherhood had
been punishable by death since 1980), Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates (in the escalation of their feud with Broth-
erhood-friendly Qatar). Egyptian security alleged they could
demonstrate the links between the MB and ABM, but those
claims were never substantiated.
â•… A fifty-member constitutional committee drafted a new char-
ter, the third since Mubarak’s fall, in which the concept of ‘civil-
ian regime’ was replaced by ‘civilian government’ (leaving full
rein to the military). The text was referred to as a ‘recipe for civil
war’ by one European think tank,64 while the political scientist
181
Nathan Brown described it as ‘a security state with a democratic

face’, since it ‘grants military courts the rights to try civilians’
and ‘the military budget is effectively insulated from the politi-
cal process’.65
â•… On 14 and 15 January 2014 the constitution was approved,
Â€
with an official turnout of 38.6 per cent (compared to 32.9 per

cent in December 2012) and an overwhelming 98.1 per cent pos-
itive votes (63.8 per cent under Morsi). The Salafis, who had
endorsed the MB-drafted text, now supported the junta-inspired
constitution, gambling that the military would have need of a
loyal Islamist partner. Indeed, the attacks on Christians, Shias
and non-believers remained frequent under Sisi, since Salafis
were often more sectarian than the Muslim Brothers.66
â•… Soon after the constitutional plebiscite, the docile Mansour
promoted Sisi to the rank of field marshal. The SCAF com-
mented that ‘the popular demand for Sisi is an order’.67 This
momentous display of Mamluk discipline was naturally fol-
lowed by the official candidacy of ‘Super-Sisi’. Nobody spoke
any longer about holding parliamentary elections before the
presidential poll, contrary to what Sisi himself had promised
after his coup.
â•… During the run-up to the elections, the judiciary, whose help
had been crucial to Sisi’s ousting of Morsi, asserted their sympa-
thies in the most unambiguous manner. The justice department
was thoroughly purged of any Islamist sympathizers. A court in
Minya, 250 km south of Cairo, sentenced to death no less than
529 alleged Islamists in March 2014 (then commuted the death
penalty to life imprisonment for 492 of them), and 683 the fol-
lowing month. This grisly parody of justice sent shockwaves
worldwide, but left Sisi and his supporters unmoved.
â•… Meanwhile, the military were now dealing directly, without for-
mal tender, with billion-dollar-worth projects funded by the
United Arab Emirates, ranging from colossal wheat silos to vast
housebuilding programmes ($40 billion for one million units with
182
the Dubai-based Arabtec).68 The ministries of health, transporta-

tion, housing and youth also gave commissions to the ministry of
defence for ambitious infrastructure projects.69 The Mubarak-era
magnates were aware that they would have to take into full con-
sideration the demands of their military business partners.
â•… Sisi resigned from the ministry of defence and retired from his
recent Field Marshalship in order to preserve the illusion of a
‘civilian’ candidacy. He did not campaign much, officially due
to his innate humility, more probably for security reasons (the
jihadi threat was indeed growing, instead of receding). His only
challenger, the Nasserist Hamdin Sabbahi, was prevented from
waging a serious campaign, notably because of the media black-
out on his programme and performances.
â•… Presidential elections were scheduled for 26 and 27 May Â€
2014. The turnout was so low on the first day that the govern-
ment panicked and declared May 27 a public holiday, while
shutting down commercial malls, encouraging the private sector
to let their employees vote and threatening abstainers with fines.
As the turnout remained dismally low, the elections were pro-
longed for a third day and free transport was offered to voters.
â•… In these circumstances, the official turnout of 47.5 per cent
seemed highly improbable, since the official media had claimed
it was 35 per cent, before ‘upgrading’ it to 40 per cent in the
final hours of the vote. The 4 per cent proportion of invalid
votes proved that a significant number of voters had been forced
to the polls and reacted with a defiant gesture. Sabbahi managed
to secure only 3 per cent of registered votes, compared to 97 per
cent for Sisi. But the tarnished presidential consecration had all
the traits of a shameful remake of the worst Mubarak-style
plebiscite.
â•… The elected president did not wait long before asking the Egyp-
tian people to prepare for two generations of sacrifice until the
country’s economy could be restored. In July 2014, he took the
bold step of announcing a progressive cut in fuel price support
183
(accounting for 20 per cent of overall government expenditure),

as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce all public subsidies.
â•… The hot summer was then plagued by power outages lasting up
to six hours in Cairo and sometimes twice as long in Upper Egypt.
The minister in charge admitted that the situation would remain
unsatisfactory for the next four years, until large-scale investment
in new power stations and renewable solar energy came to frui-
tion.70 But the extra amount of water discharged to generate more
hydroelectric power carried the risk of potential drought.71
â•… More troubling for the (former) marshal-president was his
inability to curb the rising tide of jihadi violence. The military
crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, despite their electoral
victories, had vindicated ABM and other militant factions, like
Ajnad Masr (Soldiers of Egypt), in their choice of armed jihad as
the only option against the ‘infidels’. They targeted security forces,
but also tourism facilities, aggravating the collapse of the tourism
sector, a major currency-earner during the previous decade.
â•… In three consecutive days in January 2014, ABM struck at
three different locations, with a string of bombings in Cairo, the
shooting down of a helicopter in Sinai and a deadly ambush of
an army bus. The military increasingly retaliated with air strikes
in the Sinai Peninsula. Such a nailed fist policy towards the local
population, coupled with mass arrests and forced deportations,
fuelled Bedouin hostility against the security forces. This is how,
for instance, the Sawarka tribe, south of Rafah, became even
more supportive of ABM.
â•… The perception of the Egyptian military as an occupying force
only enhanced the profile of jihadi groups as the armed protec-
tors of the local tribes.72 Israel understood the danger well and
allowed the Egyptian air force into the border region for the first
time since 1967. But an increasing proportion of jihadi attacks
occurred in mainland Egypt now, a trend that underlined the
failure of this bellicose approach. Despite such failure, President
Sisi delivered the staunchest warning one year after his coup:
184
‘Egypt is in a state of war, many are hostile to it within and out-

side the country who do not want this country to be saved.’73
Mamluks United
The first official trip made by the newly-elected Egyptian presi-

dent was to his Algerian counterpart, on 25 June 2014. Both Sisi
Â€
and Bouteflika knew better than anybody else what it had taken
to get them into the presidential seat, so they could skip the pre-
liminaries. Their joint statement focused heavily on their shared
concern about Libya and so-called terrorism. In the past, Alge-
rian and Egyptian Mamluks alike had joined in branding as
“terrorist” any kind of serious domestic opposition But their
convergence of views on Libya was a recent development.
â•… When Benghazi rose against Moammar Qaddafi in February
2011, the Egyptian military supported with intelligence and sup-
ply the Libyan insurgency in the eastern part of the country. The
Egyptian Mamluks were eager to take revenge for a four-decade
cycle of provocation, since the Libyan dictator boasted of being
more Nasserist than Nasser had ever been. They loathed the
Jamahiriyya system that had enslaved the professional army to
Qaddafi’s praetorian guard.
â•… Retribution came with the Benghazi uprising and the defec-
tion of the Libyan minister of interior, General Abdelfattah
Younes, who led his special forces with him on the revolution-
ary side. The split inside the Libyan armed forces seemed a har-
binger of the collapse of Qaddafi’s regime for the Egyptian
Mamluks, who looked at their institution as a watertight one,
ready to defend itself against all odds.
â•… However, Younes, who was appointed commander-in-chief of
the anti-Qaddafi forces, failed to live up to those expectations.
Egypt backed his demand for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone that
eventually led to an air campaign against the regime forces in the
second half of March 2011. Benghazi was saved from an all-out
185
assault, but a protracted desert war absorbed much of the revo-

lutionaries’ energies and blocked their advance westward.
â•… In late July 2011, Younes was detained on his way back from
the front by a disgruntled Islamist warlord and summarily exe-
cuted.74 This murder came as a shock to the Egyptian military:
they tried to fall back on Khalifa Haftar, who had been Qad-
dafi’s governor of Tobruk from 1981 to 1986, before defecting
to the CIA in Chad in 1987. But this veteran nationalist oppo-
nent had a far too confrontational attitude, which killed his
chances of becoming Younes’ successor. And Egyptian intelli-
gence lost the advantage, as its Qatari and Emirati counterparts
intensified their involvement in western Libya, around Misrata
and Zintan, respectively.
â•… The Algerian generals had warned against any foreign interven-
tion in Qaddafi’s Libya from the very beginning. They condemned
this ‘plot’ against Arab nationalism and stoked the wildest con-
spiracy theories about Israel, Qatar and NATO. They feared the
Â€
impact on Algeria of a revolutionary precedent in Tunisia and

they now denounced the growing jihadi threat in Libya. Algeria’s
military also lent covert support to Qaddafi’s regime until its
overthrow, and then welcomed some of the dictator’s family and
senior associates after Tripoli’s fall in August 2011.
â•… The Algerian and Egyptian Mamluks were relieved therefore
when the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood fared poorly at the first
free elections held in July 2012 (they won 17 out of 80 party
seats, on top of the 120 ‘independent’ MPs). This was a reassur-
ing message for the SCAF, recently humiliated by the defeat of
his protégé, Shafiq, in front of Morsi. The same went for Alge-
ria’s so-called decision-makers, wary as they were of the success
of an Islamist-run Tunisia. In eastern Libya Egypt increased its
support for Haftar, while Algeria did likewise for the Zintan
militias in the west.
â•… Haftar had indeed opposed the jihadi militia of Ansar al-
Sharia (the Supporters of Sharia) in Benghazi. Yet the main
186
rivals of Zintan for control of Tripoli were the militias of Mis-

rata who were by no means Islamist, despite their tactical alli-
ance with the Muslim Brotherhood. These local nuances were
naturally irrelevant for the Egyptian and Algerian Mamluks,
advocating in their own country a fight against ‘Islamic terror-
ism’ which had to be replicated with the same brutality in Libya.
â•… In February 2014, Haftar appeared on TV in a general’s uni-
form, calling for a presidential commission to organize new elec-
tions. He had then been accused of attempting a Sisi-style coup,
but three months later, emboldened by the political impasse and
by Egyptian support, Haftar launched his ‘Dignity’ offensive,
along with air raids, against jihadi and Islamist groups in Beng-
hazi. This was followed by a parallel move on the part of the
Algerian-backed Zintan militias in Tripoli.
â•… The violent clashes that followed, with dozens killed in Beng-
hazi and Tripoli, compelled the authorities to convene new elec-
tions, in which only 42 per cent of the registered voters took
part in June 2014. The new assembly met in Tobruk, but was
deemed illegal by the previous parliament, which refused to be
dissolved. Libya now had two governments, each responsible in
front of its own parliament: in Tripoli for the Misrata–MB coali-
tion, in Tobruk for the Haftar–Zintan alliance.
â•… It is important to note that, contrary to the dominant narra-
tives, this was neither an East versus West conflict (Zintan
actively supported the Tobruk government) nor a ‘nationalist’
versus ‘Islamist’ struggle (Misrata’s militias were no more
Islamist than Zintan’s). But Sisi, even more than Bouteflika,
pushed for the anti-jihadi discourse, which encouraged Haftar
to new extremes.
â•… Fighter bombers from the east targeted Misratan positions in
Tripoli twice in August 2014. Those unprecedented air strikes
did not prevent the Misratans capturing Tripoli airport from the
Zintan militias. US sources soon confirmed that Emirati air-
planes flying from Egyptian air bases had carried out the bomb-
187
ings.75 Egypt denied any intervention of the part of its air force,
without elaborating on its logistical support, while the United
Arab Emirates stayed silent.
â•… Those joint Egyptian–Emirati air raids, perhaps coordinated
with neighbouring Algeria, and backed by Saudi Arabia, had a
brutal counter-revolutionary flavour. The Misratan targets were
neither Islamist nor jihadi, but they happened to have entered a
political alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates had already joined forces in crush-
ing the popular protests in Bahrain as early as March 2011.
They had struggled in the whole region against Qatari support
for the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, and revolutionary
activism in general.
â•… In Egypt, the Saudi and Emirati authorities had contributed bil-
lions to Sisi’s coup. They were also supportive towards his Libyan
avatar Haftar. Since Qatar still backed the Misrata militias, the
Emirates had intensified their aid to the Zintanis. However, the
August 2014 bombings did not prevent the ejection of the Zinta-
nis by the Misratans from the capital city. And the Cairo-backed
Tobruk government still carried less weight than the Tripoli one,
since Haftar had been unable to conquer Benghazi.
â•… Beyond the post-Qaddafi power struggle, it is fascinating to
see how the Egyptian Mamluks joined the fray in a very dubious
battle in Libya, but refused to enter the anti-jihadi coalition in
Syria. Sisi, while visiting the USA in September 2014, answered
smilingly to a question about his absence from the Obama-led
bombing campaign against the self-proclaimed jihadi ‘caliphate’
in Syria: ‘Give us back our F-16 and Apache warplanes first.’76
Washington had indeed suspended the delivery of four F-16
fighter jets and some combat helicopters as a consequence of
Sisi’s coup. But the Egyptian supremo insisted on reclaiming
them as his, just as the Egyptian Mamluks considered the $1.3
billion annual American aid as a due. To date they have rejected
intervening in the sphere of their fellow Mamluks in Syria. Thus
188
it was that Sisi could combine his dependency on America with

a vibrant nationalist rhetoric. Nothing was new in that regard
under the Arab counter-revolutionary sun.
*
The Egyptian Mamluks had managed with far more talent than
their Algerian counterparts, two decades earlier, to contain, roll
back and eventually crush the democratic wave. While the Alge-
rian decision-makers were still fanning the flames of their 1954–
62 ‘revolution’ against French colonialism, the Egyptian top
brass had succeeded in associating themselves with two ‘revolu-
tions’ against two presidents: the first against Mubarak in Janu-
ary–February 2011, the second against Morsi in June–July 2013.
â•… In both instances, the Egyptian Mamluks had operated a coup
that had hijacked the popular movement into fulfilling the grand
design of the military hierarchy: sabotaging any decent demo-
cratic transition under the SCAF in 2011–12, and restoring
absolute power on the ruins of the Muslim Brotherhood in
2013–14. In Algiers, the presidential mummy was a sinister trib-
ute to his fellow ‘founding fathers’ of independence, but in
Egypt, Sisi was playing his part as a reincarnated Nasser—with
obvious delight.
â•… The fossilized ruling clique in Algeria had demonstrated its
inability to accept even a minimal dose of real change, while the
Egyptian Mamluks had gone through a generational changing of
the guard, from Tantawi to Sisi, that proved beneficial in the long
run for the whole corporation. This greater adaptability in Egypt
stemmed from the fact that the local Mamluks were not depen-
dent solely on oil income, like their Algerian counterparts, but on
a geopolitical cash injection, originally American and Camp
David-induced, then increasingly transferred from the Gulf.
â•… The Algerian nomenklatura was hooked on hydrocarbons,
with all the pathologies produced by such a fifty-year addiction.
The Egyptian Mamluks had gone through two essential meta-
189
morphoses to preserve the bulk of their privileges: from the

vibrant Arab nationalism of Nasser to the peace-making credo
of Sadat; from the crony capitalism of Mubarak to the arrogant
restoration of Sisi. Algerian rulers had been absorbed in their
domestic intrigues at a time when the masters of Egypt had con-
sistently played their international cards very well, thereby cash-
ing in the kickbacks that flowed from sustained involvement in
‘anti-extremism’.
â•… Algerian Mamluks could not, even in their wildest dreams,
pledge that they were fighting on behalf of others; while their
Egyptian fellows had successfully posed as the line of defence for
stability in the Gulf. This militant narrative was consolidated by
the ferocity of the Arab counter-revolution at a regional level.
With the horrors reported daily from Syria and, to a lesser
extent, Libya, it was easy to hammer home to the Egyptian pub-
lic the benefits of a military-enforced security. Sisi was a far
more credible ‘father of the nation’ than Bouteflika.
â•… This does not imply that Egypt would be wholly insulated
from a tragedy of the magnitude of the Algerian civil war in the
1990s. Under the disguise of a misleading ‘stability’, the country
had already, since the 2013 coup, reached the highest level of
political violence in its modern history: in the eight months fol-
lowing Morsi’s deposition, some 2,500 civilians had been killed
in the crackdown, some 17,000 wounded and more than 16,000
arrested.77 In October 2014, the number of political detainees
exceeded the unprecedented figure of 40,000.78
â•… Universities in particular have become a major stage for polit-
ical violence. In the academic year 2013–14, no fewer than six-
teen students were killed and over 3,000 arrested.79 When classes
resumed in October 2014, campuses had fallen under the con-
trol of a private contractor, Falcon, previously in charge … of
Sisi’s presidential campaign. University presidents also admitted
having recruited ‘patriotic students’ in order to monitor activi-
ties on the campuses.80 Despite this unprecedented infringement
190
of academic liberties, incidents occurred on a regular basis in the

Egyptian universities.
â•… When it came to jihadi terrorism, Sisi’s record was already ten
times worse than Morsi’s (twenty-eight deaths, mostly in Sinai,
from July 2012 to June 2013; against 281 victims, 40 per cent
of them on the Egyptian mainland, in the following eight
months).81 The Egyptian Mamluks had displayed in the past a
far better control of the security situation, even in the heydays
of the jihadi campaign of 1993–5.
â•… They had however succeeded, in their own manner and style,
in the same operation that had served their Algerian counter-
parts so well two decades earlier: amplify the jihadi menace to
such an extent that it kills the democratic process. Once it was
achieved, the ruling cliques, a modern version of the medieval
khâssa, were far less vulnerable than the humble ‘âmma to the
upsurge of violence or to more mundane troubles, like power
cuts and water shortages. A steady cycle of plebiscites would
suffice to keep this paternalistic social contract in place.
â•… Tahrir, or Liberation, Square was occupied in January 2011
in a revolutionary wave that forced the Egyptian Mamluks into
their first coup. During the following two and a half years,
openly under the SCAF, or more viciously under Morsi, the mil-
itary elite struggled to retake control of Tahrir from the ‘revolu-
tionary youth’. They were helped in that war of attrition by the
sectarian party politics of the Muslim Brotherhood who
dreamed of conquering Tahrir, before withdrawing to another
Cairo square, Rabia al-Adawiya.
â•… Very few people in Egypt were aware that Rabia al-Adawiya
had been a female mystic and an emancipated slave in southern
Iraq, during the second century of Islam. Rabia (Fourth) was
associated with the four-finger symbol that became the rallying
sign of the repressed Brotherhood. The massacre of hundreds of
protesters on Rabia al-Adawiya Square, in August 2013, was
indeed met with limited pockets of armed resistance. But this
191
bloody outcome was exactly what the Egyptian Mamluks

wanted to precipitate.
â•… It was far easier for the military clique to handle civil strife
than peaceful demonstrations. They knew how to shoot to kill,
not how to restrain their forces to allow protests to take place.
When Rabia al-Adawiya Square was eventually ‘cleared’ of all
opposition, the dream of Tahrir/Liberation seemed less attain-
able than ever. The local Mamluks, meanwhile, could promote
the most gifted among them as a new pharaoh. The jihadi men-
ace was not conceived as an existential threat; it was extolled as
a collective bond. Them or us. Shoot to kill. This deadly polar-
ization would prove even more deadly in Yemen and Syria.
192
8
EVIL TWINS IN YEMEN AND SYRIA
Throughout the 1990s, Algerian Mamluks proved their readiness

to plunge their country into horrendous civil war rather than
relinquish even a portion of their collective power. Again, the
absolute priority given to the regime’s interests rather than the
nation’s played into the hands of jihadi groups, who grew out of
the Islamists’ inability to build a sustainable alternative. The Alge-
rian military had effectively strengthened the jihadi monster by
closing the door to any authentic political transition.
â•… The same gamble produced the same results in Egypt during the
1990s, albeit on a much smaller scale: the Egyptian Mamluks
could rely on resources, namely the dividends of the US-sponsored
peace with Israel, which their Algerian counterparts lacked, while
the NDP’s hegemony was still a commanding reality in Egypt,
long after the FLN’s one-party rule had collapsed in Algeria.
â•… Following the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the
Algerian and Egyptian regimes banked on their anti-jihadi creden-
tials with success. Their discreet, but substantial contribution to
the US-inspired ‘global war on terror’ was extremely rewarding
for their security bureaucracies (especially through the rendition
programme in Egypt). Initially caught off-guard by the rise of al-
Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in 2007, the Algerian
193
Mamluks soon managed to marginalize the jihadi insurgents,

either in the mountains of Kabylia or in the border areas.
â•… When the Tunisian revolution terminated Ben Ali’s rule in
January 2011, the jihadi threat remained at an ideal level for
both the Algerian and Egyptian Mamluks: strong enough to jus-
tify foreign support to the security apparatus, but too weak to
really jeopardize any core interests of the ruling clique. The ban
that the Algerian security had imposed on the Islamist party two
decades earlier remained absolute; and in the same vein, as we
have seen, the Egyptian Mamluks eventually toppled the Islamist
president, jailed him and declared the Muslim Brotherhood a
terrorist organization.
â•… The Yemeni and Syrian Mamluks would use the jihadi joker in
an even more mischievous way. Ali Abdullah Saleh boosted the
jihadi menace to deter any form of political transition and, once
he had been forced to resign, he would fan the jihadi flames in
order to avoid dismantling his family’s control of the security
apparatus. Bashar al-Assad went further by paving the way for
the self-proclaimed Islamic State in his offensive against the
nationalist opposition and the revolutionary forces. The evil twins
of the dictators and the jihadis agreed on one basic thing: popu-
lar protests had to be liquidated at any cost… for the protesters.
The Jihadi Payback of a Presidential Ouster
During the decade following the 9/11 attacks, the jihadi threat
had grown as steadily in Yemen as had the US largesse towards
Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP) had been revamped in 2009 as a Yemeni outfit far more
dangerous than the original Saudi organization: AQAP main-
tained only urban underground networks in major Saudi cities in
2003, while, eight years later, it controlled large swathes of the
Yemeni provinces of Marib, Shabwa, Hadramaout and Abyan.
â•… President Saleh had found in AQAP the ideal justification to
consolidate a two-tier army, with a praetorian guard run by his
194
own kin and footsoldiers left to fight the jihadi guerrillas. West-
ern support was mainly absorbed by the regime’s inner circle,
while the regular army was ill-equipped and frequently
ambushed by AQAP (178 Yemeni soldiers were killed in combat
against jihadis in 2010).1
â•… Despite the growing protests in Sanaa and Taez, the Houthi
insurgency in the extreme North and the separatist trend in the
South, Saleh pushed forward a reform of the constitution that
would enable him to cling to power even after 2013. The Syrian-
style dynastical scenario of his son Ahmed Ali Saleh, chief of the
Republican Guard, succeeding him gained traction with every
day. The threat from AQAP was the main counter-argument
deployed in Washington or Riyadh when the regime’s foreign
backers expressed their worries about the despotic tendencies of
Saleh and his clique.
â•… Mubarak’s overthrow in February 2011 generated an unprec-
edented wave of popular protests all over Yemen. Young dem-
onstrators were harassed, brutalized and sometimes killed by an
ominous mix of plain-clothes policemen and armed hoodlums
(the same baltaguiyya that the Egyptian regime had launched on
the street protesters). On ‘Bloody Friday’, 18 March, more than
Â€
fifty peaceful demonstrators were shot by government snipers

in Sanaa.
Â€
â•… This bloodbath was the turning point in a crisis that became
openly revolutionary. The armed forces split when Ali Mohsen al-
Ahmar, commander of the first armoured brigade (Firqa), joined
the opposition and vowed to protect the demonstrators. The
defection of one of the closest military associates of President
Saleh, a prominent member of his own Sanhan tribe, proved how
the ‘national’ army was turning against the ‘regime’ forces.
â•… Clashes escalated in Sanaa and the countryside, involving mil-
itary units and tribal militiamen. The situation had grown so
volatile that it forced the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to
work actively for a political transition. But Saleh was adamant
195
in his resolve to complete his presidential mandate until 2013.

When outside pressures increased, the Yemeni dictator played
his jihadi joker.
â•… At the end of May 2011, loyalist forces withdrew from the
coastal town of Zinjibar, leaving it defenceless against AQAP-
friendly militants.2 Jihadi activists soon proclaimed an Islamic
emirate of Abyan, since Zinjibar was the capital city of this
Southern province. But shrewd Saleh had this time unleashed an
overpowering demon: a few days after Zinjibar’s ‘fall’, the
Yemeni ruler was gravely injured in a bomb attack within his
presidential complex.
â•… Ahmed Ali Saleh, commander of the Republican Guard, stood
in for his father while the Yemeni president, badly burnt, was
evacuated for treatment in Saudi Arabia. The dynastical scenario
was met with strong resistance from the president’s own tribe,
and GCC had more leverage on the ailing Yemeni ruler. In
SeptemÂ�ber 2011, a coalition of military brigades, loyal to the
president or to the opposition, joined forces in expelling the
jihadi fighters from Zinjibar.
â•… Soon after, Saleh returned to Sanaa and claimed that his resolve
to stay in power was intact. Timely intelligence was then provided
to US forces which enabled them to kill Anwar al-Awlaqi in an
drone strike: this Yemeni–American imam was accused by the
Obama administration of having inspired the failed terror attack
of Christmas Eve 2009. In this context, the American president
approved the unprecedented targeting of a US citizen.3 Saleh
appealed to Washington, citing Awlaki’s elimination, in order to
alleviate pressure from the GCC on his dictatorship.
â•… But the Yemeni ruler had played his final card and was forced
to relinquish executive power in November 2011. His deputy,
the Abyan-born Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, was endorsed as the
sole presidential candidate by both the ruling party and a major-
ity of the opposition in the February 2012 election, when he
won an unsurprising 99.8 per cent of the vote, with a 65 per
196
cent official turnout. Such statistics proved how this democratic

transition was heavily influenced by the dictatorial legacy of
twenty-one years of Ali Abdullah Saleh’s rule (thirty-three years
over North Yemen).
â•… The former president was granted full immunity, while his son
and nephews remained in their commanding position in the mil-
itary apparatus. New presidential elections were to take place
after a two-year transitional period during which a ‘committee
on military affairs for achieving security and stability’ was sup-
posed to ‘integrate the armed forces under unified, national and
professional leadership, in the context of the rule of law’.4 This
military committee managed to lift checkpoints and reduce ten-
sions, but did not make significant breakthroughs in the Saleh
family’s security structure.
â•… An ominous warning against any attempt to rock the military
apparatus came just one week after the transfer of power from
Saleh to Hadi: 185 soldiers were massacred, many of them in
their sleep, in an AQAP night attack against the Al-Kawd mili-
tary base near Zijinbar. This devastating blow was most cer-
tainly based on detailed inside information. The transitional
period thus began with the worst defeat ever suffered by Yemeni
forces in their decade-long battle against the jihadis.
â•… President Hadi’s first move, in April 2012, was aimed at
removing one of his successor’s half-brothers from the command
of the air force and one of his nephews from a senior position in
the Republican Guard. Both generals balked at the presidential
order and openly resisted this change. They eventually backed
down from a direct confrontation. But the retribution was hor-
rendous: a hundred soldiers, practising for the National Day
parade, were killed on 21 May by a suicide bomb attack, next
Â€
to the presidential palace.

â•… The terrorist was wearing an official uniform, so AQAP was
relying on inside intelligence as well as complicity, just as for the
assault on Al-Kawd that had occurred two and a half months
197
earlier. Hadi reacted strongly by demoting two of his predeces-

sor’s nephews, Ammar Mohammad Saleh (chief of the National
Security Bureau) and his brother Yahya (commander of the Cen-
tral Security Forces). The Saleh clan protested at being singled
out after the ‘National Day’ massacre, but eventually accepted
their fate.
â•… In August 2012, Hadi formed a special presidential protection
unit, generating a significant reshuffle of the Republican Guard.
This action against Ahmed Ali Saleh’s military constituency trig-
gered a retaliatory murderous assault by some of the former heir
apparent’s gunmen on the ministry of defence. The following
month, the minister himself escaped assassination. The Yemeni
president felt the heat and struck a major blow in December, by
dismantling both the Republican Guard and the pro-opposition
Firqa, as the first armoured brigade was popularly known.
â•… Through this daring move, President Hadi demonstrated his
will to promote a national army, and not to trade the Saleh bias
for an opposition one. This restructuring was resented among
activists on both sides, but was generally welcomed by the
Yemeni public. It was the best prologue to the ‘national dia-
logue’ that opened in March 2013. However, AQAP kept threat-
ening the transition process, with a major plot against the
Hadramaout oil facilities uncovered five months later.
â•… The ‘national dialogue’ closed after ten months of deliberation
with the approval, in January 2014, of a constitutional docu-
ment that only the Houthi insurgents refused to endorse. This
democratic achievement was followed by a string of jihadi
attacks. The escalation led, in April, to the launching of the
Yemeni army’s largest ever ground offensive against AQAP, in
the provinces of Abyan and Shabwa. The jihadis struck back in
the heart of Sanaa, attacking twice in 48 hours a checkpoint
guarding access to the presidential palace.
â•… The Yemeni transition remained fragile, two years after
Saleh’s departure. The playing with jihadi fire had prevailed on
198
the former dictator’s side, only changing in its form and mali-
ciousness. But AQAP networks with privileged access to
restricted intelligence and facilities had not managed to derail
the democratic process. So Saleh turned to his arch-enemies in
the Houthi insurgency and struck a deal with them in order to
undermine his successor’s government.
â•… There were several reasons for this seemingly contra-natural
alliance. First, the Saleh clan had been progressively ousted from
its powerful position in the security apparatus over the course of
2012, and it could conveniently divert the Houthi armed retri-
bution against its rivals from the Ahmar family. Second, the
Houthi movement had officially turned into Ansarullah (Parti-
sans of God), developing its cooperation (and even identifica-
tion) with the Lebanese Hezbollah and supporting the Assad
regime in Syria: the Yemeni Mamluks were therefore siding
actively with their Syrian counterparts.
â•… This counter-revolutionary dynamic gained momentum in
July 2014 when the Yemeni government decided to cut fuel sub-
sidies, a major Mamluk resource through institutionalized smug-
gling, as discussed in Chapter 5. Riots flared in the city of Sanaa,
with the open involvement of Saleh’s supporters. Ansarullah
combat units started to move southwards in a blitzkrieg that
was facilitated by more inside information.
â•… On 21 September 2014, a combined force of 2,000 Houthist
Â€
and 3,000 Saleh’s supporters moved into the capital city. The
offensive was coordinated by Ammar Mohammad Saleh, one of
Ali Abdullah Saleh’s nephews, and the former chief of the
National Security Bureau.5 The UN managed to mediate a cease-
fire between loyalists and insurgents, who took over the govern-
ment seat, the ministry of defence and the central bank.
â•… President Hadi was now forced to share his own capital with
an armed rebellion that was publicly supporting the Assad dicta-
torship. Homes and offices of revolutionary figures were assaulted
and looted in Sanaa.6 The formation of a new technocratic cabi-
199
net had to be painstankingly negotiated with Ansarullah, whose

columns were now advancing towards the port city of Hodeida.
But Saleh could bide his time, since his perverse manipulation had
restored him to being Yemen’s main powerbroker.
â•… Ansarullah offensives out of the Zaydi strongholds ignited both
anguish and anger among the major Sunni tribes, who felt aban-
doned by Hadi and his government. An AQAP call for an all-out
sectarian war was followed, on 9 October 2014, by a terrorist
Â€
bloodbath in the heart of Sanaa, with fifty-three people killed.7

The jihadi menace that had been arduously contained during the
previous spring was rising again. Saleh’s playing with jihadi fire
became so alarming that on 7 November the UN Security Coun-
Â€
cil adopted sanctions against the deposed president.

â•… The case of Yemen proves that even ousted Mamluks are pre-
pared to do anything to abort a democratic process they treated
and fought as a deadly threat. The jihadi bogeyman is a trump
card that can prove lethal to any political process, especially
when it is mixed up with other armed insurgencies. This should
end the recurrent debate about the virtues of the ‘Yemeni solu-
tion’, the oxymoron coined by diplomats to designate a ‘smooth’
transition where the despot retains certain powers, along with
absolute immunity.
A Syrian Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Since the beginning of the US occupation of Iraq, in 2003, the

various Syrian intelligence agencies cooperated with the Iraqi
Sunni insurgents along the 600-km international border. Damas-
cus was the main entry point for international volunteers eager
to join the Iraqi jihad.8 In this war by proxy, one of the main
partners of the Assad regime has been the Iraqi branch of al-
Qaeda that took the name of Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) in 2006.
â•… There were two reasons for the Syrian Mamluks and the ISI
jihadis to collaborate even more closely: the 2007 US-inspired
200
‘surge’ against al-Qaeda generated an unprecedented Sunni coali-

tion that divided the insurgency and isolated ISI; and large num-
bers of former intelligence officials from Saddam Hussein’s regime
joined ISI, their Baathist-security background smoothing the rela-
tionship between Syrian intelligence and the Iraqi jihadis.9
â•… Bashar al-Assad denied the very existence of popular protests
when they began in Syria in March 2011. His state propaganda
machine hammered away that the Assad regime, supposedly
supported by the Syrian people, was the target of an al-Qaeda
terrorist campaign, launched by a bizarre coalition of Israeli,
Saudi, US and Western intelligence forces. Meanwhile, Syrian
officials kept claiming worldwide that they were the sole bul-
wark against al-Qaeda and were defending the frontline in the
global struggle against the jihadi threat.
â•… Even by the Orwellian standards of the Assad regime, such a
blatant denial of reality was hard to sustain: peaceful marches
occurred in the streets of Deraa, Homs and Latakia, with slo-
gans such as ‘God, Syria, Freedom and nothing else’; protesters
sometimes carried olive branches as gestures of peace and
stripped to the waist in order to show the security forces that
they did not have concealed weapons. But the bloody repression
went on unabated as state TV started to broadcast live ‘confes-
sions’ by captured ‘terrorists’.
â•… Since most of the jihadis present on Syrian soil were actually
in jail, the Assad regime had no other means of sustaining its
own propaganda than by releasing them. This highly selective
amnesty took place through the spring and summer of 2011. It
coincided with a merciless attempt to crush the non-violent
opposition: thousands of civilian activists were rounded up,
hundreds went missing, often dying under torture; the city of
Hama, where hundreds of thousands of people had demon-
strated against the regime in July 2011, was the target of a mil-
itary offensive that killed hundreds.
â•… Mohammad Abou al-Fateh al-Jolani (literally, from the
Golan) was one of the jihadi leaders discreetly pardoned by
201
Assad. After his release he went straight into Iraq to join ISI,
which was led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (literally, from Bagh-
dad) since 2010.10 ISI no longer had a territorial base in Iraq
proper, due to the successful US-led ‘surge’, so Baghdadi sought
room for manoeuvre in Syria, from where he could build up
enough potential to strike back in Iraq.
â•… The non-violent strategy of the Syrian revolution had run into
a deadly impasse, with Assad unconditionally supported by Rus-
sia and Iran, and the West wary of a repetition of the Libyan cri-
sis. During the autumn of 2011, groups of military defectors and
self-defence local militias coalesced into a Free Syrian Army
(FSA). This army lacked everything, from armaments to supply
lines, and even a chain of command. This structural weakness
reduced it to purely defensive operations.
â•… Murderous suicide attacks rocked Damascus and Aleppo
through the winter of 2012. They were vehemently condemned
by all shades of opposition, while the regime denounced the so-
called terrorist plot behind any form of protest. In February
2012, Jolani officially established his Nusra (Support) Front,
while Zawahiri declared jihad against Assad on behalf of al-
Qaeda. Nusra was in fact the Syrian affiliate of ISI, but the Iraqi
Baghdadi used the Syrian Jolani as a front to appease Syrian
nationalism.
â•… In March 2012, the neighbourhood of Baba Amr, the FSA
stronghold in Homs, fell to an all-out assault by the Assad
regime. At least 7,500 civilians had been killed during the first
year of the government’s offensive against the revolutionary pro-
tests.11 Nevertheless many segments of the opposition resisted
the growing militarization of their movement. The Assad regime
was also abandoned by some long-term allies: Hamas, the Pal-
estinian Islamist movement whose Political Bureau had been
based in Damascus since 1999, left Syria to relocate in Egypt
and Qatar.
â•… Paralysed by the Russian and Chinese vetoes on Syria, the UN
Security Council eventually endorsed the peace plan presented
202
by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in March 2012.

Annan had the support on the ground of a 300-strong UNSMIS
(UN Supervision Mission in Syria). Those unarmed military
observers had no power to enforce truces and could only moni-
tor the increasing escalation of violence. A series of mass killings
by government soldiers and pro-regime militiamen (shabbiha),
especially in Houla and Koubeir in May–June 2012, laid bare
the impotence of UNSMIS. The mission was soon suspended,
Â€
then terminated, while Annan resigned.

â•… The FSA, which was reinforced by a wave of defections,
launched a joint offensive on Damascus and Aleppo in July
2012. This military gamble was a strategic blunder for the Syr-
ian revolution, since it polarized the country in an increasingly
merciless civil war. The balance of power was overwhelmingly
in favour of the Assad regime, which had sole use of planes, heli-
copters, heavy artillery and tanks. The insurgency got bogged
down in costly battles for one checkpoint, one hilltop or one
street block.
â•… No Western power was ready to give significant assistance to
the rebels. Nor did Saudi Arabia want a democratic Syria to
emerge either, since it would threaten the status quo within the
Wahhabi kingdom. The support Qatar provided to the FSA only
made the Saudis more eager to fund Salafi, and even jihadi,
groups. The situation was aggravated when the Qataris tried to
challenge Saudi influence over these extremists, while private
donors and Salafi networks actively raised funds in the Gulf to
support these fringe groups.
â•… Naturally, this vicious circle was exploited by the Nusra
Front. Yet the Syrian insurgents, who were tragically under-
equipped and often inexperienced, took the risk of inviting more
and more jihadis to the front line. While fighting for its mere
survival, the Syrian revolution lost its focus on its priorities and
underestimated the lethal threat of the jihadi groups. Nusra was
exploiting the advantages of its compact structure in relation to
its divided rebel partners.
203
â•… The provincial capital of Raqqa, in the Upper Euphrates Val-

ley, was an open city where Assad supporters, surrounded on all
sides, laid low. The Syrian revolutionaries needed this tacit
agreement to prevail in Raqqa, as a key supply centre and a cru-
cial way station between Aleppo and Deir Ezzor. So Raqqa had
been spared the horrors and destruction that had already disfig-
ured these two other cities. But Jolani wanted a town he could
call his own and Baghdadi felt the time was right, with a Sunni
uprising in the making in Iraq.
â•… Since the summer of 2012, the Assad regime had decided to cut
its losses in the Kurdish periphery in the north-east and the north-
west, in order to focus its war effort on central and coastal Syria.
The government therefore did not put up a fight to defend Raqqa
against the Nusra offensive in March 2013. The new jihadi
stronghold was not even bombed, while everywhere else the
armed forces were pounding FSA positions and rebel-held cities.
â•… Notwithstanding, the Raqqa saga was far from being over. In
a spectacular move, Baghdadi proclaimed in April 2013 the
Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) (Sham was the Greater
Syria that jihadi propaganda had been hailing for years). ISIS
absorbed Nusra in Raqqa, which became the main city under its
control on both sides of the border. But Jolani refused this
forced merger and called for Zawahiri to arbitrate this unprece-
dented inter-jihadi feud.12
â•… The al-Qaeda supreme leader backed Jolani’s claims and
acknowledged Nusra as his official affiliate in Syria. Baghdadi
was ordered to withdraw and focus on Iraq, but he took no
notice, since he had never pledged allegiance to Zawahiri after
Bin Laden’s death in 2011. Syrian jihadis deserted ISIS to join
Nusra, while foreign volunteers, more attracted by Baghdadi’s
global ambitions, made the reverse move.
â•… Assad could not have dreamt up a more favourable scenario.
Not only had his 2011 self-fulfilling prophecy about al-Qaeda
become real, but the jihadis, who had contributed so much to
204
the backstabbing in the revolution, were also fighting each other

with unbridled ferocity. The Syrian dictator felt then he could
deliver the final blow to the insurgency in Damascus: combined
with artillery bombardments, the gas attacks of August 2013
killed some 1,400 people. The rebel-held positions, initially
overwhelmed by casualties, eventually held fast.13 Yet despite the
Obama administration’s strongly worded speeches against such
carnage, they did nothing. And we saw how Sisi’s Egypt and
Bouteflika’s Algeria consistently fought any mooted ‘aggression’
against Syria.14
The Caliph of Terror
For two and a half years, the USA and the European Union had
justified their refusal of military support to the Syrian insurgents
by the fact that this could play into the hands of the jihadis.
Russia, for her part, echoed from the very start Assad’s anti-
jihadi narrative. But, contrary to what was assumed on both
sides of the international divide, abandoning the Syrian revolu-
tion had only consolidated the jihadi threat and extended its
capacities.
â•… During my field research trip to the rebel-held areas of Aleppo
in the summer of 2013, I was struck by how the opposition
activists seemed trapped between the Assad ‘regime’ (nizâm) and
the Islamic ‘state’ (dawla). There was a tragic irony to this grass-
roots revolution fighting a ‘regime’ and a ‘state’, both of which
embodied the brutal negation of popular aspirations. But, even
at that late stage, young militants still considered the jihadis to
be the lesser of two evils compared with Assad’s regime.15
â•… Tensions were however brewing all over the ‘liberated’ terri-
tories of Syria. ISIS had suppressed any dissent in Raqqa and
was implementing its rule of terror through public executions or
punishments. The intolerance of foreign jihadis precipitated fre-
quent clashes with the local population. Violent encounters with
205
the FSA became commonplace. Vengeance and retribution spilt

their trail of blood, while Assad’s regime conspicuously spared
ISIS, in order to target its rivals.
â•… In January 2014, a heterogeneous coalition of opposition mili-
tias launched the ‘second revolution’ against ISIS. After sustaining
Â€
thousands of casualties, they managed to expel Baghdadi’s sup-

porters from the rebel-held parts of the northern Aleppo and Idlib
provinces. That was the first time that ISIS had not only been
defeated, but repelled. Assad’s answer was a massive bombing
campaign of the jihadi-free districts of Aleppo. After some 2,000
died in those bombings, the population in ‘liberated’ Aleppo
plummeted from more than a million souls to fewer than 300,000.
â•… While the Syrian revolutionaries were paying such a terrible
price for their victory against ISIS, Baghdadi had quickly com-
pensated for his Syrian defeat in the Iraqi theatre. The sectarian
policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a staunch ally of
President Assad, had alienated Sunni leaders and exacerbated
their protests, especially in Western Anbar province. The army
siege and bombing of Falluja, in January 2014, allowed ISIS to
take the lion’s share of this symbolic stronghold.16
â•… There was an obvious parallel between the two allies Assad
and Maliki, both supported by Iran, and both bombing with
blind brutality the very forces that could have stood against
ISIS. The fact that Russia backed Assad in the same way that
Â€
Washington had backed Maliki made only more apparent the

two superpowers’ gamble on ‘national armies’ that were little
more than sectarian militias, with relatively limited operational
capabilities, despite the enormous arsenal delivered by their for-
eign patrons.
â•… Both Assad and Maliki needed to rejuvenate their ‘electoral’
credentials in spring 2014. More than 3,000 people had been
killed in Iraq in the four months preceding the legislative elec-
tions of late April. But Maliki could claim victory with his
Daawa party winning 92 of the 328 parliamentary seats. The
206
Iraqi PM knew there was widespread hostility to him renewing

his mandate, so he bet on the jihadi bogeyman to force reluctant
partners into a government coalition.
â•… This is how, at the beginning of June 2014, Iraq’s armed forces
simply collapsed in face of the ISIS assault on Mosul. Whole units
disbanded, senior officers vanished, weapon caches were left wide
open, along with half a billion dollars in the city’s various banks.17
Such a rout was not the result of betrayal, but the logical conse-
quence of the fact that this ‘national army’ was national only in
name. It was trained, financed and indoctrinated to defend the
regime, not the people, and had already garnered a sinister repu-
tation oppressing Iraqis opposed to this regime.
â•… Meanwhile in Syria, the Assad regime held its first ever ‘multi-
party’ presidential election, with two loyalist candidates running
as a pluralistic fig leaf for the dictator. The organization of such
a vote in a war-ridden country, with more than 160,000 dead
and 3 million refugees, was condemned by the UN Secretary
General, whose special envoy to Syria resigned. President Assad
was supposed to have claimed 88.7 per cent of the vote, which
meant 10.5 million voters with a 73.4 per cent official turnout.
â•… Those figures are frankly farcical. Since some 40 per cent of
Syrian territory (and 60 per cent of its population) was under
full government control, only a maximum of 7 million people
could have participated in the presidential elections.18 No vote
took place in Turkey, where most Syrian refugees resided, and
even in Lebanon only 40,000 voters were registered at Syrian
consulates (out of 1 million refugees).19
â•… Assad could claim to have been less greedy for his citizens’
votes than, in recent weeks, his Egyptian counterpart (97 per
cent for Sisi), but more than his Algerian fellow Mamluk (81 per
cent for Bouteflika). And, contrary to the former Egyptian Field
Marshal, Assad was not compelled to extend the voting period
to boost a turnout that nobody would trust anyway. In this
tragic parody of elections, the Iraqi poll looked the least rigged
and the only substantial result.
207
â•… Maliki soon appeared less worried about the capture of Mosul
than about the possibility of losing the prime ministership.20 He
gave free rein in Baghdad to the sectarian militias that were
harassing any opponent as a potential ISIS operative. He ignored
every call to step down, even from the Najaf-based Grand Aya-
tollah Ali Sistani, the most respected Shia religious authority.
When Washington refused to deliver fighter-jets to Baghdad as
long as Maliki was clinging to power, he turned to Moscow and
Putin delivered Sukhoï-25 warplanes in record time.
â•… Russia was still blindly adhering to the them or us narratives
peddled by both Assad and Maliki to consolidate their dictator-
ships via the jihadi threat. The fact that Baghdadi lacked a terri-
torial base in 2011 and that, after three years of ruthless
counter-revolution, he now controlled significant swathes of
both Syria and Iraq did not affect the Kremlin’s thinking. But
the fall of Mosul had worked as a belated wake-up call to the
White House.
â•… On the first day of Ramadan (29 June 2014), ISIS announced
Â€
the restoration of the Caliphate. The following Friday, Abu Bakr

al-Baghdadi proclaimed from a mosque in Mosul that he was
now Caliph Ibrahim and that all Muslims worldwide had to
pledge allegiance to him. The call went viral on the social net-
works that had become the main echo chamber for jihadi pro-
paganda. The self-appointed caliph also announced that ISIS
was now an ‘Islamic State’ with no territorial denomination.
Thus, he expressively claimed his expansionist strategy far
beyond the Middle East.
â•… For Assad and Maliki, however, it was business as usual. Their
main targets remained the domestic opposition, not distant
jihadis. Dozens of fighters fell in July 2014, during the battle
between the Syrian army and ISIS over a gas facility in central
Syria. But this turf war did not prevent the jihadi smugglers from
trading part of the production of the oil fields they controlled in
the Euphrates Valley … to proxies of the Syrian government.21
208
â•… It would take another two months after the fall of Mosul before
the outside powers decided to bypass the local Mamluks in order
to confront directly the jihadi challenge. ISIS had brutally expelled
the Christian population from its Iraqi territory and moved, in the
first days of August 2014, against the Sinjar range. This precipi-
tated an exodus of several hundred thousand people to the areas
controlled by the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). But even
the KRG fighters proved unable to stop the ISIS columns that
took over the Iraq’s main dam, close to Mosul.
â•… This string of jihadi victories in Iraq was paralleled in Syria,
where ISIS conquered the last government pockets in the eastern
province of Raqqa (including the Tabqa air base, along with its
planes and helicopters). The autocrats of Syria and Iraq had
demonstrated their inability to contain ISIS. President Obama
Â€
ordered limited air strikes to back a successful Kurdish counter-

offensive on the Mosul dam. And a spokesman for Ayatollah
Khameneï, the Iranian supreme leader, finally called for the des-
ignation of a new prime minister in Baghdad.
â•… This Iranian move sealed the fate of Maliki, who had to step
down. His successor as Iraqi PM, Haydar al-Abadi, came from
the same Daawa party. It took him nearly a month to form a
multi-party cabinet in September 2014, without even an agree-
ment on the interior and defence portfolios. Still, Maliki’s depar-
ture had generated a new dynamic that was crucial to shaping
an anti-ISIS international coalition. The beheading of two US
hostages prompted Obama into declaring his resolve to ‘eradi-
cate a cancer like ISIS’.22
â•… This game-changer was even more dramatic when compared
with Obama’s strong warning to France, in August 2013, not to
strike Assad’s regime after his mass gas attacks in Damascus.
This time, French president François Hollande was able to
visit Iraq (both Baghdad and the KRG) before convening in
Â€
Paris, on 15 September 2014, an international conference dedi-

Â€
cated to fighting ISIS. Fouad Massoum, his Iraqi counterpart,

Â€
209
co-hosted the conference, excluding any cooperation with the

Syrian dictatorship.
*
The evil twins of despotic Mamluk ferocity and jihadi terror
have extracted a barbaric toll on the people of Yemen, and even
more so of Syria. They have jeopardized the political transition
in Yemen and, so far, sabotaged the revolutionary process in
Syria. Despite the magnitude of their crimes, Ali Abdullah Saleh
and Bashar al-Assad have guaranteed full immunity for their
close partners, their family and themselves. On top of that, the
Syrian autocrat still controlled around one half of the country
and its population in autumn 2014.
â•… This was no small achievement for the Syrian and Yemeni
Mamluks, whose oppressive machines seemed to be running out
of steam during the summer of 2011. Their dramatic recovery
owed a lot to the viciousness of their jihadi gamble that literally
caught the popular uprising in a crossfire. But while it is one thing
to unleash jihadi fighters on one’s own citizens, it is an altogether
different matter to allow the jihadi virus spread worldwide.
â•… The Obama administration had turned a blind eye to Saleh as
long as AQAP appeared to be kept in check. In autumn 2011,
the Yemeni dictator was eventually perceived as part of the
problem rather than part of the solution, and he had to with-
draw with all undue privileges. It would take another three years
for the White House finally to accept that ISIS could not be dealt
with if Assad was not side-lined. Side-lined, but not targeted, so
the Syrian executioner got away with it, once again.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks were even more demanding: they
would not actively join the anti-ISIS coalition until the ‘terror-
ism’ targeted by such an alliance also included the Muslim
Brotherhood. President Sisi was obviously hoping to restore the
post-9/11 blank cheque that so benefited Mubarak’s regime. The
USA balked at such a demand but, despite their annual $1.3 bil-
210
lion contribution in military aid to Egypt, they could not force

Sisi to join the anti-ISIS caravan.
â•… The Mamluks had scored yet another victory, against their
own people as well as against the world’s only superpower.
Their one problem was the sharp decline in oil prices through
the summer of 2014, a trend that could, if sustained, attenuate
the income-fuelled violence of their repressive security appara-
tus. Meanwhile, they had one more commodity to snatch from
the Arab people and to trade on their own terms: Palestine.
211
9
STRANGLING PALESTINE
Arab Mamluks always nurtured a very possessive approach

towards Palestine. They knew how little they had achieved in
alleviating the plight of the Palestinian people, but they needed
the Palestinian decoy to justify the militarization of their own
societies under their aegis. The celebration of the Palestinian
‘liberation struggle’ was also central to Algerian FLN propa-
ganda, which equated the French and Israeli settlers in a pretty
far-fetched narrative, divorced from historical truth.
â•… When the Algerian single-party system was rocked by the
October 1988 riots, some security officials claimed it was part
of an international plot aimed at … undermining Algeria’s sup-
port for the Palestinian cause.1 (The PLO symbolically announÂ�
ced the establishment of its ‘State of Palestine’ during a national
council convened in Algiers the following month.) Conspiracy
theories abound in such intelligence-run systems, and it was
inevitable that the ‘Zionist enemy’ had a role to play in this
delirious cast.
â•… Indeed, some 600 PLO fighters had been evacuated from Bei-
rut to Algiers at the end of August 1982, when Arafat had to
leave Lebanon with thousands of his armed supporters, in return
for Israel lifting its siege of the Lebanese capital. But Arafat had
213
then moved the PLO’s headquarters to Tunis, not to Algiers. He

also relocated some 1,100 fedayines to South Yemen and 850 to
North Yemen, among other countries of destination.
â•… During the January 1986 civil war that devastated Aden, Pal-
estinian fighters carrying their national flag tried to mediate
between the South Yemeni factions, but with limited success.
Apart from this baroque episode, in Saleh-run unified Yemen,
Palestine became a standard cliché of regime propaganda, beat-
ing the drum of its ‘unwavering’ support for the ‘cause’. But in
Yemen as in Algeria there were no Palestinian refugees, apart
from the fighters’ enclaves, so the discourse remained abstract.
â•… This situation differs dramatically from what happened in
Syria and Egypt. As we have seen, Hafez al-Assad and Anwar
Sadat consolidated their ‘corrective movements’ by refocusing
their military apparatus on their strict national interests. Assad
even took power in the context of the betrayal of the PLO insur-
gency in neighbouring Jordan, during the infamous Black Sep-
tember 1970. After the joint October 1973 offensive, Assad and
Sadat diverged on how to regain that part of their national ter-
ritory that was occupied by Israel.
â•… Sadat chose a US-sponsored peace process with Israel to
regain Sinai, while Assad satisfied himself with a US-brokered
ceasefire that left the Golan Heights under Israeli occupation.
But both leaders considered any Palestinian interference in their
plans to be an act of aggression, and dealt with it accordingly.
This is why Assad’s troops crushed the PLO and its Lebanese
allies in the summer of 1976. This also explains the viciousness
of the retaliation of Sadat’s regime against Gaza when Palestin-
ians opposed the 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Israel.
â•… The Gaza Strip had been under Egyptian administration from
1948 to 1967, with a four-month interlude of Israeli occupation
in 1956–7. Cairo never expressed any territorial ambition on
this part of British-mandate Palestine, contrary to Jordan, which
swiftly annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Egypt
214
granted facilities to the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip,

especially when it came to admissions and scholarships to Egyp-
tian universities. These facilities were maintained even after the
1967 Israeli occupation.
â•… The Camp David divorce, with the Israeli peace generating a
Palestinian crisis, culminated in the Egyptian cancellation of the
above-mentioned support to the inhabitants of Gaza. Though
this volte-face hit family bonds and trade relations hard, stu-
dents were the most affected: this led to the establishment of the
Islamic University of Gaza as an alternative venue, soon a hot-
bed for Islamist militants. Sadat’s regime launched a propaganda
campaign against the ‘ungrateful’ Palestinians, who had suppos-
edly stolen the blood and bread of generous Egyptians for their
petty purposes. This campaign only intensified under Mubarak,
in parallel with increasingly xenophobic attacks.
â•… Assad went further in his anti-Palestinian hostility when he
fostered ‘dissidence’ within the mainstream Fatah movement in
1983. PLO loyalists initially kept the upper hand in the refugee
camps in Lebanon, but they were progressively rolled back by
the Syrian army and artillery from the Bekaa Valley, then
besieged in the northern city of Tripoli. Arafat and his guerrilla
supporters were pushed by Syria into the Mediterranean for the
second time in December 1983 (the first occasion being in
August 1982 when Israel expelled them from Beirut).
â•… In Syria, military intelligence monitored the Palestinian refu-
gees, who represented slightly more than 2 per cent of the over-
all population. A Palestine Branch operated to that purpose,
even though it targeted opponents far beyond Palestinian circles.
Military conscription was compulsory for young Palestinian
males, enrolled in specific Palestinian Liberation Army units,
which were in fact auxiliaries of the main Syrian forces.
â•… Palestinians were not granted Syrian nationality (contrary to
Jordan), but nor did they suffer the same kind of job restrictions
they endured in Lebanon. The refugee camps had become part
215
of Syria’s urban fabric, especially with the main Yarmouk camp

in southern Damascus. Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Latakia had
their camps as well. Syrian security had transferred the direct
control of the camps to anti-PLO factions, above all the General
Command.2
The Nightmare of Yarmouk
From the onset of the Syrian revolution in March 2011, Pales-

tinian refugees were torn between conflicting pressures: the
desire to stay neutral dominated among the camp activists,3 even
though young militants shared the Syrian grievances against the
security apparatus. Bashar al-Assad’s attempt to blackmail Israel
into ensuring stability for his regime were to trigger the first stir-
rings of revolt.
â•… Rami Makhluf, the billionaire cousin of the Syrian president,
had issued an unprecedented warning in the New York Times:
‘If there is no stability here, there is no way there will be stabil-
ity in Israel.’4 A few days later, on 15 May 2011, the anniversary
Â€
of the creation of the state of Israel, Palestinian refugees were

bussed by regime loyalists up to the Golan, where two hundred
of them tried to cross the 1974 ceasefire line. Four protesters
were shot dead by the Israeli army.
â•… Assad was clearly signalling that his Mamluk regime was the
sole guarantor of the status quo that had prevailed between
Syria and Israel for more than three decades. He reiterated the
manoeuvre on 5 June 2011, the anniversary of the Israeli occu-
Â€
pation of the Golan Heights. This time, Israeli forces killed

twenty-three Palestinians attempting infiltration. The Syrian dic-
tator understood he was playing with Israeli fire, and backed
down from further provocation.
â•… However, in the Yarmouk camp, General Command militants
were accused of having led Palestinian youngsters to a certain
death. Incidents flared between local refugees and the Palestin-
216
ian auxiliaries of the Syrian security. Never before had the Yar-
mouk camp been shaken by such violent protest. The regime
retaliated with its usual iron-clad repression, which drove even
more activists underground.
â•… Tension increased in Yarmouk when the Latakia refugee camp
was shelled by government helicopter gunships and artillery in
August 2011. The General Command militiamen were then rein-
forced by Palestinian mercenaries (shabbiha), armed and financed
by Yasir Qashlak, a Palestinian ‘businessman’ whose fortune
stemmed from his dealings with the Assad regime. Yarmouk
activists managed to protect the camp’s neutrality for more than
a year, despite the breakthrough of the revolutionary insurgency
in the neighbouring areas during the summer of 2012.
â•… This delicate balance was upset when the General Command
established militarized checkpoints around Yarmouk and started
patrolling the camp in December 2012. A few days later, a gov-
ernment fighter-jet bombed Yarmouk, killing tens of civilians.
The Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its more radical allies then
entered the camp, expelling the General Command and Qashlak
mercenaries.
â•… Yarmouk went from being a relatively safe haven in the
Greater Damascus area to becoming one of the main battlefields
in the struggle for the capital city. The population that had risen
to some 150,000 inhabitants due to various influxes of inter-
nally displaced people now dropped below 30,000. Hamas,
whose policy was never to engage in military activity outside
Palestine, believed that divorce with the Assad regime over the
Syrian revolution was leaving the refugees unprotected. Conse-
quently, Hamas decided to arm a specific Pact of Umar group in
Yarmouk, whose role was to defend the population against gov-
ernment raids and militia looting.
â•… Since July 2013, the regime blockade of the Yarmouk camp had
been tightly enforced. Pro-Assad shock troops were positioned at
the northern entrances, while Shia militiamen, mostly from Iraq,
217
moved to close the southern rim. In September 2013, government

forces fired some seventy mortar shells a day at the camp, half of
which was by now either destroyed or uninhabitable. The worst
was still to come, when the regime tried to starve Yarmouk into
submission, just as it had succeeded in imposing the capitulation
of other neighbourhoods of Damascus.
â•… In the last days of 2013, news started to leak from the
besieged camp that at least five people had died from hunger.5
In March 2014, Amnesty International released a special report
entitled ‘Squeezing the life out of Yarmouk’ in which the NGO
documented the names of 124 civilians who had starved to
death in the besieged camp, a figure that excludes deaths result-
ing from lack of medical care or victims being shot by snipers
while foraging for food.6
â•… The regime only selectively authorized United Nations convoys
to distribute aid parcels to a population now estimated between
17,000 and 20,000. Armed insurgents agreed to withdraw under
the condition that the regime would lift the siege; yet when the
government reneged on its promises, at the end of the spring, the
revolutionary guerrillas sneaked back into the camp.7 In August
2014, an UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in
charge of the Palestinian refugees) spokesman stated: ‘the human-
itarian situation in Yarmouk remains desperate’.8
â•… The Palestinian refugees have suffered from the Syrian tragedy
even more than the rest of the country’s population: four camps
out of twelve have been razed (in addition to the destruction of
half of Yarmouk); more than half of the refugees have been dis-
placed, mostly within Syria9 (because of the restrictions at the
border with Jordan and the overcrowding of the camps in Leb-
anon). Distressed Palestinian activists lament a new Nakba, in
echo of the 1948 ‘catastrophe’ that drove them into exile.10
â•… Palestinian refugees did not pay such a heavy toll for the Syr-
ian conflict by accident. Yarmouk’s descent into hell demon-
strated in the most terrible way that neutrality could not be a
218
long-term option in such a polarized environment. But the feroc-

ity of the Assad regime against the Palestinian enclave in Damas-
cus reminded the refugees how vulnerable they were, even after
three generations of life in Syria. Among the Palestinians fleeing
Syria, a few hundreds managed to make their way into … the
Gaza Strip.
The Prison Warders of Gaza

Contrary to King Hussein of Jordan, and even Nelson Mandela,
Husni Mubarak never found time to visit Gaza during the three
decades of his presidency (1981–2011). For the chauvinistic Egyp-
tian Mamluk, despising the Palestinians had become a way of life.
Gaza was basically a commodity to be traded at the best price
with Israel and the USA. It was therefore logical to punish the Pal-
Â€
estinians when they dared to alter the terms of such a deal.

â•… The Gaza dossier in Cairo was traditionally handled not by
foreign affairs, but by the General Intelligence Department
(GID), the very backbone of the regime. General Omar Sulei-
man, who commanded the GID from 1993 to 2011, devoted a
significant part of his time and energy to the dialogue on Pales-
tine with his American and Israeli counterparts. The CIA was
then monitoring ‘security cooperation’ between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority (PA), a codename for information-sharing
and joint operations against Hamas and other rejectionist armed
factions.
â•… De facto, the Egyptian GID was in charge of the back-up to
this ‘security cooperation’. Suleiman mainly relied on Moham-
mad Dahlane, appointed chief of Preventive Security, the main
Palestinian police, in 1994, when Arafat established the Fatah-
led Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip. Dahlane was pro-
moted to minister of security in 2003 and consolidated his
position as PA police czar (since the Oslo agreements forbid any
form of Palestinian army, the police was the only military autho-
rized in the PA-controlled areas).
219
â•… In September 2005, PM Ariel Sharon implemented the unilat-

eral withdrawal of the Israeli army and settlers from the Gaza
Strip. He wanted to relieve the IDF from the burden of direct
military occupation of this overpopulated enclave, but this ‘uni-
lateral’ move was intentionally not negotiated with the PA, since
Sharon wanted to close the door to a Palestinian state once and
for all.
â•… However, Egypt was a key partner to the Agreement on
Mobility and Access (AMA), signed under US auspices two
months after the Israeli withdrawal. The Rafah crossing point
between the Gaza Strip and the Sinai was to be run jointly by
Egypt and the PA, with the support of a European Union Border
Assistance Mission (EUBAM), in permanent contact with Israel.
This complex mechanism collapsed shortly after the January
2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections: the victory of Hamas
led to the formation of an Islamist-run government, which the
EU decided to boycott.
â•… Suleiman and the GID, who had kept channels open with
Hamas, even though they openly favoured Fatah, were best
placed to exploit their contacts in a context of conflict and crisis.
Egyptian intelligence was the only one operating openly in the
Gaza Strip. When Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit, an Israeli tank
server, in June 2006, Suleiman himself started mediating between
the Islamist movement and Israel. But the Egyptian general sus-
pended his initiative after Israel intensified its raids on Gaza.
â•… The GID officials also worked to ease the growing tensions
between Fatah and Hamas. One of them was even injured in
May 2007 by a Fatah gunman while hosting a conciliation meet-
ing. But Suleiman was secretly backing, with US support, a mil-
itary move by Dahlane against Hamas. This offensive was
pre-empted by the Qassam brigades, Hamas’ military wing, in
June 2007, when Dahlane was undergoing knee surgery in an
Egyptian hospital. Left leaderless, Fatah loyalists soon lost
ground, leaving Hamas as the sole ruler of the Gaza Strip.
220
â•… Mubarak was furious at this Islamist takeover. He joined

Israel in imposing a strict blockade on the Gaza Strip, hoping
that an impoverished population would hold Hamas responsible
for its plight. In January 2008, Palestinian militants used explo-
sives to destroy parts of the frontier wall with Egypt. Thousands
of civilians rushed through the breach and overwhelmed the
Egyptian security. But they were eventually stopped at the Suez
Canal, if they made it that far west. In less than a week, all the
Palestinian ‘escapees’ had been returned to their open-air prison.
â•… In the meantime, in Cairo, the GID was sponsoring inter-Pal-
estinian talks, supposedly aimed at bridging the gap between
Fatah and Hamas. But the Egyptian pro-Fatah bias was so
ardent that the talks stalled for years. The Mubarak regime con-
sistently accused Hamas of being responsible of the Israeli block-
ade, and the Egyptian military added their own pressure in
Rafah to this collective sanction on the Gaza population. This
Israeli–Egyptian siege had the unexpected result of boosting the
tunnel smuggling with Egypt, with two-thirds of the local econ-
omy depending on this subterranean trade in 2010.11
â•… The Egyptian revolution changed the equation dramatically.
Suleiman had the dubious privilege of announcing Mubarak’s
resignation in February 2011, before disappearing from the pub-
lic scene himself. Three months later, in Cairo, PA president
Mahmud Abbas and Hamas exiled leader Khaled Meshaal
agreed on their ‘national reconciliation’. This breakthrough was
achieved because the GID was at last mediating between the two
factions, and not trying to pin Hamas down as it had in the past.
â•… This new Egyptian attitude also allowed the October 2011 pris-
oner exchange between Israel and Hamas. A total of 1,027 Pales-
tinian detainees were released to secure Shalit’s return to Israel.
The Qassam brigades and their leader, Ahmad Jaabari, had basi-
cally obtained what they had been demanding for the past 2,000
days. Even though German intelligence had played a role in the
secret talks, the Egyptian GID was the main broker of the deal,
thanks to the bond of trust recently established with Hamas.
221
â•… The Rafah crossing point remained a challenging ordeal for

Palestinians travelling to Egypt. But Mohammad Morsi’s victory
at the June 2012 presidential election forced the Egyptian mili-
tary to smooth exit procedures from Gaza. The Sinai security
was also ordered to turn a blind eye to most of the smuggling
into Palestinian territory, which led to a relative ‘real estate bub-
ble’, thanks to an unprecedented underground flow of cement
and other construction materials.
â•… In November 2012 the Israelis killed Jaabari, which fuelled a
new round of hostilities. But this time, Egyptian mediation was
proactive and offered a significant diplomatic input. President
Morsi succeeded in avoiding an Israeli land offensive and
restored the ceasefire in Gaza. The Palestinian enclave remained
under siege, yet the breathing space at the border with Egypt
made life less difficult for the local population.
â•… In May 2013 an incident revealed how the security forces
could undermine Morsi’s Gaza policy: the police closed the
Rafah crossing point to force Sinai criminals to release seven
abducted soldiers. But this ominous blackmail was only a taster
of the Egyptian Mamluks’ revenge against Gaza after their July
2013 coup against Morsi. While around a thousand people were
allowed out from Rafah on a daily basis, the number fell to less
than two hundred, with a general ban on men aged 18–40.12
â•… The worst was yet to come, with the systematic campaign
waged by the Egyptian security forces against the smuggling tun-
nels. While Hamas and other factions had the capacity to pro-
tect their weapons and explosives supply lines, tunnels delivering
fuel, cement and consumer goods were hit the hardest. The Gaza
Strip, always on the brink of economic collapse, came to a vir-
tual halt, with prices soaring, construction stalled and gas in
short supply.
â•… The Egyptian junta went so far as to accuse the deposed
Â�president Morsi of being a ‘Hamas operative’. They circulated
the wildest conspiracy theories, according to which Barack
222
Obama had offered billions of dollars to buy a large part of

the Sinai Peninsula from Morsi’s Egypt on behalf of Hamas. In
Â€
such frantic narratives, the tunnels from Gaza had become a

vicious weapon used to dismember Egyptian territorial integ-
rity.13 Gaza was painted as the focus of such American–Islamist
plots against Egypt.
â•… With the wave of murderous and blind violence sweeping Egypt
in the summer 2013, those wild theories, hammered out by the
junta propaganda machine were increasingly accepted as simple
facts.14 In an echo of the Syrian Mamluks accusing the Palestinian
refugees of betraying their ‘hospitality’, the Egyptian military
blamed the Gaza residents for backstabbing and undermining
‘friendly’ Egypt. The stage was set for a merciless showdown.
â•… The Egyptian justice formally banned the Palestinian Hamas in
March 2014. That was only the legal confirmation that any
means necessary would be allowed to bring down the rulers of the
Gaza Strip. Hamas’ incomes fell dramatically and salaries of the
government employees in Gaza had to be suspended. This was
one of the main reasons why Hamas had to accept the establish-
ment of a unity government under the leadership of the PA.
â•… In the first days of June 2014, Ismaïl Hanyeh resigned after
seven years as prime minister of the Hamas government in Gaza.
A new Palestinian cabinet was formed for the West Bank and
Gaza Strip, without any Hamas members, but with active back-
ing from the Islamist movement. Qatar agreed to transfer to a
PA-controlled bank account in Ramallah the funds necessary to
pay the wages of the civil servants in the Gaza Strip.
â•… Israel, publicly, and Egypt, more discreetly, vowed to deliver
what they believed was the final blow to Hamas. They attacked
the unity government as a dangerous manoeuvre to save the
Islamist movement. They were dismayed at the readiness expressed
by the US and the EU to work with the new Palestinian cabinet.
Saudi Arabia, incensed by the Qatari involvement, discussed with
Egypt how to sabotage the Palestinian reconciliation.
223
â•… It did not take long for the Israeli government to launch its
anti-Hamas campaign. They accused the Islamist movement of
ordering the kidnapping of three young settlers in the Hebron
area. The bodies of the murdered teenagers were discovered two
weeks later and Hamas responsibility was never documented.
But in the meantime, mop-up operations across the West Bank
led to the Israeli arrest of hundreds of Hamas activists, includ-
ing dozens of militants released through the 2011 Shalit deal.
â•… The IDF soon resumed its targeted killings of prominent activ-
ists in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its local allies retaliated with
rocket attacks on Israel. On 8 July 2014, the Israeli army
Â€
launched its Protective Edge offensive on the Gaza Strip. During

the following fifty days, more than 2,000 Palestinians were
killed, an overwhelming majority of whom were civilians. The
final death toll remained inconclusive, since an unknown num-
ber of corpses were buried under the ruins (more than 15,000
dwellings had been destroyed).15
â•… On the Israeli side, sixty-four soldiers were killed (including five
by ‘friendly fire’), along with three civilians (two of whom were
Israeli nationals). The ratio between Israeli and Palestinian civil-
ian casualties, already set at a mind-boggling 1/100 during previ-
ous conflicts, had risen to the 1/1,000 range. Despite this shocking
imbalance, the Egyptian GID based its ‘mediation’ efforts on the
Israeli demand for an unconditional ceasefire, while Hamas
insisted on the lifting of the blockade and the release of prisoners
detained during the recent West Bank sweeps.
â•… After a week of conflict and a phone conversation between the
Egyptian president and the Israeli prime minister, Cairo
announced a ceasefire with conditions that had not even been
discussed with the Palestinians. Hamas rejected the ‘offer’ and
the blame game went in to overdrive against the Islamist move-
ment as shells cascaded on Gaza. The GID resumed its indirect
mediation in Cairo, this time between an Israeli delegation and
a Palestinian one led by a PA official.16
224
â•… The Egyptian propaganda machine careered out of control

against Hamas. Tawfik Okacha, owner and principal anchor of
Al-Faraeen TV, the unofficial mouthpiece of the military junta,
stated live: ‘Gazans are not men. If they were men, they would
revolt against Hamas.’17 A pro-Sisi journalist even tweeted:
‘Bless you, Netanyahou, and may God give us more like you to
rid us of Hamas.’18 Never before had an Israeli offensive against
Palestinians been greeted by Egypt in such a blatant manner.
This belligerent mood was met with approval by the Saudis,
given their bias against Qatar and Hamas.
â•… On 5 August 2014, Israeli troops withdrew from the Gaza
Â€
Strip. But the war was far from over, since Egypt could only
sponsor the periodic extension of fragile truces. This was a
disaster for the population of Gaza, still besieged from all sides,
and bracing itself amid the ruins for mere survival. The GID had
forced the Palestinian delegation in Cairo to exclude the issue of
the Rafah crossing point from the discussion of an enduring
ceasefire. The Sisi regime was therefore keeping this option open
in order to squeeze the Palestinian population whenever it
wished to do so.
â•… The war went on for three more weeks, with murderous
Israeli raids unable to stop the firing of Palestinian rockets. It
was now clear that Israel wanted a way out, but the anti-Hamas
bias of Egypt forbade the GID from achieving a fully-fledged
ceasefire. It took the intervention of the USA, and to a lesser
extent of France and the EU, to bring a final end to the fifty-day
conflict, on 26 August 2014. The Egyptian grip on Rafah
Â€
remained as tight as before, contributing to the prolonged night-

mare of the people of Gaza.
â•… One non-EU European country, Norway, had opened official
channels with Hamas. In the spirit of mediation that had led,
two decades earlier, to the Oslo agreements, Norway now took
a leading role in the reconstruction of Gaza. It was therefore
under the joint presidency of Norway and Egypt that an inter-
225
national conference for the reconstruction of Gaza convened in

Cairo, on 12 October 2014. Sisi agreed with Netanyahou that
Â€
Israel would not be invited. Officially, this was to make the Gulf
donors confortable. In fact, it was a devious way of exonerating
Israel from compensating at least part of the destruction it had
inflicted on Gaza.
â•… As the Israeli press commented, Sisi used the Cairo conference
on Gaza as ‘a springboard to bring Egypt back to the top of the
Arab world’s diplomatic pyramid’.19 State-controlled media
broadcast the conference live. John Kerry and Catherine Ashton,
who had failed in their August 2013 mediation to prevent the
anti-MB bloodbath, were now praising the central role that
Egypt could play in this long-awaited peace process. There was
no peace in sight, Palestine was still in limbo and Gaza laid in
ruins, but Sisi turned this latest Palestinian tragedy into a won-
derful PR opportunity to glorify his own dictatorship.
*
The Arab Mamluks had come full circle. They used the collec-
tive humiliation of a nascent Israel as a powerful tool to hijack
the post-colonial independent states. They then manipulated the
Palestinian cause in their merciless power struggles, while aban-
doning the Palestinians to their terrible fate at every stage in
their renewed dispossession. But the barbaric violence that the
Arab Mamluks unleashed against the revolution of their own
people eventually turned against the Palestinians themselves.
â•… Assad’s Syria and Sisi’s Egypt besieged and even starved the
Palestinian population in the open-air prisons of Yarmouk and
the Gaza Strip. The only difference was that Syrian armed forces
and militiamen did the killing in Yarmouk, while Egypt let Israel
bomb and massacre the Gaza Strip. In the unravelling of the
Arab Renaissance, Palestine could only become the ultimate
scapegoat for the monsters of the counter-revolution.
â•… Through this campaign against Palestine, its people and its
rights, the Deep State has accomplished its final emergence from
226
the dark into the light. There was no longer any need to work
behind the scenes, nor to plot complex scenarios and engineer
smokescreens. The horror of the carnage is obscene, while the
wound of the betrayal is laid bare. For the Arab Mamluks, Pal-
estine should be the graveyard of the Arab dream. No counter-
revolution should be complete without the liquidation of the
Palestinian cause.
227
10
THE TUNISIAN ALTERNATIVE
On 24 October 2014, the Egyptian military suffered its worst

Â€
defeat against the jihadi insurgents in Sinai: at least thirty-three

soldiers were killed in two separate and coordinated attacks in
El-Arish and its vicinity, involving a sophisticated mix of booby-
trapped cars, landmines and ambush techniques. A few hours
later, President Sisi chaired a National Council of Defence that
pledged to ‘avenge the spilled blood’.1 Three days of national
mourning were decreed, while the armed forces, admitting that
the guerrillas relied on a strong local base, contemplated the
evacuation of entire villages in order to bring about the eventual
defeat of the jihadis.
â•… On 26 October 2014, Egypt was still mourning its fallen mil-
Â€
itary and the state propaganda was issuing a retributory rheto-

ric loaded with the usual vendetta threats and conspiracy
theories. (The Rafah checkpoint with Gaza had been sealed,
bringing the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip back to a
full and excruciating siege, and more than a thousand families
were forcefully displaced from the Egyptian side of the border.)2
Meanwhile Tunisia held its first free parliamentary elections,
and no incident marred this historic polling day.
â•… Some 3.6 million Tunisians went to vote, compared to 4.3
million in the elections for the Constituent Assembly in October
229
2011 (but the electoral lists had been revised in the meantime,
leading to an increase in turnout from 52 per cent to 68 per cent
three years later). The Islamist Ennahda party, which had led the
polls in 2011 with 37 per cent of the votes and 89 seats (out of
217), fell to 28 per cent of the votes and 69 seats (out of the
same number of 217). More troubling for the Islamist party was
their loss of one third of their electoral base (from 1.5 million
voters in 2011 to fewer than a million three years later).
â•… The main winner of the Tunisian legislative contest was Nidaa
Tounes (the Call for Tunisia), a secular catch-all party launched
in June 2012 by the 87-year-old Beji Caïd-Essebsi, who had been
the first prime minister in post-Ben Ali Tunisia. Nidaa Tounes
won 86 seats and led the polls with 37.5 per cent of the vote, a
result similar to that achieved by Ennahda three years earlier. In
both cases, the majority was only relative and led to coalition
governments. Caïd-Essebsi’s victory was largely grounded in his
talent for rallying round him a patchwork of true revolutionar-
ies, nostalgic for Bourguiba’s era, reformed Ben Alists and
staunch nationalists.
â•… While Egypt was sinking into the downward spiral of armed
conflict, Tunisia was completing a three-year transition from the
toppling of its dictator to its first parliamentary elections, based
on a new constitution adopted after passionate debate. The Tuni-
sian people and politicians had effectively laid the ground for a
functional Second Republic, just when the Egyptian top brass had
methodically sabotaged any credible alternative to their Mamluk
rule. This military subversion and restoration in Egypt had there-
fore led to an unprecedented surge in armed violence, while the
jihadi threat seemed more or less contained in Tunisia.
The Tunisian Trump Cards
Drawing a parallel between the Egyptian and the Tunisian expe-

riences is tempting since both nations experienced a democratic
230
uprising to oust their dictators in January–February 2011. The

Tunisian success story should not be exaggerated and the chal-
lenges still facing them remain formidable, but even so the con-
trast with the Egyptian debacle is striking. To make the
comparison follow the general argument of this book, it is worth
restating the obvious reality.
â•… Tunisia is not a Mamluk state, and this is the main reason why
the Tunisian people were spared the unbridled violence that the
vengeful Deep State unleashed on its own citizens in Egypt in
order to regain full control of the country. Bourguiba had indeed
hijacked Tunisian independence for his own sake, through the
elimination of his rival Ben Youssef, along with his supporters,
and the establishment of a presidential constitution that eventu-
ally led to life presidency. But Bourguiba had been the major
champion of Tunisia’s liberation struggle from France, while the
Egyptian ‘Free Officers’ moved in after the British had left.
â•… Bourguiba had emasculated the Tunisian armed forces after
the failed 1962 plot. His one-party system was security-obsessed,
but it acted through the ministry of the interior and the police
networks. Ben Ali, a former police general, had refined the
repressive apparatus, blending the party’s stifling of the popula-
tion with its security monitoring. The army was kept consis-
tently at the margins, transforming it involuntarily into the main
embodiment of a national institution that could not be identified
with the ruling regime. (On top of that, the active military per-
sonnel represented roughly 0.3 per cent of the Tunisian popula-
tion, as against 1 per cent in Egypt.)
â•… The Tunisian army refused to fire on protesters in January
2011, forcing Ben Ali to flee, then crushed the last counter-rev-
olutionary strongholds of the presidential guard before return-
ing to their barracks. General Rashid Ammar, the Tunisian chief
of staff, went in to Kasbah Square to reaffirm his commitment
to the demonstrators to defend the revolution, while Tantawi
and the SCAF leaders addressed the Egyptian ‘revolutionary
youth’ in a threatening, paternalistic tone.
231
â•… Ben Ali drew substantial benefits from his involvement in the
‘global war on terror’, but those dividends were more geopolit-
ical than financial, since Tunisia was never ‘rewarded’ by a
Camp David-style annual subsidy. Contrary to neighbouring
Algeria, Tunisia has no oil reserves and its economy relies essen-
tially on the labours of its citizens. This absence of income was
a blessing when it came to redrafting the socio-political pact.
Though Tunisia is far from being immune from corruption and
nepotism, the negative impact of any such patronage is far less
extensive than in Egypt.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks openly played off the Muslim Broth-
ers against the revolutionary youth during the year following
Mubarak’s fall. And the Egyptian Muslim Brothers had had half
a century of a troubled relationship with the military, starting
with their active support for the Free Officers’ coup in 1952,
through the purges of 1954 and 1965, until the parliamentary
partial victory of 2005. Nothing of the kind existed in Tunisia,
where Ennahda emerged in 2011 unbesmirched by such murky
deals. This Islamist clean slate was key to their success in the
first free and fair Tunisian elections.
â•… In Egypt, the transition was monitored by Mubarak’s watch-
dog, the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC). No wonder that
the SCC actively participated in the Mamluk subversion of the
democratic process and wholeheartedly supported the July 2013
counter-revolution. On the contrary, in Tunisia, Yadh Ben
Achour, chair of the transitional Higher Authority (HA), had
resigned from Ben Ali’s Constitutional Court as early as 1992,
soon after the veteran Caid-Essebsi had stepped down as speaker
of the parliament.
â•… This meant that in the so-called Tunisian spring of 2011, both
the prime minister and the chair of the transitional authority had
severed their links with Ben Ali’s regime two decades before the
revolution, while the Egyptian SCC had been nominated by
Mubarak himself. Ben Achour’s HA had the explicit mandate to
232
‘implement the objectives of the revolution, the political reform

and the democratic transition’.3 This rare association between
revolution, reform and transition might be the trademark of the
Tunisian experience.
â•… The 155 members of the HA who prepared the first post-rev-
olutionary elections from April to October 2011 belonged to the
main 12 parties (nicknamed ‘G12’) or to various NGOs. The
Bar association, along with the Judges union, also actively con-
tributed to HA debates. Again, there could be no sharper con-
trast with Egypt, where the judiciary remained a stronghold of
Mubarak nostalgia and where the parties, even when they
shared a nationalist vision, proved unable to articulate it into a
joint platform.
â•… Apart from the fundamental Mamluk characterization of
Egypt against Tunisia, the main difference between the two
countries is the vitality of the labour movement in Tunisia. The
Tunisian General Union of Labor (known by its French acro-
nym, UGTT)4 was already 400,000 strong before the revolution,
and its ranks swelled after Ben Ali’s fall. Its delegates inside the
HA managed to impose the strict independence of the electoral
commission, along with compulsory gender equality in the party
ballot lists.
â•… In Egypt, once the Ultras had been liquidated in the Port Saïd
massacre of February 2012, there was no force to counter-bal-
ance the heavy weights of the militarized Deep State on one side,
and of the Muslim Brothers on the other. Fuelled by the Mam-
luk subversion, this confrontational dynamic led to the summer
2013 bloodbath. In Tunisia, as we shall see, UGTT repeatedly
moved in to mediate the tensions between Islamists and secular-
ists, offering a crucial contribution to the three-year transition.
The Right Moves at (Most of) the Right Times
So non-Mamluk Tunisia had considerable additional assets com-

pared to Egypt from the very beginning of the post-revolution-
233
ary period. But the Tunisian process greatly benefited from good
decisions made at most of the right moments, sometimes for the
wrong reasons, as so often in history. The smartest move was to
go for the popular election of a constituent assembly, whose ini-
tial mandate was limited to one year. The drafting of a new con-
stitution was largely considered as a prerequisite to the
legitimization of new authorities, not as a prize delivered to the
winner of the day against his political rivals.
â•… In Egypt, the SCAF, which was supported then by the Muslim
Brothers, went for a referendum on specific constitutional
amendments just one month after Mubarak’s deposition. The
revolutionary alliance pushed for a ‘no’ and was brutally
defeated by 77 per cent of the votes. Since this ‘new’ constitution
was only an amended version of Sadat’s and Mubarak’s, the
SCC was consolidated as the supreme watchdog. And in June
2012 it did not shy away from pronouncing the unlawfulness of
the parliament elected a few months earlier in the first free and
fair elections of modern Egypt.
â•… The Egyptian Mamluks refused from day one to let the Egyp-
tian people have their say, since it was precisely to avoid such an
outcome that they had deposed Mubarak. So the parliament
elected from November 2011 to January 2012 was deprived of
any substantial power long before the SCC dissolved it, since the
government remained responsible only to the SCAF. There was
Â€
no attempt to build a new legitimacy for the rulers of Egypt,

who were too busy undermining the democratic credentials of
their Islamist challengers.
â•… The Muslim Brotherhood tried to break the stalemate by push-
ing for a constitution that proved sharply divisive for the country,
despite its 64 per cent approval in a referendum held in December
2012. Six months after his anti-Morsi coup, Sisi hoped to reverse
the tide with a tailor-made constitution that was approved by 98
per cent of the votes in January 2014. There is no doubt that a
significant section of the Egyptian electorate, not restricted to the
234
Salafi ‘swing-voters’ (who once supported the Brotherhood, then

backed the military), voted in favour of two conflicting and con-
tradictory texts in little more than a year.
â•… This succession of confrontational referendums created what
the political scientist Nathan Brown acutely described as
‘Egypt’s constitutional cul-de-sac’.5 By contrast, Tunisia waited
until October 2011 to hold elections for a constituent assembly,
after a three-month postponement from the initial date. This
assembly took two and a half years (instead of the expected
year) to draft a text whose 146 articles were discussed and
approved one by one. The final chart was then approved in Jan-
uary 2014 by 200 MPs against 12.
â•… A referendum could have proved as divisive in Tunisia as it
had repeatedly been in Egypt. Instead, the constituent assembly
managed to reach a consensus on the most critical issues. The
first two articles could not be amended. Article one was the
same as in the 1959 constitution: ‘Tunisia is a free, independent
and sovereign state; its religion is Islam and its language Arabic.’
The constructive ambiguity stemmed from the fact that in Ara-
bic the words Tunisia and state are both feminine, so Islam
could be considered as the country’s or the state’s religion.
â•… The second article of the Constitution enshrined the ‘civilian’
nature of the state (in a parallel refusal of the ‘military’ and ‘reli-
gious’ options). Articles 40 and 46 were dedicated to the equal-
ity between men and women, with an innovative formulation in
favour of electoral parity and against domestic violence. The
compromise between the secularist support for a presidential
system and the Islamist preference for a parliamentary one led
to an institutional balance between the head of state (directly
elected by the population) and the prime minister (responsible in
front of the elected parliament).
â•… Egypt meanwhile, supposedly obsessed with stability and
order, had three constitutions in three years without ever reach-
ing a sustained form of domestic consensus. Tunisia, instead,
235
took the necessary time to draft an enduring text and open a

new chapter in its national history. The voting system was also
markedly different: it forced the leading party to enter coalitions
in Tunisia, while it followed a ‘winner takes all’ rule in Egypt.
â•… Again, instead of bringing stability to Egypt, this majority sys-
tem only ignited political strife: both Ennahda and the Egyptian
Muslim Brothers achieved 37 per cent of the votes in the first
free elections held in the autumn and winter of 2011–12, but the
Tunisian Islamists reaped only 89 out of the 217 seats, while
their Egyptian counterparts filled 235 out of the 508 seats, just
20 seats short of an absolute majority.
â•… The Brothers could rely on the Parliamentary backing of the
121 Salafi MPs every time secular-minded MPs or parties sought
to limit the provisions of sharia law. By contrast, Ennahda had
to strike a tripartite deal with the nationalist Congress for the
Republic (CPR)6 and the socio-democrat Ettakatol, under which
the Islamists chaired and controlled a coalition government,
with presidencies of the Republic to the CPR and of the constit-
uent assembly to Ettakatol.
â•… We have seen how the Islamist-dominated parliament was dis-
solved by the Mubarak-era watchdog only a few months after
the vote. In the meantime, the Tunisian assembly went through
various and serious crises in the drafting of the January 2014
final text. But Ennahda then agreed to relinquish the presidency
of the government in favour of a non-partisan cabinet empow-
ered to organize the first parliamentary elections.
â•… It was only after those elections that the presidential contest
was held in December 2014, nearly four years after Ben Ali’s
downfall. By contrast, the Egyptian Mamluks had drained the
parliamentary elections of any substance and had bet on a polar-
izing presidential contest. Their gamble backfired with Morsi’s
election in June 2012, but they retaliated with Sisi’s coup a year
after. The former Field Marshal won the vote in a May 2014
plebiscite with 97 per cent of the vote—nine points more than
Bashar al-Assad a few days later!
236
The Jihadi Challenge in Tunisia
The Tunisian experience is also significant in highlighting an

alternative way to fight—and in fact contain—the jihadi men-
ace, with far more convincing results than in the Mamluk states.
Tunisian jihadis had been active for a decade and a half through
the al-Qaeda associated Tunisian Islamic Fighting Group
(GICT).7 It was in Tunisia that al-Qaeda had struck the first
major blow after the 9/11 attacks, with the suicide bombing of
a synagogue on the island of Djerba, in April 2002. Addition-
ally, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), launched in
2007 in neighbouring Algeria, had attracted a number of Tuni-
sian ‘volunteers’.
â•… There was therefore a serious threat from the very beginning
of the Tunisian revolution, but it took time for the new leaders
to grasp its full. The unconditional release of GICT founder Sei-
fallah Benhassine (aka Abou Iyad) through the general amnesty
of February 2011 was a major mistake. Benhassine was certainly
no prisoner of conscience, since he had been condemned to 63
years in jail for terrorist activities, including the masterminding
of the killing of Ahmed Shah Massoud, Afghan commander of
the anti-Taliban resistance, two days before the 9/11 attacks.
â•… Soon after his release, Benhassine founded a radical Salafi
group, named Ansar al-Sharia (AS), literally the ‘Supporters of
Sharia’. Rached Ghannouchi, the charismatic leader of Ennahda,
had come back to Tunisia after twenty years in exile, and he
believed Salafis could be cajoled back into the ranks of his
Islamist catch-all party. Other Ennahda leaders, like Hamadi
Jebali or Ali Laarayedh, who had been jailed in Tunisia proper,
were less romantic about Salafi hardliners and silently disap-
proved of Ghannouchi’s tolerance towards AS.
â•… After the Islamist relative victory at the October 2011 poll,
Jebali was sworn in as prime minister and Laarayedh received
the portfolio for the interior. But it took the AS-led assault on
the US embassy, in September 2012, to convince Ennahda’s
237
leader that a crackdown on AS was urgent. The dissemination

of a private American video, considered offensive towards the
Prophet Mohammad, led to numerous anti-US incidents in the
Muslim world, the worst occurring in Benghazi on 11 Septem-Â€
ber, when the US ambassador was killed; and in Tunis on

14 September, when five demonstrators were shot dead by the
Â€
presidential guard in order to secure the US embassy.

â•… AS was officially banned as a terrorist organization and Benhas-
sine went underground. The Jebali government even let two AS
hunger strikers die in jail, rejecting all their demands. Meanwhile,
there were an increasing number of incidents involving armed
groups on the Algerian and Libyan borders. Clashes occurred,
mines exploded and weapons were seized in unprecedented quan-
tity. It was admitted in early 2013 that AQIM had established a
foothold in the Jabal Chambi, a mountain range close to the Alge-
rian border, some 20 km west of the Tunisian city of Kasserine,
one of the hotbeds of the January 2011 uprising.
â•… Chokri Belaïd, a prominent leftist activist, was shot dead in
front of his home in Tunis, on 6 February 2013. This killing sent
Â€
shockwaves through a country with very limited experience of

political violence. The opposition accused Ennahda of tolerating
‘death squads’ in order to intimidate, and eventually eliminate,
secular and critical voices. Contrary to the nationalist tribute to
the ‘martyr’ Belaïd (shahîd), Ennahda soberly eulogized the
‘departed’ militant (faqîd).
â•… The crisis became so intense that Jebali had to step down in
favour of Laarayedh. The former minister of the interior
imposed a much tougher line against AS in March 2013, bru-
tally suppressing the conference that the Salafi group held every
year in Kairouan. Violence also escalated in the Jabal Chambi
region, with now dozens of victims on both the security and
jihadi sides.
â•… The assassination of a second secular activist, Mohammad
Brahmi, on 25 July 2013, precipitated a major showdown
Â€
238
between Ennahda and the opposition, led by Nidaa Tounes. The

UGTT labour union, whose membership was bigger than both
rival parties put together, stepped in with all its might to settle
the dispute. This UGTT mediation, supported by the Business
union (UTICA),8 the Bar association and the Tunisian League
for Human Rights (LTDH),9 laid the ground for a ‘national dia-
logue’, launched three months after Brahmi’s killing.
â•… This dialogue went on for another three months and con-
cluded with the approval of a new constitution and the resigna-
tion of the Islamist prime minister Laarayedh. He was replaced
by the non-affiliated Mehdi Jomaa, whose technocratic govern-
ment was bound to prepare the first parliamentary elections.
The independent minister of the interior, Lotfi Ben Jeddou,
stayed in place and announced in February 2014 that twenty-
three jihadis had been killed over recent months, including Bela-
ïd’s murderer.10
â•… It is therefore wrong to claim that post-revolutionary Tunisia,
once AS had been banned, had been more lenient towards jihad-
ism than the Mamluk regimes. But transitional Tunisia had cer-
tainly put a distinct emphasis on the due process of law, with
1,343 suspects being tried, according to the minister of the inte-
rior, shortly after the approval of the constitution.11 A jihadi cell
retaliated by targeting Ben Jeddou’s home in Kasserine, in late
May 2014, killing four policemen in their assault.
â•… But the worst jihadi attack occurred that year on 17 July 2014
Â€
when 14 soldiers were killed in the Jabal Chambi area. Three

days of national mourning were announced but, instead of what
had already occurred and what would happen again in Egypt,
this terrorist shock consolidated the political consensus on the
democratic transition. In October 2014, the first parliamentary
vote was not marred by any jihadi provocation and closed effec-
tively a three-year cycle during which an Islamist-led govern-
ment had been followed by a non-partisan cabinet, both of them
accountable towards an elected assembly.
239
The Libyan Counter-Example
As we have seen, neither Saddam Hussein’s Iraq nor Moammar

Qaddafi’s Libya quite fitted the Mamluk template. Those two
regimes were openly totalitarian and did not bother to summon
the ‘caliph people’ in cyclical electoral rites, contrary to the need
of the modern Mamluks periodically to rejuvenate their legitimi-
zation dramaturgy. Both Iraq and Libya had lived under a strict
regime of UN sanctions from 1991 to 2003, which, far from eas-
ing the grip of the repressive apparatus, had only aggravated the
plight of a very vulnerable population.
â•… George W. Bush’s global war on terror (GWT) was designed
Â€
from the start to target Iraq, through the dubious substantiation

of some kind of relation between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks.
By contrast, Qaddafi used the GWT to resume his cooperation
with the Western intelligence agencies and contribute to the US-
led campaign against al-Qaeda. The Libyan nuclear programme
became a hot commodity to deal profitably with Washington12
when no evidence of nuclear capacity could be found in post-
Saddam Iraq.
â•… The first decision of the American occupying administra-
tion in Iraq, in April 2003, was to dissolve the army and ‘de-
Â€
Baathify’ the public service, which led to the effective collapse of

the Iraqi state. The US had indeed no colonial antecedent, but
such a blank slate only made them more inefficient at state-(re)
building in a context of increasing resistance: one year after top-
pling Saddam, the American contingent was facing both a Sunni
insurgency in western Iraq and a Shia one in the south of the
country.
â•… The ideological textbook of the neo-conservatives proved use-
less to sort out this self-inflicted mess. So the US unconsciously
amalgamated the worst of two colonial experiences at state-
building in the 1920s mandates: the forceful British integration
of the three governorates of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, on one
side; and the French sectarian re-partition of power in Lebanon,
240
designed to enshrine the domineering position of the local Chris-

tians, on the other.
â•… This disastrous Iraqi process led to the 2005 constitutional
impasse and the 2006–8 civil war.13 The strongest parties in this
power struggle were those with the fiercest militias and the most
coherent sectarian base. Minorities such as the Christians or the
Yezidis would only pay the highest price in this politico-military
battle, out of which the Maliki government and the jihadi ISIS
emerged as the main players, once the US had completed its mil-
itary withdrawal in 2011.
â•… Contrary to popular narrative, NATO’s campaign in Libya
from March to October 2011 stood in sharp contrast to the US
invasion of Iraq, eight years earlier. The Obama administration
was now ‘leading from behind’ and had only reluctantly agreed
to launch air strikes against Qaddafi. There was no grand design
of rebuilding a ‘Greater Middle East’ after the toppling of the
dictator, but a more modest attempt at controlling the damage
an infuriated Qaddafi could inflict on neighbouring Egypt and,
to a lesser extent, Tunisia.
â•… The Bush administration had destroyed the remaining Iraqi
institutions after their 2003 invasion, but Qaddafi had consis-
tently undermined any attempt at collective organization during
the forty-two years of his ruthless dictatorship. The challenge
was therefore far more daunting than in Cairo or in Tunis. The
good news was that the longing for a united Libya was over-
whelming. The bad news was that tens of thousands of militia,
proud of their revolutionary credentials, were jeopardizing the
prospect of a peaceful transition.
â•… The UN had left good memories in Libya through its much-
celebrated contribution to the 1951 independence. US and
NATO were out, while the European Union had been deeply
divided between ‘interventionist’ France and UK on the one side,
and ‘neutral’ Germany on the other. Even the Arab Mamluks
were split between Qaddafi’s nostalgic supporters in Algiers and
241
the pro-revolution military in Cairo, backed by the Gulf states.

So there seemed to be no competitor to the UN acting as main
foreign power broker in Libya.
â•… The National Transitional Council (NTC) led the struggle
against Qaddafi and was now running Libya. This pragmatic
structure had managed, through co-optation and interaction, to
associate various components of such diverse a nation as Libya
with a reasonable measure of success: in addition to the colonial
triple standard between Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan,
there were ethnic divisions between Arabs, Berbers and Tou-
bous, against the background of a deeply tribal system (that
Qaddafi had entrenched further by promoting his home town of
Sirte against neighbouring Misrata).
â•… Unfortunately, the UN fell into the common misapprehension
that democratic transitions could only be guaranteed by general
elections. As we have seen, the transition from presidents Saleh
to Hadi in Yemen was on the contrary secured through a Mam-
luk-style plebiscite, and a ‘national dialogue’ was then convened
before even conceiving of any general poll. This seems to be the
price to pay in countries whose fragmentation had only been
aggravated by decades of dictatorship, with the associated
‘divide and rule’ policies.
â•… So the UN pushed for the premature election of a General
National Congress (GNC) in July 2012. NTC cabinet members
agreed not to run, and its president pledged to withdraw from
political life. The vote was rightfully praised for the popular turn-
out (61.6 per cent), the technical success (in an immense country)
and the absence of major incidents (despite the omnipresence of
militias). Algerian and Egyptian Mamluks alike rejoiced at the
poor performance of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood.
â•… The GNC was chaired by nationalist Mohammad Magariaf,
who had been fighting Qaddafi’s regime for the past three
decades. In late October 2012, the liberal Ali Zeidan managed
to put together a fairly inclusive government, but the Muslim
242
Brothers maneuvered against the new authorities, rallying inde-

pendent members of the GNC. This consistent undermining led,
Â€
in May 2013, to the passing of the Political Isolation Law that

was so excluding of any Qaddafi ‘association’ that even a vet-
eran revolutionary like Magariaf had to resign (he had been Lib-
yan ambassador to India before his defection in 1980).
â•… The Muslim Brothers carried the major responsibility for this
Political Isolation Law that was as disastrous for the future of
Libya as the US-imposed ‘de-Baathification’ had been for Iraq ten
years earlier. They supported the new GNC president, Nouri
Abusamhain, and incidents flared between him and Prime Minis-
ter Zeidan, who was even briefly kidnapped by the militia in Trip-
oli in October 2013. This paralysis of the revolutionary institutions
paved the way for increased warlordism and anarchy.
â•… But the main GNC flaw remained its failure to convene a
Constitution Drafting Assembly. Contrary to neighbouring
Tunisia, the GNC had no constitutional mandate and should
have convened such an assembly as early as September 2012.
The power struggles had derailed the constitutional process and
it was only in February 2014 that the GNC, eager to prorogate
its own mandate, organized the elections for a sixty-member
constitutional body (with twenty members each for Tripolitania,
Cyrenaica and Fezzan).
â•… This poll was marred by serious incidents and a very low turn-
out (one third of what had been recorded in July 2012), against
the background of a boycott by some Berber and Toubou forces.
The number of armed militiamen had swollen from 150,000 in
2012 to 200,000 or even 250,000 one year later,14 in a country of
6 million people. The so-called revolutionary legitimacy of those
armed groups became increasingly questionable, since their recent
recruits had never participated in the anti-Qaddafi insurgency.
â•… The main contenders for power in the streets of Tripoli were
not indigenous militias, but the rival Misrata and Zintan ‘bri-
gades’, the first group supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and
243
the second associated with the nationalist forces. None of these

militias could have been described as Islamist, even though, as
discussed in Chapter 7, the Egyptian and Algerian Mamluks did
their utmost to caricature this power struggle as a fight between
anti-terrorism and jihadism.
â•… The failure of the GNC soon verged on the catastrophic with
the ousting of Prime Minister Zeidan, who fled to Morocco in
March 2014. The controversial election of his successor was
deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, forcing the
GNC to convene parliamentary elections in June. In a country
now plagued with unbridled violence, the turnout fell to an
abysmal 18 per cent, and 12 out of the 200 seats could not be
designated through the polls. Nor could voting take place in the
Cyrenaica city of Derna, now under jihadi control. Worse, the
new parliament was unable to convene in either Tripoli or Beng-
hazi, and had to take shelter in Tobruk, under de facto Egyptian
protection. The GNC refused to transfer power to this ‘illegiti-
mate’ body, and two competing governments started to operate
from Tobruk and Tripoli.
â•… So Libya stood as a sinister illustration of a transition gone
astray, especially compared with neighbouring Tunisia. Con-
trary to popular interpretation in the Western media, the main
reason lay not in the 2011 NATO campaign, but in the electoral
voluntarism that deepened the political fragmentation instead of
favouring a national consensus. Each vote in Libya aggravated
the civil strife, while Tunisia voted only twice: for a constituent
assembly in October 2011, and a parliament elected on the basis
of the new constitution three years later.
â•… Libya still has no constitution to rebuild a polity deeply frac-
tured by four decades of unmitigated dictatorship. The clash of
legitimacies between ‘revolutionary’ Tripoli and ‘institutional’
Tobruk, each with its own parliament and government, could
only be resolved through a ‘national dialogue’ comparable to
those convened in Yemen and Tunisia in 2013. This was the
244
kind of dialogue that the UN had tried and failed to convene one
week before the parliamentary elections. But such pleas gained
some ground after the Supreme Court deemed the Tobruk par-
liament unconstitutional, in November 2014.
â•… There is no short cut to democracy, and the comparison
between Libya in 2012 and 2014 is appalling in that regard. The
Muslim Brothers played a terribly dark game with the Political
Isolation Law and its ominous aftermath. But the military inter-
ference of the Egyptian Mamluks might have pushed the coun-
try over the brink. In a self-fulfilling prophecy that was staged
earlier in Yemen, Syria and Egypt itself, the anti-jihadi rallying
cry boosted those jihadis it was supposed to combat: in Libya,
al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates became the major long-term winners
of the politico-military impasse in late 2014.
*
In Tunisia as well as in Egypt, the prime minister appointed by
the dictator before his fall remained in office: Mohammad
Ghannouchi in Tunis and Ahmed Shafiq in Cairo. The revolu-
tionary protests therefore targeted this executive legacy of the
deposed despot, demanding his unconditional resignation. It
took weeks of street unrest and political bickering before the
appointment of Béji Caïd-Essebsi in Tunis and, three days later,
of Essam Sharaf in Cairo.
â•… The two new prime ministers praised the revolutionary youth,
their sacrifices and struggle. But Sharaf soon discovered that the
Mamluk SCAF continued to hold real power, while Caïd-Essebsi
monitored the transition to the first free and fair elections, never
trying to take advantage of his prominent position. Caïd-Essebsi
stepped down in favour of authorities legitimized by the popu-
lar vote in December 2011, when Sharaf had to bow to military
pressure and withdraw on behalf of a SCAF protégé.
â•… Caïd-Essebsi played loyally by the post-revolutionary rules,
and his party eventually won the Tunisian parliamentary elec-
245
tions in October 2014. Two months later, the same Caïd-Essebsi

was voted in as the first democratically elected president of
Tunisia in a poll where the Islamist Ennahda party chose not to
run, nor even to support any candidate. By contrast, Sharaf had
disappeared from the Egyptian landscape, keeping only honor-
ary titles, such as the presidency of the board of trustees of the
Luxor African Film Festival.
â•… The current chapter of the Mamluk-fuelled Egyptian ordeal is
only beginning, since Sisi and his clique have no clue about run-
ning a country as complex as Egypt, and know just how to fight,
preferably their own people, while interfering militarily in neigh-
bouring Libya. Meanwhile, Tunisia has certainly not yet healed
all the wounds laid bare between Islamists and secularists, and
it remains a long way off from solving its youth unemployment
and the regional disparity that sparked the 2010–11 uprising.
â•… But Tunisia paved the way for a Second Republic that fulfils at
last the popular demands for self-determination (hijacked under
Bourguiba) and emancipation (crushed under Ben Ali). Mean-
while, Egypt is contemplating its future through the rear-mirror
of a fantasized Free Officers glorious past. All charges against
Mubarak were dismissed in November 2014, a move that erased
the last trace of revolutionary trauma in the Mamluk inner circle.
Sisi is now contemplating his own version of Nasser’s Aswan
Dam, with the colossal duplication of the Suez Canal.
â•… Tunisia suffered on 18 March 2015 a terrible blow with the
Â€
ISIS-inspired attack on the Bardo National Museum, close to

Parliament. The two Tunisian terrorists, previously trained in
ISIS camps in Libya, went on a shooting rampage that killed
twenty foreign tourists and one Tunisian securityman. But this
terror attack unexpectedly consolidated Tunisian national unity,
while Sisi repeatedly claimed that the increasing toll of jihadi
attacks is a reasonable price to pay for the eradication of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
â•… Tunis museum was indeed a ‘soft target’, while the ‘hard tar-
gets’ of the security apparatus are routinely attacked by jihadi
246
groups in Egypt, whether in Sinaï by the ISIS-affiliate ABM or in

Cairo itself. Tunisia has reacted collectively and patriotically to
the jihadi challenge, while the fourth celebration of the Egyptian
revolution against Mubarak was marred, on 25 January 2015,
Â€
by the killing of eighteen protesters by in live police firing. While

Tunisia calls for a UN-sponsored settlement on the Libyan cri-
sis, Sisi is eager to increase his military involvement on behalf of
the Tobruk-based alliance, in the same ‘eradication’ logic that
has already nurtured the jihadi escalation in Egypt.
â•… Karl Marx compared Napoléon Bonaparte and his nephew
Louis Napoléon, soon to be crowned Napoléon III, with this
now famous quote that history has been repeating itself: ‘the
first time as tragedy, the second time as farce’.15 We have wit-
nessed the tragedy that Nasser inflicted on Egypt through his
intervention in Yemen and the 1967 rout. Sisi is indeed farcical
in his pathetic endeavour to emulate his departed role model.
But the tragic spiral into which he is dragging Egypt, and possi-
bly Libya, could prove more devastating than all the previous
Mamluk adventures.
â•… There was absolutely no inevitability about such a disastrous
outcome. Tunisia proved that there was an alternative way out
of the legacy of the mythical fathers of the Arab nation and their
epigones. But the Deep State had to be neutralized and the
Mamluks were bound to lose some of their dearest privileges.
Their absolute refusal to relinquish even part of their domineer-
ing position had led to the horrors of the black decade twenty
years earlier in Algeria. The Arab Mamluks have now already
plunged Syria and Yemen into the abyss of civil war. Egypt and
Libya are being sucked day after day into such a downward spi-
ral. Welcome to the jihadi nightmare, and give most of the credit
to the ruling Mamluks.
247
CONCLUSION
Four years into the Arab revolution, the depressing realisation

prevails that, with the significant exception of vanguard Tunisia,
the whole democratic uprising is at best a failure, at worst a fraud.
The suicide of a twenty-two-year-old female activist in Cairo,
Zeinab al-Mahdi, was as poignant as the last words she left before
hanging herself on 13 November 2014: ‘There is no justice. Vic-
Â€
tory will not happen. We lie to ourselves in order to survive.’1

â•… That very same day, ISIS disseminated an audio-recording of
the now ‘Caliph Ibrahim’ on the internet, aimed at dispelling
recent US reports that he had been injured or killed in a recent
strike on northern Iraq. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was bragging,
‘the agents of the Jews and Crusaders, their slaves and dogs,
could not hold out in the face of the Islamic State, and they will
never hold out: the Crusaders will indeed be defeated’.2
â•… In a move designed to substantiate those threats, ISIS media
branch broadcast one of its horror videos on 16 November Â€
2014, showing twenty-two Syrian soldiers having their throats

slit, with a final focus on a beheaded American hostage, the
third in three months. The executioners appeared to come from
various parts of the world, with at least one French jihadi con-
vert identified.
â•… We saw abundantly through this book how Arab Mamluks,
especially in Syria, cooperated intimately with jihadi networks.
One decade ago, their support was crucial to channel foreign
249
‘volunteers’ from Syria to the Iraq-based Zarqawi group, the

matrix of today’s ISIS. One of those recruits, Boubaker al-
Â€
Hakim, a dual French–Tunisian citizen, spent several months of

2004 in the Zarqawi-controlled city of Falluja. His brother Red-
ouane was even killed there in a US bombing.3
â•… Boubaker al-Hakim sneaked back into Syria, from which he
was eventually expelled to France. He was given a a seven-year
sentence for his jihadi involvement, and after his release he trav-
elled to post-Ben Ali Tunisia. His ‘military’ background led him
to organize the armed branch of Ansar al-Sharia (AS). Still on the
run, Hakim has been accused of participation in the killings of
Belaid and Brahmi that nearly derailed the Tunisian transition in
2013.4 In the last days of 2014, he claimed responsibility for those
murders in an ISIS-disseminated video. He warned that he would
be returning to Tunisia to carry out further assassinations.
â•… Boubaker al-Hakim is just one illustration of how the evil
twins of the Deep State and the Islamic State have been working
hand and hand to crush any prospect of democratic progress in
the Arab world. Hakim has been accused of masterminding in
2015 both the attacks in Paris in January and the Tunis museum
massacre in March. But there are many other Boubaker al-
Hakims, dozens, maybe hundreds, working to undermine the
painstaking process of institutionalizing pluralism. Caught
between a rock and a hard place, Arab revolutionaries have also
been abandoned by the West.
â•… A conservative estimate concludes that the Assad regime has
killed a hundred times more Syrian civilians than ISIS.5 Despite
this enormous discrepancy, the US-led air campaign has been
sparing regime targets since September 2014, while striking the
anti-Assad (and anti-ISIS) Nusra front, as well as ISIS. And in
America, voices are increasingly calling for a deal with the Syrian
despot. A prominent American columnist summarized his concern
about such bargaining: ‘it is repugnant, but is it wrong?’6
â•… One could comment that this kind of ‘devil’s bargain’7 would
be bound to fail, since it would only nurture the jihadi monster
250
CONCLUSION
by ‘revealing’ what ISIS propaganda has been claiming all along:

‘Jews and Crusaders’ are uniting with the local tyrants to
oppress the Arab Muslims, destroy their countries, their homes
and their dignity. According to the jihadi narrative, the Western
discourse on democracy, freedom and human rights is only a
mischievous delusion to enslave the peoples of the Middle East.
â•… The horrendous record of the ruling Mamluks in Algeria,
Egypt, Syria and Yemen should have obliterated any illusion
about their questionable contribution to domestic and regional
‘stability’. But the whole world has kept looking on, not to say-
applauding, as non-violent opposition is liquidated. Therefore,
the question is not why ISIS has emerged out of this merciless
blood bath, but why ISIS has not yet grown stronger.
â•… August 2013 may seem in retrospect to be the turning point
when the Arab counter-revolution went from a mass tragedy to
a nightmarish hell. The slaughter the modern Mamluks commit-
ted then in Cairo is unprecedented in Egyptian contemporary
history. One has to go back to the ruthless repression of the
Cairo riots by the French expeditionary force, in October 1798,
to find a comparable level of urban violence. In the same spirit,
some of the neighbourhoods struck by the Assad regime in his
August 2013 gas attacks on Damascus had already been the tar-
gets of French colonial shelling, during the putting down of the
Great Arab Revolt of 1925–6.
â•… So Mamluks treated their own population as cruelly as for-
eign occupiers did. Bashar’s chemical strikes had however a
precedent in the Egyptian use of poison gas against Yemeni
resistance strongholds, in January 1967. In both instances, hun-
dreds of civilians were gassed because they would not submit to
a supposedly ‘enlightened’ despotism. The main difference lies
in the fact that the 1967 gas attacks went largely ignored, while
the 2013 Syrian chemical massacre was heavily reported.
â•… The Damascus gas slaughter soon became one of the main
jhadi recruiting pitches, with ISIS pretending that Assad was just
251
a pawn in an international conspiracy against Muslims. Scores

of aspiring jihadis, in Europe and in North America, fell into
this propaganda trap and the flow of ‘volunteers’ ready to join
ISIS significantly increased in autumn 2013. One year later, the
US-led bombing campaign against ISIS took great pains to avoid
any Assad regime facility, which can only foster the jihadi nar-
rative and its growing popularity.
â•… President and former Field Marshal Sisi stands ready to con-
tribute significantly to the further expansion of ISIS. He has
Â€
already entrenched in the Sinai mountain ranges the leading

jihadi group, Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM), which has pledged
allegiance to Baghdadi and extended its terrorist reach far into
the Nile Valley. In Libya, Egyptian military interference in sup-
port of the Tobruk-based General Haftar has paved the way in
neighbouring Derna for the consolidation of an ISIS foothold,
under the flag of a local consultative council of the Islamic
Youth (Majlis Choura Chabab al-Islam, MCCI).8
â•… The Sisi-backed government in Tobruk has for months focused
its offensives on Tripoli, 1,250 km away, while its air strikes have
spared Derna, only 170 km away. This double-standard bombing
is strongly reminiscent of the three years during which the Assad
air force spared jihadi targets, even when ISIS might have been
nipped in the bud. The Egyptian Mamluks in Libya, like their Syr-
ian counterparts in their homeland in 2012–14, have consistently
sabotaged all UN efforts to reconcile a deeply fractured nation
before its total collapse. And it took the ISIS massacre in Libya of
twenty-one Egyptian Copts, in February 2015, for Sisi finally to
hit back against jihadi targets.
â•… Yemen stands as a sinister illustration of how irrelevant it is
to oust a despot while keeping his repressive apparatus in place.
The modern Mamluks, who had hijacked the Arab independent
states two generations ago, are now painting their rabid coun-
ter-revolution with ‘revolutionary’ colours, whether in Cairo or
in Sanaa. Saleh’s supporters in the Yemeni army are now fight-
252
CONCLUSION
ing along pro-Iranian militiamen against the forces loyal to

elected president Hadi, forced to flee Aden. In Algiers, the pres-
idential mummy is the embodiment of an old guard that drums
its ‘revolutionary’ struggle against France in the one and only
‘revolution’ to date. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad claims his bar-
baric killing machine is a beacon of ‘resistance’.
â•… The unfolding of such disasters in the Arab world was both
predictable and avoidable. It would therefore be stabbing the
Arab democrats twice to blame them for such a catastrophe
when their deadliest enemies, on the regime and jihadi sides,
found enough common ground to unite in hunting them down,
even at the cost of burning the nation and its future. But I hap-
pen to be one of those famed optimists who answers the pessi-
mist’s ‘It could not be worse’ with a sinister ‘Oh yes, it could, it
sure could.’
â•… There might be just one ray of hope in this bleak landscape,
and it lies in the fact that oil prices fell by 40 per cent in 2014.
We have seen how these oil revenues have been—and still are—
critical in fuelling the violence unleashed by the Arab Mamluks
against their own people, whether the source was domestic, as
in Algeria or Yemen, or derived from foreign patrons: Russia
and Iran in Syria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Egypt. Even ISIS
depends to a great extent on the oil it smuggles through the
Assad regime and its Turkish partners in crime.
â•… Cheaper oil could alleviate the devastating pressure on Arab
society and polities, in the same way that absence of oil was cru-
cial to the success of the Tunisian transition. The Arab revolu-
tion is far from over, and the next activist generation will have
learned the hardest way possible how to confront such ruthless
adversaries. But one can only feel pain and sorrow at all those
lives destroyed by the Arab dictators and their jihadi nemesis.
Let us hope that their sacrifices will not have been in vain and
that their dedication to the cause is remembered.
253
pp. [ix–5]
NOTES
FOREWORD
1.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, The Arab Revolution, London: Hurst, 2011.
2.â•‡Amira El-Azhary Sonbol, The New Mamluks, Egyptian Society and Mod-
ern Feudalism, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2000.
3.â•‡Filiu, The Arab Revolution, p.â•–118.
1.â•‡MEET THE DEEP STATE
1.â•‡‘Grey Wolves’ is the nickname of an ultra-nationalist Turkish group that

calls itself ‘Young Idealists’ (ülkücü). See Hamit Bozarslan, ‘Network-
building, ethnicity and violence in Turkey’, Abu Dhabi: ECSSR, 1999,
p.â•–3.
2.â•‡Pascal de Gendt, ‘La mafia infiltre l’Etat’, Confluences, Autumn 1997,
p.â•–48.
3.â•‡Milliyet, 24 December 1996, quoted in Frank Bovenkerk and Yücel Yesil-
Â€
göz, ‘The Turkish mafia and the state’, in Cyrille Fijnaut and Letizia Paoli
(eds), Organised Crime in Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, 2004, p.â•–587.
4.â•‡de Gendt, ‘La mafia infiltre l’Etat’, p.â•–48.
5.â•‡See for instance Cengiz Candar in Sabah, 28 June 1997.
Â€
6.â•‡Bozarslan, ‘Network-building, ethnicity and violence in Turkey’, p.â•–7.

7.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 6.
8.â•‡These official data covering the 1984–2010 period have been published in
Milliyet, 24 June 2011.
Â€
9.â•‡Bozarslan, ‘Network-building, ethnicity and violence in Turkey’, p.â•–17.

10.â•‡The widow of the late President Ozal was the first to utter such accusa-
tions. Twenty years later, Sabah columnist Rasim Ozan Kutahyali wrote
that ‘for the majority of the Turkish people, Ozal was killed by the “Deep
State”’ (Al Monitor, 22 August 2013).
Â€
11.â•‡This conspiracy theory is reproduced as supposed fact in the Wikipedia

entry on ‘Susurluk scandal’.
pp. [9–27]
NOTES
12.â•‡Fethullah Gülen’s official website is http://fgulen.com/en (accessed
8 December 2014). He was a disciple of Said Nursi (1878–1960), who, as
Â€
often happens with Sufi orders, established his own tarika in Izmir after
his master’s death.
13.â•‡BBC, 21 September 2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-1967
Â€
0530 (accessed 30 April 2014).

Â€
14.â•‡Today’s Zaman, 5 August 2013.

Â€
15.â•‡Ilker Basbug’s official website, http://www.ilkerbasbug.com.tr/?p=1942&

lang=EN (accessed 30 April 2014).
Â€
16.â•‡See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/turkey-sledgeham-
mer-coup-trial-verdict (accessed 1 May 2014). Â€
17.â•‡European Commission, Turkey 2012 progress report, Brussels, 10 Octo-

Â€
ber 2012, p.â•–5.

18.â•‡See http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/08/19/erdogan-angered-by-rookie-
u-s-ambassadors-criticism-on-freedoms/ (accessed 1 May 2014). Â€
19.â•‡Hurriyet Daily News, 18 February 2011.

Â€
20.â•‡The Turkish word that PM Erdogan used on 2 June 2013 was çapulçu,
Â€
which could be translated as ‘looter’, or ‘hoodlum’, and was anglicized as

‘chapuller’. The verb derived from this neologism, ‘chapulling’, is sup-
posed to mean ‘standing (or fighting) for one’s rights’.
21.â•‡‘Gülen is thought to have between two and three million followers in Tur-
key, including as many as sixty members of parliament, about ten per cent
of the total’ (Dexter Filkins, ‘How far will Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdo-
gan go to stay in power?’, New Yorker, 12 March 2012).
Â€
22.â•‡Tim Arango, ‘Turkish leader disowns trials that helped him tame the mil-
itary’, New York Times, 26 February 2014. Â€
23.â•‡See http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/erdogan-mit-
interference-authoritarian.html (accessed 1 May 2014).
Â€
24.â•‡Today’s Zaman, 7 April 2014.

Â€
2.â•‡THE MYTHICAL FATHERS OF THE NATION

1.â•‡Jean Marcou, ‘Le mouvement constitutionnel’, in Semih Vaner (ed.), La
Turquie, Paris: Fayard, 2005, p.â•–106.
2.â•‡Dexter Filkins, ‘How far will Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan go to stay in
power?’, New Yorker, 12 March 2012.
Â€
3.â•‡Eugene Rogan, The Arabs, A History, London: Allen Lane, 2009, p.â•–43.
4.â•‡Filiu, The Arab Revolution, pp.â•–141–4.
5.â•‡Daughters of Allah (Allah in Kizlari) was published in 2008 by Dogan pub-
lications (Istanbul), but has not yet been translated into English.
256

NOTES pp. [31–50]
7.â•‡Souhayr Belhassen, ‘Les legs bourguibiens de la répression’, in Michel

Camau and Vincent Geisser (eds), Habib Bourguiba, la trace et l’héritage,
Paris: Karthala, 2004, p.â•–395.
8.â•‡Guy Pervillé, ‘La guerre d’Algérie, combien de morts?’, in Mohammed
Harbi and Benjamin Stora (eds), La guerre d’Algérie, Paris: Hachette-Plu-
riel, 2005, pp.â•–713–14.
9.â•‡Patrick Seale, The Struggle for Syria, New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1987, pp.â•–3–4.
10.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 59.
11.â•‡Raphaël Lefèvre, Ashes of Hama: The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, Lon-
don: Hurst & Co., 2013, pp.â•–33–4.
12.â•‡Steven Cook, The Struggle for Egypt, from Nasser to Tahrir Square, New
York: Oxford University Press, 2012, p.â•–36.
13.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 11.
14.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 321.
15.â•‡George Haddad, Revolutions and Military Rule in the Middle East, Egypt,
the Sudan, Yemen and Libya, New York: Robert Speller, 1973, p.â•–371.
16.â•‡The major book on the issue is the work by Avi Shlaim, Collusion across
the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of
Palestine, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
17.â•‡Le Combattant suprême (in French) was translated in Arabic as al-
Mujâhid al-Akbar, with the celebration of the nationalist ‘jihad’ which
Bourguiba had waged for Tunisia’s sake.
18.â•‡Lazhar Chraïti, one of the executed plotters, had been a charismatic leader
of the anti-French insurgency in 1954–6. In 2013, on the anniversary of
Tunisian independence, President Moncef Marzouki bestowed upon him
posthumously the highest Tunisian distinction (the Grand Order of
Independence).
3.â•‡THE MODERN MAMLUKS

1.â•‡Caterina Bori, ‘Théologie politique et Islam, à propos d’Ibn Taymiyya et du
sultanat mamelouk’, Revue de l’histoire des religions, 1, 2007, pp.â•–31–2.
2.â•‡Hazem Kandil, Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen: Egypt’s Road to Revolt, Lon-
don: Verso, 2012, p.â•–37. For a first-hand account of Nasser’s relation with
the Muslim Brotherhood, see the online excerpt from Khaled Mohieldin,
Memories of a Revolution, 1952, Cairo: American University of Cairo,
1995, http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/139/48402/Egypt/-July-
Revolution/Nasser,-myself-and-the-Muslim-Brotherhood.aspx, accessed
13 December 2014.
Â€
3.â•‡Kandil, Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen, pp.â•–19–20.

4.â•‡Cook, The Struggle for Egypt, pp.â•–55–6.
257
pp. [50–69]
NOTES
5.â•‡Kandil, Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen, p.â•–38.
6.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 40.
7.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 51.
8.â•‡Patrick Seale, Asad, the Struggle for the Middle East, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1989, p.â•–54.
10.â•‡Jesse Ferris, Nasser’s Gamble, How Intervention in Yemen caused the Six-
Day War and the Decline of Egyptian Power, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2013, p.â•–62.
11.â•‡Anwar Sadat, Al-Bahth ‘an al-zat, Cairo: Al-Maktab al-Masry al-Hadith,
1978, p.â•–220.
12.â•‡Eugene Rogan and Tewfik Aclimandos, ‘The Yemen war and Egypt’s war
preparedness’, in Roger Louis and Avi Shlaim (eds), The 1967 Arab–
Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2012, pp.â•–163–4.
14.â•‡Amira El-Azahary Sonbol, The New Mamlouks, p.â•–133.
16.â•‡Ibid., pp.â•– 167–8.
19.â•‡Hanna Batatu, Syria’s Peasantry, the Descendants of its Lesser Rural
Notables and their Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1999, pp.â•–146–7.
20.â•‡Seale, Asad: the Struggle for the Middle East, p.â•–79.
21.â•‡David Lesch, ‘Syria: Playing with Fire’, in Roger Louis and Avi Shlaim
(eds), The 1967 Arab–Israeli War, p.â•–86.
22.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, Le nouveau Moyen-Orient, les peuples à l’heure de la
Révolution syrienne, Paris: Fayard, 2013, p.â•–66.
23.â•‡Lesch, ‘Syria: Playing with Fire’, p.â•–94.
24.â•‡Filiu, The Arab Revolution, pp.â•–74–5.
25.â•‡Raphaëlle Branche, Prisonniers du FLN, Paris: Payot, 2014, p.â•–9.
26.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 12.
27.â•‡Miriam Lowi, Oil Wealth and the Poverty of Politics: Algeria Compared,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.â•–66.
28.â•‡Lahouari Addi, L’Algérie et la démocratie, pouvoir et crise du politique
dans l’Algérie contemporaine, Paris: La Découverte, 1994, p.â•–58.
29.â•‡Interview with Colonel Ali Hamlat, Le Soir d’Algérie, 24 June 2008.
Â€
30.â•‡Lowi, Oil Wealth and the Poverty of Politics, p.â•–75.

31.â•‡Ibid., pp.â•– 83–4.
32.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 89.
33.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 99.
258

NOTES pp. [71–101]
34.â•‡DGPS, with PS standing for ‘prevention and security’, was thus echoing
Merbah’s SM ‘offices for prevention and security’ (BSP) that controlled
Algeria under Boumediene.
35.â•‡Haddad, Revolutions and Military Rule in the Middle East, Egypt, the
Sudan, Yemen and Libya, p.â•–227.
36.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 241.
37.â•‡Ferris, Nasser’s Gamble, p.â•–60.
38.â•‡Haddad, Revolutions and Military Rule in the Middle East, Egypt, the
Sudan, Yemen and Libya, p.â•–258.
39.â•‡Ferris, Nasser’s Gamble, p.â•–188.
40.â•‡Stephen Day, Regionalism and Rebellion in Yemen, A Troubled National
Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.â•–277.
41.â•‡Ibid., pp.â•– 90–93.
42.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 70.
4.â•‡THE ALGERIAN MATRIX

1.â•‡For an in-depth academic discussion of the FLN–FIS ideological conver-
gences, see Lahouari Addi, L’Algérie et la démocratie, ch. 5.
2.â•‡Algerians routinely refer, until today, to SM (Sécurité Militaire) as an
equivalent to DRS (Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité),
more than two decades after being revamped into the DRS.
3.â•‡Seale, Asad: the Struggle for the Middle East, p.â•–399.
4.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 462.
5.â•‡Fanar Haddad, Sectarianism in Iraq, Antagonistic Views of Unity, Lon-
don: Hurst, 2011, p.â•–66.
6.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 127.
7.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 75.
8.â•‡John Entelis, Algeria: The Revolution Institutionalized, Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 1986, p.â•–122.
9.â•‡Interview with an anonymous French diplomat, Paris, 5 June 2013.
Â€
10.â•‡Press conference by François Mitterrand, Luxembourg, 14 January 1992.

Â€
11.â•‡Statement of gendarmerie chief, General Ghezaiel, to the Algerian press,

15 April 1992.
Â€
12.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, ‘The Local and Global Jihad of Al-Qa’eda in the Islamic
Maghrib’, Middle East Journal, vol.â•–63, 2, Spring 2009, p.â•–217.
13.â•‡Luis Martinez, The Algerian Civil War, London: Hurst, 2000, pp.â•–148–9.
14.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 213.
15.â•‡Ahmed Rouadjia, ‘L’Algérie un an après l’élection de Liamine Zeroual’,
Confluences, Winter 1996–7, p.â•–87.
16.â•‡Filiu, ‘The Local and Global jihad of Al-Qa’eda in the Islamic Maghrib’,
pp.â•–219–20.
259
pp. [101–116]
NOTES
17.â•‡See for instance, among many other such allegations, Robert Fisk’s report
in The Independent, 30 October 1997.
Â€
18.â•‡‘Open letter to all governments from the Secretary General of Amnesty

International’, London, 26 February 1998.
Â€
19.â•‡International Crisis Group, ‘La Concorde civile: une initiative de paix

manquée’, 9 July 2001, p.â•–4.
Â€
20.â•‡Khaled Nezzar, Le Sultanat de Bouteflika, Marseille: Transbordeurs,

2003, p.â•–30.
21.â•‡Ibid., pp.â•– 21–5.
22.â•‡José Garçon, ‘Algérie, l’impossible restauration’, Politique étrangère, 2/99,
p.â•–343.
23.â•‡Amnesty International, ‘La libération de milliers de prisonniers politiques
est une mesure positive, mais insuffisante’, Paris, 6 July 1999.
Â€
24.â•‡International Crisis Group, ‘La Concorde civile’, p.â•–7.

25.â•‡Interview with General Mohammad Lamari in Al-Ahram, 17 June 2003.
Â€
26.â•‡Ibid.
27.â•‡Ibid.
28.â•‡See for instance the ‘Open letter to General Mediene’, published on
17 February 2013 by Hocine Malti in Mediapart (online French media).
Â€
29.â•‡I collected these remarks during a series of talks I gave on the Arab dem-
ocratic uprising, in March and May 2012, in Algiers, Oran, Annaba, Con-
stantine and Tlemcen.
30.â•‡Statoil, ‘The In-Amenas attack’, presented to the Board of Directors on
11 September 2013, p.â•–4.
Â€
31.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 70.

32.â•‡José Garçon, ‘Algérie: l’impossible relève?’, in Politique internationale,
n°145, Fall 2014, p.â•–136.
33.â•‡26 per cent exactly, according to a study published in March 2012 by the
Qatar-based Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (Arab Opinion
Project, The Arab Opinion Index 2012, pp.â•–16–17).
34.â•‡Garçon, ‘Algérie: l’impossible relève?’, p.â•–130.
35.â•‡SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), Trends in World
Military Expenditure, 2013, April 2014, p.â•–4. The exact figure is $10.4
billion, with an 8.8 per cent increase from 2012 to 2013 (compared to a
3 per cent estimated growth in GNP during the same period).
5.â•‡THE RISE OF THE SECURITY MAFIAS

1.â•‡Steven Cook, Ruling but not Governing: The Military and Political Devel-
opment in Egypt, Algeria and Turkey, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, 2007, p.â•–14.
2.â•‡This is the main thesis, among others, of Batatu, Syria’s Peasantry, 1999.
260

NOTES pp. [118–128]
3.â•‡Charles Tilly, ‘War-making and State-making as Organized Crime’, in

Peter Evans et al. (eds), Bringing the State Back In, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1985, p.â•–170.
4.â•‡Ferris, Nasser’s Gamble, pp.â•–200–202.
5.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 203.
6.â•‡Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates founded the
AOI in 1975 to boost the Arab defence industry on Egyptian soil. After
the 1979 Camp David breach, the AOI became an Egyptian conglomerate
de facto, with the Gulf partners returning their shares at the beginning of
the 1990s.
7.â•‡Cook, Ruling but not Governing, p.â•–19.
8.â•‡Yezid Sayigh, Above the State: The Officers’ Republic in Egypt, Beirut:
Carnegie Middle East Center, 1 August 2012, p.â•–5.
Â€
9.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 14.

10.â•‡Day, Regionalism and Rebellion in Yemen, p.â•–158.
11.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 157.
12.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 158.
13.â•‡Martinez, The Algerian Civil War, pp.â•–236–9.
14.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 17.
15.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 17.
16.â•‡Ignacio Cembrero, ‘Una cicatriz de 1500 kilometros’, El Pais, 25 May Â€
2008.
17.â•‡Cherif Lakhdiri, ‘Algérie-Maroc, quand le business ouvre les frontières’,
Al-Watan, 6 February 2012.
Â€
18.â•‡Cembrero, ‘Una cicatriz de 1500 kilometros’, El Pais, 25 May 2008.

Â€
19.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, Le Nouveau Moyen-Orient, Paris: Fayard, 2013,

pp.â•–123–4.
20.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 97.
21.â•‡Assad means ‘lion’ in Arabic.
22.â•‡Filiu, Le Nouveau Moyen-Orient, p.â•–106.
23.â•‡For various positions on this debate, see for instance Ola Listaugh, ‘Oil
Wealth Dissatisfaction and Political Trust in Norway: A Resource Curse?’
West European Politics, vol.â•–28, no.â•–4, 2005; Andrew Rosser, ‘Escaping
the Resource Curse: The Case of Indonesia’, Journal of Contemporary
Asia, vol.â•–37, no.â•–1, February 2007; Jeffrey Sachs, Joseph Stiglitz, Macar-
tan Humphreys (eds), ‘What is the Problem with Natural Resource
Wealth’ in Escaping The Resource Curse, New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press, 2007.
24.â•‡Seale, The Struggle for Syria, p.â•–47.
26.â•‡Government of Yemen Central Statistics Yearbook, 2009.
261
pp. [128–146]
NOTES
28.â•‡Peter Salisbury, Yemen’s Economy: Oil, Imports and Elites, London: Cha-
tham House, MENA Program Paper 2011/2, October 2011, p.â•–12.
29.â•‡Luis Martinez, The Violence of Petro-dollar Regimes: Algeria, Iraq and
Libya, London: Hurst, 2012, p.â•–84.
30.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 95.
31.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 90.
32.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 95.
33.â•‡Seale, Asad, the Struggle for the Middle East, p.â•–447.
34.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 255.
35.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 263.
36.â•‡Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine 1967–82, Paris: Fayard, 2011,
p.â•–699.
37.â•‡Michel Seurat, L’Etat de barbarie, Paris: Seuil, 1989, p.â•–43.
38.â•‡Seale, Asad, the Struggle for the Middle East, p.â•–398.
39.â•‡Cook, The Struggle for Egypt, p.â•–223.
6.â•‡THE ‘GLOBAL TERROR’ NEXT DOOR

1.â•‡Cook, The Struggle for Egypt, p.â•–204.
2.â•‡Clive Stafford Smith, Bad Men: Guantanamo Bay and the Secret Prisons,
London: Phoenix, 2008, pp.â•–79, 245.
3.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, La Véritable histoire d’Al-Qaida, Paris: Pluriel, 2011,
p.â•–49.
4.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 60.
6.â•‡International Crisis Group, Yemen’s Security-Military Reform: Seeds of a
New Conflict?, Middle East Report 139, 4 April 2013, p.â•–9.
Â€
7.â•‡Ibid., pp.â•– 7–8.

8.â•‡Day, Regionalism and Rebellion in Yemen, pp.â•–198–9.
9.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 255.
10.â•‡The best informed and most comprehensive study on this issue is Thomas
Hegghammer, Jihad in Saudi Arabia, Cambridge: Cambrige University
Press, 2010.
11.â•‡Jeremy Sharp, Yemen: Background and US Relations, Washington: Con-
gressional Research Service (CRS), 6 February 2014, p.â•–11.
Â€
12.â•‡Filiu, La Véritable histoire d’Al-Qaida, pp.â•–31–3.

13.â•‡This is the title of Abu Musab al-Suri’s biography: Brynjar Lia, Architect
of Global Jihad: The Life of Al-Qaeda Strategist Abu Mus’ab Al-SuriLon-
don: Hurst, 2007.
15.â•‡Guardian, 14 September 2001.
Â€
16.â•‡George W. Bush, speech to the UN General Assembly, New York, 12 Sep-

Â€ Â€
tember 2002.
262

NOTES pp. [146–166]
17.â•‡United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1441, New York, 8 Novem-

Â€
ber 2002.
19.â•‡Bernard Rougier, L’Oumma en fragments, Paris: PUF, 2011, p.â•–221.
20.â•‡For details about the jihadi cooperation involving Syrian intelligence and
Iraqi former officials, see Martin Chulov, ‘ISIS: the inside story’, Guard-
ian, 11 December 2014.
Â€
7.â•‡THE STORY OF TWO SQUARES IN EGYPT

1.â•‡Samer Suleiman, Al-Nizâm al-qawî wa al-dawla al-dha’ïfa (The Strong
Regime and the Weak State), Cairo: Dar Merit, 2005, p.â•–271.
2.â•‡Kandil, Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen, p.â•–225
3.â•‡Omar Suleiman’s address to Egyptian state television, 11 February 2011.
Â€
4.â•‡Hillel Frisch, ‘The Egyptian army and Egypt’s “spring”’, Journal of Stra-
tegic Studies, 2013, vol.â•–36, no.â•–2, p.â•–190.
5.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 183.
7.â•‡Rime Naguib, ‘A year in review, the SCAF rules in 93 letters’, Al-Masry
al-Yom, 31 December 2011.
Â€
8.â•‡Ibid.
9.â•‡Rana Khazbak, ‘Protesters reject “threatening” SCAF statement’, Al-
Masry al-Yom, 12 July 2011. Â€

11.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 230.
12.â•‡http://www.arabist.net/blog/2011/9/16/wael-ghonims-letter-to-tantawi.
html (accessed 14 December 2014).
Â€
13.â•‡Benjamin Barthe, ‘En Egypte, l’armée resserre son emprise sur les médias’,
Le Monde, 30 October 2011.Â€
14.â•‡The best documented study about the Ultras is James Dorsey, The Turbu-
lent World of Middle East Soccer, London: Hurst, 2015.
15.â•‡Testimony of one of the revolutionary delegates, who insisted on remain-
ing anonymous, due to the security situation in Egypt.
16.â•‡Omar Ashour, ‘What do Egypt’s generals want?’ Project Syndicate,
30 January 2012.
Â€
17.â•‡Claire Talon, ‘L’Egypte sous tension après le drame de Port-Saïd’, Le

Monde, 3 February 2012.
Â€
18.â•‡Alain Gresh, ‘De la dictature militaire à la dictature religieuse?’ Le Monde

diplomatique, November 2012.
19.â•‡Claire Talon, ‘Egypte: l’emprise des Frères inquiète l’opposition’, Le
Monde, 25 August 2012.
Â€
263
pp. [166–174]
NOTES
20.â•‡See http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/55595.aspx (accessed 9 DecemberÂ€
2014).
21.â•‡Issandr al-Amrani, ‘Sightings of the Egyptian Deep State’, MERIP, 1 Jan-
uary 2012.
22.â•‡Agence France Presse, ‘Obama calls Egypt’s Morsi, commends his truce
efforts’, Washington, 20 November 2012.
Â€
23.â•‡Richard Spencer and Magdy Samaan, ‘Mohammad Morsi grants himself

sweeping new powers in wake of Gaza’, Daily Telegraph, 22 November
Â€
2012.
24.â•‡Christophe Ayad, ‘Martyr contre martyr, projet contre projet, l’Egypte est
coupée en deux’, Le Monde, 15 December 2012.
Â€
25.â•‡Human Rights Watch, ‘Egypt: Investigate Brotherhood abuse of protest-

ers’, New York, 12 December 2012.
Â€
26.â•‡Information about the documentary film may be found at http://www.

imdb.com/title/tt0178909/combined (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
27.â•‡‘At least nine deaths reported, armed forces deployed in Suez’, Al-Masry
al-Youm, 25 January 2013.
Â€
28.â•‡Ibid.
29.â•‡See http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Templates/Articles/tmpArticles.aspx?ArtID=
66098#.VDo4mkuW47s (accessed 9 December 2014).Â€
30.â•‡Hélène Sallon, ‘Le président égyptien Morsi affaibli par les violences
policières’, Le Monde, 5 February 2013.
Â€
31.â•‡Benjamin Barthe, ‘L’armée revient dans le jeu politique’, Le Monde,

16 March 2013.
Â€
32.â•‡Hélène Sallon, ‘Les Black Block, nouveau visage de la contestation’, Le

Monde, 3 February 2013.
Â€
33.â•‡Benjamin Barthe, ‘L’armée revient dans le jeu politique’, Le Monde,

16 March 2013.
Â€
34.â•‡Charles Levinson and Matt Bradley, ‘In Egypt, the “Deep State” Rises
Again’, Wall Street Journal, 19 July 2013.
Â€
35.â•‡Florence Beaugé, ‘L’Egypte, écartelée entre réformes et peur de la rue’, Le

Monde, 5 April 2013.
Â€
36.â•‡Asma Alsharif and Yasmine Saleh, ‘The Real Force Behind Egypt’s “Rev-
olution of the State”’, Reuters, Cairo, 10 October 2013.
Â€
37.â•‡Benjamin Barthe, ‘Les apprentis sorciers de Tamarrod’, Le Monde, 18 July Â€
2013.
38.â•‡Issandr al-Amrani, ‘The de-legitimization of Mohamed Morsi’, The Ara-
bist, 30 June 2013.
Â€
39.â•‡See http://www.masress.com/en/ahramweekly/102621 (accessed 9 Decem- Â€
ber 2014).
40.â•‡Ibid.
41.â•‡Ibid.
264

NOTES pp. [174–180]
42.â•‡See http://www.masress.com/en/egyptiangazette/29306 (accessed 9 Decem- Â€
ber 2014).
43.â•‡See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/02/mahmoud-badr-is-
the-young-face-of-the-anti-morsi-movement.html (accessed 9 December
2014).
44.â•‡Tewfik Aclimandos, ‘L’armée va tout faire pour faire tomber Morsi’,
interview with Le Monde, 3 July 2013.
Â€
45.â•‡Associated Press, Statement by Egypt’s Military Chief, Cairo, 3 July 2013.

Â€
46.â•‡Ibid.
47.â•‡Sheera Frankel, ‘How Egypt’s Rebel Movement Helped Pave the Way for
the Sissi Presidency’, Buzzfeed, 26 April 2014.
Â€
48.â•‡Claire Talon, ‘Un coup d’Etat planifié par les militaires?’ Le Monde, 6 July Â€
2013.
49.â•‡David Kirkpatrick, ‘Ousted General is Back as Islamists’ Foe’, New York
Times, 30 October 2013.
Â€
50.â•‡Christophe Ayad, ‘Comment l’armée a récupéré Tahrir’, Le Monde,

9 August 2013.
Â€
51.â•‡Ibid.
52.â•‡Human Rights Watch, ‘Egypt: Security Forces use Excessive Lethal Force’,
New York, 19 August 2013.
Â€
53.â•‡See www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/08/19/en-egypte-plus-de-morts-
en-cinq-jours-que-pendant-la-revolution-de-2011_3463410_3212.html
(accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
54.â•‡Christophe Ayad, ‘Les Coptes, cibles privilégiées des représailles des Frères
musulmans’, Le Monde, 19 August 2013.
Â€
55.â•‡See www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2013/08/19/en-egypte-plus-de-morts-
en-cinq-jours-que-pendant-la-revolution-de-2011_3463410_3212.html
Â€
56.â•‡Alistair Beach, ‘Now Baradei Faces Wrath of the Army after Resigning
from Cabinet’, The Independent, 20 August 2013.
Â€
57.â•‡Serge Michel, ‘Les généraux égyptiens veulent briser les Frères’, Le Monde,
20 August 2013.
Â€
58.â•‡Report of the Arab League meeting, AFP, Cairo, 1 September 2013.

Â€
59.â•‡Marion Guénard, ‘Sissi surfe sur une vague nationaliste’, Le Monde,

12 October 2013.
Â€
60.â•‡See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du1Xq35b3uY&feature=player_
embedded&desktop_uri=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v
%3Ddu1Xq35b3uY&app=desktop (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
61.â•‡See http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/4103/44/Catch-the-Al-Sisi-mania.
aspx (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
62.â•‡See http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/02/07/In-rare-
interview-Mubarak-says-Egyptians-want-Sisi.html (accessed 9 December Â€
2014).
265
pp. [180–191]
NOTES
63.â•‡See http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/07/the_crooks_return_
to_cairo_hussein_salem_egypt (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
64.â•‡Kristina Kausch, ‘Recipe for civil war?’ FRIDE commentary, n°1, January
2014.
65.â•‡Nathan Brown, ‘Egypt’s Constitutional Cul-de-sac’, CMI Insight, March
2014.
66.â•‡David Kirkpatrick, ‘Vow of Freedom of Religion goes Unkept in Egypt’,
New York Times, 25 April 2014.Â€
67.â•‡Marion Guénard, ‘Le maréchal Al-Sissi en “sauveur de la nation”’, Le

Monde, 29 January 2014.
Â€
68.â•‡Maggy Fick, ‘Egypt Army Extends Power by Taking Charge of Gulf Aid’,
Reuters, Cairo, 27 March 2014.
Â€
69.â•‡Ahmed Morsy, ‘The Military Crowds out Civilian Business in Egypt’,

Carnegie International Endowment for Peace, 24 June 2014.
Â€
70.â•‡Zeinab al-Guindy, ‘Hot Night, Dark City: how Egyptians cope with
power cuts’, Al-Ahram, 28 August 2014.
Â€
71.â•‡See http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/egypt-water-nile-
shortage-power-cuts.html (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
72.â•‡Ismail Alexandrani, ‘War in Sinai’, Arab Reform Initiative, March 2014.

73.â•‡Quoted in Dina Khawaga, ‘From Apparatus State to War State’, Arab
Reform Initiative, September 2014.
74.â•‡The same militia leader has been accused of the deadly assault on the US
compound in Benghazi, in September 2012, where the American ambas-
sador was killed. See David Kirkpatrick, ‘A Deadly Mix in Benghazi’, New
York Times, 28 December 2013.
Â€
75.â•‡Patrick Kingsley, Chris Stephen and Dan Roberts, ‘UAE and Egypt behind
Bombing Raids against Libyan Militias, say US Officials’, The Guardian,
26 August 2013.
Â€
76.â•‡http://www.el-balad.com/1164149 (accessed 9 December 2014).

Â€
77.â•‡Michelle Dunne and Scott Williamson, ‘Egypt’s Unprecedented Instability

by the Numbers’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washing-
ton, 24 March 2014.
Â€
78.â•‡According to the estimates of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.

Marion Guénard, who has covered Egypt for Le Monde from 2007 to
2014, gives even higher numbers, in the absence of official datas: Marion
Guénard, ‘Egypte: Al-Sissi imperator?’ in Politique Internationale, n°145,
Autumn 2014, p.â•–101.
79.â•‡Farah Ramzy, ‘Le champ de bataille des universités égyptiennes’, Orient
XXI, 16 December 2014.
Â€
80.â•‡http://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=22092014&id=
ff998f19–06f7–4fce-9d4e-d7054c331b39 (accessed 17 December 2014).
Â€
81.â•‡Dunne and Williamson, ‘Egypt’s Unprecedented Instability by the

Numbers’.
266

NOTES pp. [195–208]
8.â•‡EVIL TWINS IN YEMEN AND SYRIA
1.â•‡Stephen Day, Regionalism and Rebellion in Yemen, p.â•–274.

2.â•‡See http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/29/yemen.unrest/
index.html?hpt=T2 (accessed 6 December 2014).
Â€
3.â•‡The memo of the Department of Justice justifying such a killing was pub-
lished by NBC News in February 2013. See http://investigations.nbcnews.
com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-
legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans (accessed 6 December 2014).
Â€
4.â•‡Agreement on the implementation mechanism for the transition process in

Yemen, published in the Yemen Post, 19 February 2012.
Â€
5.â•‡François-Xavier Trégan, ‘L’Etat yéménite, otage de la ‘révolution’ des

houthistes’, Le Monde, 27 December 2014.
Â€
6.â•‡Laurent Bonnefoy, ‘Retour des chiites sur la scène yéménite’, Le Monde

diplomatique, November 2014, p.â•–4.
7.â•‡Ibid.
8.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, ‘Ansar al-Fatah and the French “Iraqi” network’, in
Bruce Hoffmann and Fernando Reinares (eds), The Evolution of the
Global Terrorist Threat, New York: Columbia University Press, 2014,
pp.â•–361–3.
9.â•‡Martin Chulov, ‘ISIS: the inside story’, The Guardian, 11 December 2014.
Â€
10.â•‡See http://syrie.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/10/19/syrie-les-vrais-ennemis-de-
bachar-al-assad-pas-les-amis-de-sadnaya-mais-les-revolutionnaires-et-les-
democrates/ (accessed 6 December 2014).
Â€
11.â•‡Le Monde, 15 March 2012.

Â€
12.â•‡Brian Fishman, ‘The Islamic State: A Persistent Threat’, Testimony to the

House Armed Services Committee, Washington, 29 July 2014. Â€
13.â•‡Ilina Angelova, ‘Rebel-held Suburbs of Damascus, Resilience Mechanisms

in the Face of Chemical Attacks’, Arab Reform Initiative, 17 July 2014. Â€
14.â•‡Report of the Arab League meeting, AFP, Cairo, 1 September 2013.

Â€
15.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, Je vous écris d’Alep, Paris: Denoël, 2013, pp.â•–130–31.

16.â•‡International Crisis Group, ‘Iraq: Falluja’s Faustian Bargain’, Middle East
report n°150, Baghdad/Brussels, 28 April 2014.
Â€
17.â•‡Terence McCoy, ‘ISIS just stole $425 million’, Washington Post, 12 June Â€
2014.
18.â•‡See http://www.slate.fr/story/87967/bachar-el-assad-syrie-presidentielle
Â€
19.â•‡Ibid.
20.â•‡Alissa Rubin and Rod Nordland, ‘Sunnis and Kurds on Sidelines of Iraq
Leader’s Military plans’, New York Times, 17 June 2014.
Â€
21.â•‡Hala Kodmani, ‘Un califat lucratif aux mains des jihadistes’, L’Express,
24 July 2014.
Â€
267
pp. [209–225]
NOTES
22.â•‡Barack Obama, ‘Speech to the Nation’, White House, Washington, DC,
10 September 2014.
Â€
9.â•‡STRANGLING PALESTINE
1.â•‡Even ten years later, the former chief of the political branch of the Mili-
tary security (DRS), General Lakehal Ayat, kept playing the same tune.
See his contribution to Octobre, ils parlent, Alger: Editions Le Matin,
1998, pp.â•–127–34.
2.â•‡The Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine–General Command (PFLP–
GC) is a splinter group from the main PFLP, supported by the Syrian intel-
ligence and chaired since its foundation in 1968 by the Palestinian Ahmad
Jibril (Abou Jihad), after he served in the Syrian forces.
3.â•‡See for instance the fascinating testimony of Nidal Bitari, ‘Yarmuk Refu-
gee Camp and the Syrian Revolution: A View from Within’, Journal of
Palestine Studies, vol.â•–XLIII, no.â•–1, Autumn 2013, pp.â•–61–78.
4.â•‡Anthony Shadid, ‘Syrian Elite will Fight Protest till “the End”’, New York
Times, 10 May 2011.
Â€
5.â•‡See http://blogs.rue89.nouvelobs.com/jean-pierre-filiu/2013/12/28/bachar-
el-assad-affame-la-palestine-damas-232003 (accessed 8 December 2014).
Â€
6.â•‡Amnesty International, ‘Squeezing the Life out of Yarmouk’, London,

pp.â•–24–34.
7.â•‡Ibid., p.â•– 9.
8.â•‡Chris Gunness, UNRWA spokesman on Yarmouk camp, 10 August 2014. Â€
See http://www.unrwa.org/crisis-in-yarmouk (accessed 8 December 2014).

Â€
9.â•‡UNRWA, ‘Syria crisis regional response, update 77’, 11 August 2014. Â€
10.â•‡Bitari, ‘Yarmuk Refugee Camp’, p.â•–78.

11.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, Gaza: A History, London: Hurst, 2014, p.â•–326.
12.â•‡Laurent Zecchini, ‘La population de Gaza étranglée, victime collatérale de
la chute du régime égyptien’, Le Monde, 20 July 2013.
Â€
13.â•‡Serge Michel, ‘Les généraux égyptiens veulent briser les Frères’, Le Monde,
20 August 2013.
Â€
14.â•‡Ibid.
15.â•‡The most detailed assessment of the casualties and damages inflicted in the
Gaza Strip by the Israeli offensive is the Gaza Crisis Atlas, released by the
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in
August 2014. Available at http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/GazaCri-
sisAtlas_2014.pdf (accessed 8 December 2014).
Â€
16.â•‡The head of delegation was Fatah Azzam al-Ahmad, assisted by Majed al-
Faraj, head of PA intelligence. Representing Hamas was Moussa Abu
Marzouk, Meshal’s deputy, along with Zyad al-Nakhala for Islamic Jihad.
17.â•‡Quoted in Khaled Diab, ‘An Insane Alliance: Israel and Egypt Against
Gaza’, Haaretz, 8 August 2014.
Â€
268

NOTES pp. [225–249]
18.â•‡Ibid.
19.â•‡Jack Khoury, ‘The Gaza Donor Conference, A Springboard to Sissi?’
Haaretz, 13 October 2014.
Â€
10.â•‡THE TUNISIAN ALTERNATIVE

1.â•‡Hélène Sallon, ‘Sanglante attaque jihadiste dans le Sinaï’, Le Monde,
26 October 2014.
Â€
2.â•‡David Kirkpatrick, ‘Militant Group in Egypt Vows Loyalty to ISIS’, New

York Times, 10 November 2014.
Â€
3.â•‡Yadh Ben Achour’s interview with Le Monde, 20 April 2011.

Â€
4.â•‡UGTT stands for Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail.

5.â•‡See http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/31/egypt-s-constitutional-cul-
de-sac/h7yy (accessed 8 December 2014).
Â€
6.â•‡CPR stands for Congrès pour la République in French.

7.â•‡GICT stands for Groupe Islamique Combattant Tunisien in French.
8.â•‡UTICA stands for Union Tunisienne de l’Industrie, du Commerce et de
l’Artisanat in French.
9.â•‡LTDH stands for Ligue Tunisienne des Droits de l’Homme in French.
10.â•‡Isabelle Mandraud, ‘Les forces spéciales tunisiennes ont tué l’assassin pré-
sumé de Chokri Belaïd’, Le Monde, 6 February 2014.
Â€
11.â•‡Ibid.
12.â•‡In a closed-door meeting I attended with Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, in Wash-
ington, the Libyan dictator’s heir apparent boasted about how his father
‘sold America his yellow cake at the best price’, in a reference to the com-
pensation disbursed for the low-enriched uranium stocks (German Mar-
shall Fund, 19 November 2008).
Â€
13.â•‡A must-read study on this issue is Zeid Al-Ali, The Struggle for Iraq’s
Future, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014.
14.â•‡Luis Martinez, ‘Libya from paramilitary forces to militias: the difficulty of
constructing a state security apparatus’, Arab Reform Initiative, May
2014.
15.â•‡Opening line of Karl Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoléon, New
York: International Publishers, 1963.
CONCLUSION
1.â•‡Hélène Sallon, ‘Le suicide de Zeinab al-Mahdi, miroir du rêve perdu de
Tahrir’, Le Monde, 21 November 2014.
Â€
2.â•‡See http://www.newsweek.com/httpwwwnewsweekcomabu-bakr-al-bagh-
dadi-abu-dua-invisible-sheikh-awwad-ibrahim-284261 (accessed 9 Decem-Â€
ber 2014).
269
pp. [250–252]
NOTES
3.â•‡Jean-Pierre Filiu, ‘Ansar al-Fatah and French “Iraqi” network’, p.â•–362.
4.â•‡http://nawaat.org/portail/2013/07/26/qui-est-boubaker-al-hakim-tueur-pre-
sume-de-mohamed-brahmi/ (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
5.â•‡http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/proche-moyen-orient/le-regime-
syrien-cent-fois-plus-meurtrier-que-les-djihadistes-de-l-ei_1624707.
html#xtor=AL-447 (accessed 9 December 2014).
Â€
6.â•‡James Traub, ‘Bashar al Assad and the Devil’s Bargain’, Foreign Policy,
November 2014, available online at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/arti-
cles/2014/11/14/bashar_al_assad_and_the_devils_bargain_syria_truce
Â€
7.â•‡Ibid.
8.â•‡Rémy Ourdan, ‘Derna, premier territoire de l’EI en dehors des “frontières”
du califat’, Le Monde, 13 November 2014.
Â€
270
SELECT ENGLISH BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achcar, Gilbert, The People Want. A Radical Exploration of the Arab Upris-
ing, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
Amira El Azhary Sonbol, The New Mamluks: Egyptian Society and Modern
Feudalism, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000.
Arjomand, Said (ed.), The Arab Revolution of 2011: A Comparative Perspec-
tive, Albany: SUNY Press, 2015.
Cole, Juan, The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation is Changing the
Middle East, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2014.
Cook, Steven, The Struggle for Egypt, from Nasser to Tahrir Square, New
York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Day, Stephen, Regionalism and Rebellion in Yemen: A Troubled National
Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Dorsey, James, The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer, London: Hurst
2015.
Entelis, John, Algeria: The Revolution Institutionalized, Boulder, CO: West-
view Press, 1986.
Filiu, Jean-Pierre, The Arab Revolution. Ten Lessons from the Democratic
Uprising, London: Hurst, 2011.
Hamid, Shadi, Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in the
Middle East, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Haykel, Bernard, Hegghammer, Thomas and Lacroix, Stéphane (eds), Saudi
Arabia in Transition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Kandil, Hazem, Soldiers, Spies and Statesmen, Egypt’s Road to Revolt, Lon-
don: Verso, 2012.
Louis, Roger and Avi Shlaim (eds), The 1967 Arab–Israeli War, Origins and
Consequences, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Lowi, Miriam, Oil Wealth and the Poverty of Politics: Algeria Compared,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Martinez, Luis, The Algerian Civil War 1990–1998, London: Hurst, 2000.
271
SELECT ENGLISH BIBLIOGRAPHY
———â•–The Libyan Paradox, London: Hurst, 2007.
———â•–The Violence of Petro-Dollar Regimes, Algeria, Iraq, Libya, London:
Hurst, 2012.
Owen, Roger, The Rise and Fall of Arab Presidents for Life, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2012.
Rogan, Eugene, The Arabs, A History, London: Penguin Books, 2011.
Seale, Patrick, The Struggle for Syria, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1987.
———â•–Asad, the Struggle for the Middle East, Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, 1989.
Tripp, Charles, A History of Iraq, New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
———â•–The Power and the People, Paths of Resistance in the Middle East,
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Wedeen, Lisa, Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric and Symbols in
Contemporary Syria, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999.
———â•–Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power and Performance in Yemen, Chi-
cago: Chicago University Press, 2008.
272
CHRONOLOGY
2011
January
14 Tunisian President Ben Ali flees to Saudi Arabia

17 ‘National unity’ government in Tunisia led by the former
Prime Minister Mohammad Ghannouchi
25 First ‘Revolution Day’ in Egypt; occupation of Tahrir Square
in Cairo
27 Tunisian cabinet reshuffle and violent dispersal of the pro-
testers rallying on Government Square (Kasbah I)
28 Mubarak appoints Ahmed Shafiq as his new prime minister
29 Omar Suleiman sworn in as Egyptian vice president
February
â•‡2 Pro-Mubarak mobs on the rampage against Egyptian pro-
testers. Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh promises to
step down at the end of his term in office in 2013
â•‡6 ‘National dialogue’ between Suleiman and the Egyptian
opposition, including the Muslim Brotherhood
11 ‘Farewell Friday’ in Egypt; Mubarak steps down
12 Crackdown on demonstrations in Algeria
13 The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) suspends
the Egyptian constitution and dissolves the parliament.
Renewed protest in Yemen
18 ‘Victory Friday’ in Egypt; clashes in Yemen
273
CHRONOLOGY
19 General amnesty in Tunisia

20 Launch of a 13-day mass sit-in in Tunisia’s Government
Square (Kasbah II)
24 State of emergency officially lifted in Algeria after nine years
27 Béji Caïd-Essebsi new Tunisian prime minister. Arrest of
eighteen teenage graffiti taggers in the Syrian city of Deraa
March
â•‡1
‘Day of Rage’ in Yemen
â•‡2
Essam Sharaf appointed new Egyptian prime minister
â•‡3
Constitutional elections scheduled in Tunisia for 24 July
Â€
â•‡4
Popular occupation of State Security offices in Alexandria
â•‡7
Dissolution of State Security in Tunisia
15 First revolutionary protests in Damascus
18 ‘Bloody Friday’ in Sanaa, ‘Dignity Friday’ in Deraa
19 77 per cent approval in the SCAF-sponsored constitutional
referendum in Egypt
21 Continued riots in Deraa
22 Defection of high-ranking officials in Yemen
April
â•‡1
‘Salvation Friday’ in Yemen
â•‡2
Launch of ‘Martyrs’ Week’ in Syria
â•‡4
Brutal crackdown in the Yemeni city of Taez
â•‡8
Mass protest against corruption in Egypt
11 Demonstrations on Damascus city university campus
15 Joint tribal statement against the Yemeni president. Alge-
rian President Bouteflika’s address to the nation on consti-
tutional reforms
23 Transition plan in Yemen (suspended eight days later)
25 Army deployment in the Syrian city of Deraa
May
5 Current Algerian budget increased by 25 per cent ($23.8
billion)
274
CHRONOLOGY
â•‡9
Establishment of the electoral commission in Tunisia
11 Tanks shell the Syrian city of Homs
20 Syrian ‘Freedom Friday’ results in 44 deaths
25 Lebanese Hezbollah leader gives his public support to the
Syrian president
27 Rally for a ‘second revolution’ on Tahrir Square, Cairo.
Jihadi takeover of the Yemeni city of Zinjibar
June
â•‡3 Saleh badly injured in a bomb attack inside the Yemeni
presidential palace, and evacuated from Sanaa to Riyad.
Sixty people killed in the Syrian city of Hama
â•‡8 Three-month postponement of the Tunisian constitutional
elections
15 Pro-Assad mass rally in Damascus
18 Launch of a mop-up campaign in the Syrian border zones
with Turkey
July
â•‡1
Mass protests in Hama, Syria (also on 8th)
â•‡8
‘Determination Friday’ in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez
15 One million protesters gather all over Syria
23 On Egyptian national day, clashes occur between protesters
and pro-SCAF mobs
30 Establishment of a Free Syrian Army (FSA)
31 Launch of a government offensive against Hama (Syria)
August
â•‡1 Tahrir Square cleared of protesters by the Egyptian army
â•‡7 Launch of a government offensive against Deir Ezzor (Syria)
21 After the insurgent takeover of the Libyan capital, popular
attacks against the Algerian embassy in Tripoli
29 Moammar Qaddafi’s wife and sons flee to Algeria, which
closes its border with Libya
275
CHRONOLOGY
31 Public warning of the Syrian revolutionary committees

against the ‘trap’ of armed action
September
â•‡6 Arab League mediation plan in Syria
10 Coalition of Yemeni loyalist and rebel military units retakes
the jihadi stronghold of Zinjibar
15 Signing of a transition code of conduct by 12 Tunisian par-
ties (nicknamed ‘G12’)
23 Return of recovering President Saleh to Sanaa
27 Demand by the revolutionary committees for a ‘no-fly zone’
over Syria
30 US drone strike in Yemen kills the Yemeni–American jihadi
Anwar al-Awlaki
October
â•‡1 Fifteen Egyptian parties (including the Muslim Brother-
hood) publicly support the SCAF
â•‡2 Official founding of a Syrian National Council (SNC) in
Istanbul
â•‡4 Veto by Russia and China in the UN Security Council in
support of the Syrian regime
â•‡9 ‘Maspero massacre’ of Christian protesters in front of Egyp-
tian state TV in Cairo
23 Ennahda leads the poll at the elections for the National
Constituent Assembly (NCA)
November
12 Syria suspended from the Arab League
18–20 Violent anti-SCAF protests in downtown Cairo
21 Tripartite agreement between Islamist Ennahda, Ettaka-
tol (socialist) and nationalist CPR (Mustapha Ben
Jaafar, from Ettakatol, elected as NCA president on
22nd)
276
CHRONOLOGY
23 In Riyad, Saleh signs an agreement on transfer of power

28 First round of the Egyptian parliamentary elections
(until 11 January 2012)
30 Turkey imposes sanctions against the Syrian regime
December
â•‡7 Kamal Ganzouri replaces Essam Sharaf as Egyptian prime
minister
11 General strike against the Syrian regime
12 Moncef Marzouki (CPR) elected as Tunisian President of
the Republic
14 Hamadi Jebali (Ennahda) designated Tunisian prime
minister
27 Beginning of the mission of the Arab League observers in
Syria
2012
January
11 End of the Egyptian parliamentary contests with a sweeping
Islamist victory (37 per cent for the MB, 25 per cent for the
Salafi)
22 Arab League call for a power transfer in Syria
24 First communiqué of the Nusra Front, a Syrian jihadi group
28 ‘Freedom marches’ in Tunis and Sfax
February
â•‡1 Massacre at the Port Saïd soccer stadium (74 killed)
â•‡4 More than 200 civilians killed in the Syrian government
bombing of Homs. Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UNSC
against any condemnation of the Assad regime
21 Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi sole candidate, by consensus, for
the Yemeni presidential elections (99.8 per cent of the votes)
27 Power transfer in Sanaa from Saleh to Hadi
277
CHRONOLOGY
March
â•‡2 Army reconquest of the rebel stronghold of Baba Amr in the
Syrian city of Homs
â•‡4 Massacre of 185 Yemeni soldiers in a jihadi raid against Al-
Kawd (Zinjibar province)
â•‡7 Outrage in Tunisia after a Salafi desecration of the national
flag
10 ‘Summit meeting’ in Tunisia between Ennahda and the
UGTT
16 Demonstration in favour of the Sharia in front of the Tuni-
sian parliament
20 Mass demonstrations in Tunisia in support of a ‘civil and
democratic state’
21 Endorsement by the UNSC of the six-point plan drafted by
Kofi Annan, UN and Arab League special envoy for Syria
April
â•‡5 In Gao (Mali), 7 Algerian consular officials abducted by a
jihadi group
12 UN-sponsored (limited) ceasefire in Syria
29 First UN observers in Damascus
May
18 Unprecedented protests in Aleppo
21 In Yemen, 100 military killed in a jihadi terror attack
on the National Day parade; president Hadi reacts by
demoting two of Saleh’s nephews
23–24 First round of the Egyptian presidential elections
25 Massacre in the Syrian village of Houla (Homs proÂ�
vince)
June
14 Dissolution of the Egyptian parliament by the Supreme
Constitutional Court (SCC)
278
CHRONOLOGY
16 Suspension of the UN observers’ mission in Syria. Launch

of the Nidaa Tounes (Call for Tunisia) party by Beji
Caïd-Essebsi
17 Mohammad Morsi elected Egyptian president with 51.7 per
cent of the votes
26 ‘State of war’ declared by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
30 Morsi sworn into office by the Egyptian SCC
July
â•‡7 Libyan elections for the General National Congress (GNC),
to be presided over by Mohammad Magariaf
13 Popular protests against Annan and the UN in Syrian rebel-
held areas
17 FSA launch of ‘the battle to liberate Damascus’
18 Death of the Syrian minister of defence and his deputy in a
bomb attack in Damascus
21 Insurgent breakthrough in Aleppo
August
â•‡2 Hesham Qandil replaces Kamal Ganzouri as Egyptian prime
minister
12 Morsi reshuffles the military hierarchy, with General Abdel-
fattah Sisi new minister of defence
14 Pro-Saleh military storm the ministry of defence in Sanaa
17 Annan resigns, replaced by Lakhdar Brahimi as UN and
Arab League special envoy for Syria; end of the UN observ-
ers’ mission
26 Massacre in the Damascus suburb of Daraya
September
â•‡8 Regime air raids in Aleppo (until 13th)
11 Death of the US ambassador in the attack on the American
consulate in Benghazi
14 Deadly assault on the US embassy in Tunis
29 The old city of Aleppo is burning
279
CHRONOLOGY
October
26 Failure of a UN-sponsored truce in Syria
29 Regime air raids against Damascus suburbs
30–31 Vote of the Libyan GNC on Ali Zeidan’s government
November
â•‡1 FSA conquest of the city of Saraqeb (Idlib province)
â•‡2 Peace talks under Algerian auspices between Bamako and
the Malian jihadi insurgency
11 Syrian National Council (SNC) integrated in Doha into a
wider ‘National Coalition’ of the opposition forces
21 Ceasefire in Gaza under Egyptian auspices between Israel
and Hamas
22 Morsi issues a ‘constitutional declaration’ granting him
unprecedented powers
27 Mass anti-MB protests in Egypt
December
â•‡5 Clashes around the Egyptian presidential palace
16 Regime air raid on the Palestinian refugee camp of Yar-
mouk in Damascus
19 In Yemen Hadi dissolves both the pro-Saleh Republican
Guard and the pro-opposition Firqa
21 Launch of an Iraqi Sunni protest movement against Nouri
al-Maliki’s government sectarian policy
22 Referendum approving the MB-drafted (and Salafi-sup-
ported) Egyptian constitution by 63.8 per cent
2013
January
12 Algerian public support of the French-led anti-jihadi cam-
paign in Mali
16 Jihadi attack on the Algerian oil facilities of In Amenas
280
CHRONOLOGY
25 Violent anti-MB protests on the second anniversary of the

Egyptian revolution; army deployed in Suez
26 In Port Saïd, thirty people are killed in anti-MB riots
27 Curfew imposed in the Suez Canal region
February
6 Assassination of the Tunisian leftist Chokri Belaïd
March
â•‡9 Egyptian army deployed in Port Saïd
13 Ali Laarayedh (Ennahda) new Tunisian prime minister
18 Opening of the ‘national dialogue’ in Yemen
April
â•‡9 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader since 2010 of the Islamic
State in Iraq (ISI), announces his expansion into an Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but this merger is rejected by
the Nusra front
23 Massacre of Sunni protesters in the Iraqi town of Hawija,
leading to the radicalization of an anti-Maliki ‘uprising’
24 Government bombing of the minaret of the Omeyyad
mosque in Aleppo, Syria
27 Bouteflika enters a Parisian hospital and is treated in France
for two and a half months
28 Launch of the Egyptian Tamarod (Rebellion) movement
May
â•‡5 ‘Political isolation law’ in Libya
15 Five public messages by the Egyptian minister of defence
Sisi
28 Resignation of Libyan GNC President Magariaf
June
12 First images shown of the Algerian president in France
receiving chief of staff Ahmad Gaïd Salah
281
CHRONOLOGY
29 Tamarod announces it has gathered 22 million signatures to

impeach Egyptian president Morsi
30 Human wave protests against the MB in Egypt
July
â•‡1 Sisi’s 48-hour ultimatum to Morsi in Egypt
â•‡3 Sisi takes power in Egypt, Adly Mansour interim president,
Morsi held incommunicado
â•‡8 In front of the Cairo Officers Club fifty-one protesters are
killed; Mansour issues ‘Constitutional declaration’
14 Beginning of the regime’s siege of the Palestinian refugee
camp of Yarmouk in Damascus
16 Bouteflika returns to Algiers
25 Assassination of the Tunisian leftist Mohammad Brahmi
26 ‘Anti-terrorism’ marches in Egypt
August
â•‡7 Termination by the Egyptian authorities of US and
European mediation to solve the internal crisis
14–18 All over Egypt, around 1,000 people killed in repression
of the MB sit-ins and protests
21 Regime mass gas attacks of the Damascus suburbs lead
to an estimated 1,400 killed
29 Amr Saadni becomes secretary general of the ruling
FLN party in Algeria
September
â•‡5 Failed jihadi attack against the Egyptian minister of
the interior.
11 Gaïd Salah appointed deputy Algerian minister of defence
(with Bouteflika formally in charge of the portfolio)
18 ISIS takes over Azaz from the FSA, in the Syrian province of
Aleppo
23 Egyptian MB declared illegal and its properties seized
282
CHRONOLOGY
24 Defection of several FSA brigades to a new Syrian Islamic

Front
October
25 Beginning of the ‘national dialogue’ in Tunisia
November
8 The Nusra front becomes officially al-Qaeda branch for
Syria
December
â•‡5 Jihadi attack on the military hospital in Sanaa (53 killed)
24 Jihadi attack by Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM) in the Egyp-
tian city of Mansoura
25 Egyptian MB declared a ‘terrorist’ organization
2014
January
â•‡3 Launch of the ‘second revolution’ of the Syrian insur-
gency, this time against ISIS, soon expelled from Aleppo
(some 3,000 killed in the following two months)
14–15 Egyptian referendum approves by 98.6 per cent the Sisi-
inspired constitution
18 UN first aid delivery to the Yarmouk camp in Damascus,
after a six-month siege; over 100 dead by starvation
24 Sisi promoted by the Egyptian interim president to field
marshal
25 End of the ten-month long ‘national dialogue’ in Yemen,
with the adoption of a final outcomes document
(refused by the Houthis)
27 SCAF endorses Sisi’s eventual candidacy for the Egyp-
tian presidency
29 Mehdi Jomaa new Tunisian head of a non-partisan
government
283
CHRONOLOGY
February
â•‡3 Saadni calls publicly for the Algerian intelligence czar Medi-
ene to step down
18 Ultimatum issued by the Zintani brigades against the GNC
in Tripoli
20 Libyan elections for the constitution drafting assembly
22 Bouteflika announces his candidacy for a fourth term in
office; a protest movement ‘Barakat’ (Enough) rises against it
28 FSA retakes Azaz from ISIS, in the Syrian province of
Aleppo
March
11 GNC vote of non-confidence in the Libyan PM Zeidan
22 The criminal court in Minya (Egypt) issues 529 death sen-
tences (37 confirmed) against pro-MB dissenters
26 Sisi resigns from Egyptian army to run officially for
president
April
17 Bouteflika, voting in a wheelchair, is re-elected with 81 per
cent of the counted votes (his main contender, former PM
Ali Benflis, declares that he has won the contest himself)
28 The criminal court in Minya (Egypt) issues 683 death sen-
tences (183 confirmed) against pro-MB dissenters
29 Unprecedented offensive against jihadi strongholds in the
Yemeni provinces of Abyan and Shabwa
May
â•‡7 Evacuation of insurgent fighters from their last strong-
hold in the Old City of Homs, Syria
â•‡9 Jihadi attack on the presidential palace in Sanaa (5
killed)
26–28 Presidential elections in Egypt with 97 per cent votes to
Sisi
284
CHRONOLOGY
27 Jihadi attack on the home of Tunisian minister of the

interior (4 killed)
June
â•‡3 Presidential ‘elections’ in Syria (with officially 88.7 per cent
for Bashar al-Assad); this prompts Brahimi’s resignation
and his replacement by Steffan di Mistura as UN special
envoy for Syria
10 ISIS blitzkrieg in northern Iraq, with takeover of Mosul
15 Showdown in Sanaa between loyalist military and pro-Saleh
militia
25 For his first foreign visit as Egyptian president, Sisi meets
Bouteflika in Algiers. Parliamentary election in Libya
29 ISIS, now plain ‘Islamic State’, announces the re-establish-
ment of the ‘caliphate’
July
â•‡4 First public appearance of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now
‘caliph Ibrahim’, in a Mosul mosque
â•‡8 Launch of an unprecedented Israeli offensive on Gaza (Pro-
tective border), to last 50 days (until 26 August)
Â€
15 Evacuation to Tunis of the UN mission personnel in Libya

17 Jihadi attack on the Tunisian army (14 killed)
August
â•‡8 First US air strikes against ISIS in Iraq, soon joined by
French and British strikes
11 Maliki steps down as Iraqi prime minister in favour of Hay-
dar al-Abadi
17 Emirati air raid on Misrata militia positions in Tripoli,
Libya, with Egyptian support (also on 23rd)
19 ISIS releases video of beheading of an American hostage
24 ISIS conquers the Syrian regime air base of Tabqa (Raqqa
province)
285
CHRONOLOGY
September
â•‡2 ISIS releases video of beheading of a second American hos-
tage (and of a British hostage on 13th)
12 USA officially ‘at war’ with ISIS
16 ISIS launches its assault on the Syrian Kurdish city of
Kobani, exit to the Turkish border (over 800 killed in one
month)
21 UN-sponsored ceasefire in Yemen between President Hadi
and the leader of the Houthi rebellion (Ansarullah)
22 Extension of the US-led air campaign to Syria, with GCC
and Jordanian participation
24 Beheading of a French hostage by an Algerian jihadi group
October
â•‡3 Launch of a Syrian regime offensive against the jihadi-free
section of Aleppo. ISIS releases video of beheading of a sec-
ond British hostage
16 Egypt accused of having bombed Benghazi
24 In Sinaï, 33 Egyptian military killed in jihadi attacks
26 Victory of the main secular party in the first Tunisian par-
liamentary elections
November
â•‡6 Libyan Supreme Court deems unconstitutional the par-
liament elected in June 2014
â•‡7 UN sanctions against former Yemeni president Saleh
10 Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM), the leading Egyptian
jihadi group, pledges allegiance to Baghdadi
13–15 Bouteflika hospitalized in the French city of Grenoble
16 ISIS releases video of beheading of a third American
hostage
29 Charges against Mubarak dismissed by Egyptian
justice
286
CHRONOLOGY
December
â•‡6 Two Western hostages killed in a failed US attempt to
release them in Yemen
21 Béji Caïd-Essebsi elected president of the Tunisian Republic
with 55.7 per cent of the votes (and 60 per cent turnout)
2015
January
7–9 17 people killed in a string of jihadi attacks in Paris
11 Four million protesters in the streets of France against
jihadi terror
25 Eighteen protesters killed in the police repression of the
celebration of the fourth anniversary of the Egyptian
revolution
27 ISIS ousted from the Syrian Kurdish city of Kobani, on the
border with Turkey, after four months of fighting and
some 700 US airstrikes
29 At least twenty-six killed in series of jihadi attacks in Sinaï
February
14 Two persons killed in two separate jihadi attacks in
Copenhagen
16 Egyptian air raids on Libya, in retaliation for ISIS killing
twenty-one Egyptian Copts in the Western part of the
country
21 President Hadi flees Houthi-controlled Sanaa and moves to
Aden, soon proclaimed the new Yemeni “capital city”
March
â•‡1 Syrian opposition rejects a UN-sponsored truce in Aleppo
â•‡7 Boko Haram pledges allegiances to ISIS
16 Syrian government gas attack on the rebel city of Sarmin
(Idlib), with six civilians killed
287
CHRONOLOGY
18 ISIS attack on Tunis National museum, killing twenty for-

eign tourists and one Tunisian securityman
20 ISIS bombing of Zaydi mosques in Sanaa, killing at least
142 people
24 Five protesters killed in Taez, after an offensive on the city
jointly waged by Houthi militiamen and former President
Saleh’s supporters
288
INDEX
al-Abadi, Haydar: Iraqi Prime Min- Abu Ismail, Hazem: 163

ister, 209 Abu Zeid, Abdelhamid: 109, 111;
Abbas, Mahmoud: President of PA, death of, 110
221 Abusamhain, Nouri: President of
Abbasid Caliphate (750– GNC, 243
1258/1261–1517): 79; Bagh- al-Adawiya, Rabia: 191–2
dad, 45; military practices of, 45; Addi, Lahouari: 65
Sacking of Baghdad (1258), 46; Afghanistan: 138, 149, 173; al-
Samarra, 45 Qaeda training camps in, 145;
Abbès Ghezaiel, Ben: Algerian Gen- Soviet Invasion of (1979–89), 78,
darmerie Chief, 96, 102, 107 141
Abderrahmane, Omar: 137; arrest Agar, Mehmet: resignation of, 3;
of, 138 Turkish Interior Minister, 2
Abdulhamid II, Sultan: deposition Agreement on Mobility and Access
of (1909), 20 (AMA): signing of, 220
Abdullah I of Jordan: 40; assassina- Ahmad, Imam: death of (1962), 72;
tion of (1951), 29–30, 40; fam- wounding of (1961), 72
ily of, 27 al-Ahmar, Abdullah bin Hussein: 78
Abdullah II of Jordan: 142 al-Ahmar, Ali Mohsen: military
Abdullah, Prince: attempted coup forces led by, 195
d’état led by (1955), 72 al-Ahmar, General Ali Mohsen: 141
Abdulmutallab, Umar Farouk: role Aït Ahmed, Hocine: 87; co-founder
in Northwest Airlines Flight 253 of FLN, 37; organizer of armed
Incident (2009), 144 resistance movements in Kabylia,
Abu Ghazala, Field Marshal Abdel 38
Halim: 80, 134; control over Ajnad Masr: 184
armament supply networks, 120; Alawis: Syrian, 40, 58, 61–3, 120,
Egyptian Defence Minister, 57; 124
military career of, 57; retirement Algeria: xi–xii, 30, 32, 38, 64, 66,
of, 57, 121 81, 85, 103–4, 114, 117, 119,
289
INDEX
128, 136, 139–40, 165, 177, of Staff, 49; member of RCC,
179, 186, 189–91, 205, 214, 49; promotion to Field Marshal
232, 247, 251, 253; Algiers, (1957), 51–2; visit to Sanaa, 73
24, 32, 98, 101, 106, 109, 123, Ammar, General Rashid: Tunisian
189, 213, 241; Annaba, 67, 97; Chief of Staff, 231
Bab el-Oued floods (2001), 105; Amnesty International: 101, 218
Béjaïa, 109; Bentalha, 101; bor- Anan, General Sami Hafez: Egyp-
ders of, 123; Black October tian Chief of Staff, 154, 159
riots (1988), 86–7; Boumerdes, Annan, Kofi: UN Secretary Gen-
109; Civil War (1991–2002), xi, eral, 203
87–8, 96–9, 101, 104–6, 113, Ansar Eddine: 110
122, 129, 139, 190; Constitu- Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (ABM): 181,
tion of, 105; coup d’état (1992), 184, 247; bombing campaigns
102; Department of Intelligence of (2014), 184; support for ISIS,
and Security (DRS), 87–8, 96–9, 252
103, 108, 110–11; French Inva- Ansar al-Sharia (AS): 186–7, 238–
sion of (1830), 25, 31; GDP per 9, 250; Assault on US Embassy
capita, 85, 114; Higher State (2012), 237–8; founding of, 237
Council (HCE), 96–7; In-Ame- Aoun, Michel: Lebanese Prime Min-
nas, 111; Kabylia, 38, 105–7, ister, 90
109, 194; Larbaa, 106; military Arab Deterrence Force: 132
of, 81, 86, 94, 109, 111, 113– Arab-Israeli War (1948–9): 48, 218;
14, 117, 186, 193; Ministry of territory acquired by Israel dur-
Interior, 68; National Assem- ing, 29
bly, 69, 87; National Charter Arab League: 100; launch of
(1976), 69; Oran/Wahran, 23, (1945), 29; members of, 32
64–5, 70; presidential elections Arab Liberation Movement: 35
(1995), 99–100; relegation camps Arab Liberation Rally: 35
in, 96; Relizane, 101; Revolu- Arab Organization for Industrial-
tionary Council, 67; severance ization (AOI): 120
of diplomatic relations with Iran Arab Socialist Union (ASU): 56, 74;
and Sudan, 98; Tindouf, 67; Tizi demonstrations organised by, 52;
Ouzou, 109; trabendo, 85; War Vanguard Organization (VO),
of Independence (1954–62), 31, 52, 56
37, 63, 86, 89, 105, 113, 119, Arab Spring (Nahda): ix–x, xii, xv,
189 1, 83, 150, 249; Bahrain Uprising
Allende, Salvador: 170 (2011), 188; Egyptian Revolution
ibn Ali, Hussein: establishment of (2011), ix, 12–13, 27, 110, 152–
beys system, 24 4, 156–9, 167, 178, 180, 195,
Ali, Salim Rubaï: execution of, 76 221, 232–4; Libyan Civil War
Amer, Abdelhakim: 52, 119; death (2011), 110, 185, 241–4; Syr-
of (1967), 53, 57; Egyptian Chief ian Civil War (2011–), xiii–xiv,
290
INDEX
201–3, 216–19, 251–2; Tuni- exile of, 63; family of, 59–60,
sian Revolution (2010–11), ix, 62; head of Baath Party militia,
109–10, 150, 152–4, 194, 232–4, 59; leader of Syrian Defence Bri-
237; use of social media in, 158– gades, 62
9; Yemeni Revolution (2011–12), Atassi, Noureddine: 60; President of
154, 177, 195 Syria, 59
Arab Summit (1978): political al-Awlaqi, Anwar: death of (2011),
impact of, 132 196
Arabic (language): 14, 24, 46; as Ayat, General Lakehal: Chief of
state language, 235 DGSP, 71, 86; Chief of SM, 70
Arafat, Yasser: 146, 213; leader of
Fatah, 53 Baath Party (Iraq): 36, 80
Armenia: 21 Baath Party (Syria): 42, 59–60,
Ashton, Catherine: 226; EU High 201; communiqué number one,
Representative of the Union for 58; members of, 35–6; military
Foreign Affairs and Security Pol- committee, 58, 60; militia, 59;
icy, 178 National Guard, 59
al-Assad, Bashar: 48, 177, 179, Baathism: 58
204–5, 210, 236; background of, Badr, Mahmoud: founder of Tam-
124–5; family of, 124–5, 135, arod Movement, 173; support
148, 152, 216; foreign policy of, for General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,
145–7; initial reactions to Syr- 175–6
ian Civil War (2011–), 201–2; al-Badr, Mohammad: 72–3;
presidential election (2014), 207; removed from power, 73
regime of, x, 148, 154, 204, 206– al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr: 206, 208;
7, 216–17, 226, 250–1; support- leader of ISI, 202; proclamation
ers of, 204, 206, 217–18, 253 as ‘Caliph Ibrahim’ (2014), 208,
al-Assad, Hafez: 61, 63, 84–5, 249; proclamation of ISIS (2013),
89–90, 116, 118, 120, 124, 130– 204
1, 145; anti-Palestinian activity Bahrain: 31; Uprising (2011), 188
of, 215; corrective movement, 84; Bakil (tribal confederation): 76–7
death of (2000), 124, 152; fam- al-Bakr, Ahmad Hassan: 80; forced
ily of, 59–60, 62, 75, 124, 135, resignation of (1979), 81
152; foreign policy of, 133–4; Balfour, Arthur: British Foreign Sec-
member of Baathist military com- retary, 26
mittee, 58; military forces led by, Balfour Declaration (1917): politi-
58; regime of, 63, 133, 136, 214; cal impact of, 26
sheltering of international terror- Balkan Wars (1912–13): 20
ists by, 145–6; Syrian Defence al-Banna, Hassan: imprisonment
Minister, 59 and murder of (1949), 34
al-Assad, Rifaat: attempted coup al-Baradeï, Mohammad: 168, 173,
d’état led by (1984), 63, 120; 176; resignation of, 178
291
INDEX
Basbug, Geenral Ilker: 11, 14; Ben Youssef, Salah: 31; assassina-
release from imprisonment tion of (1961), 41, 231; support-
(2014), 14; Turkish Chief of ers of, 42
Staff, 9 Benaouna, Amar: Algerian Chief of
Baybars: 47, 79, 81; Mamluk sup- Protocol, 103
port for, 48; reign of, 46 Bendjedid, Chadli: 69–70, 85, 95,
Bedouins: 26; territory inhabited 102, 113, 118; candidacy for
by, 40, 84, 184 Algerian presidency, 70–1, 86–7;
Begin, Menachem: presence at removed from power (1992),
Camp David Summit (1977), 56 88–9, 94, 117, 154; relinquish-
Belaïd, Chokri: killing of (2013), ing of Algerian defence portfolio
238 (1990), 87
Belkacem, Krim: 38; assassination Benflis, Ali: Algerian Prime Minis-
of (1967), 68; vice president of ter, 105–6, 112
GPRA, 37 Benhadj, Ali: imprisonment of, 97;
Belkheir, Larbi: 94, 102; Algerian release of (1997), 104
Interior Minister, 96; death of Benhassine, Seifallah (Abou Iyad):
(2010), 111; Director of Algerian founder of AS, 237; founder of
President’s Cabinet, 71, 88; Sec- GICT, 237; release of (2011),
retary General of Algerian Presi- 237
dency, 71 Berbers: 100; language of, 105;
Belmokhtar, Mokhtar: 109; role in territory inhabited by, 242–3;
In-Amenas attack (2013), 111 Touareg, 110
Ben Achour, Yadh: Chair of Higher Betchine, Mohammad: 101
Authority, 232–3 al-Bid, Ali Salem: 78; nominated as
Ben Ali, Zine El Abidine: 108, Yemeni head of state, 77; visit to
118, 135, 230, 232, 250; back- Aden (1989), 78
ground of, 231; foreign policy Bitar, Salaheddine: leader of Baath
of, 232; medical coup (1987), Party (Syria), 35–6
83–4; regime of, xi; removed Bitat, Rabah: 38; co-founder of
from power (2011), ix, 150, 153– FLN, 37, 69; President of Alge-
4, 194, 231, 233; state security rian National Assembly, 69
apparatus developed by, 231 Black Book: 171–2
Ben Bella, Ahmed: 42, 66, 68, 87–9, Bonaparte, Napoléon: 247; Impe-
99; co-founder of FLN, 37; elec- rial Guard, 45; Invasion of Egypt
toral victory of (1963), 66; exile (1798), 24, 45, 47
of, 64; removed from power Bouazizi, Mohammad: self-immola-
(1965), 70, 88–9; release from tion of (2010), ix
prison (1970), 70; rise to power, Boudiaf, Mohammad: 37; assassi-
37–8, 63–4 nation of (1992), 97, 117; Chair
Ben Jeddou, Lotfi: targeting of of HCE, 96
home of (2014), 239 Boumediene, Colonel Houari: 37,
292
INDEX
48, 63, 68, 80, 84, 96, 128; Alge- Bush, George H.W.: 90; administra-
rian Defence Minister, 38, 64; tion of, 92
control over fifth wilaya, 65; Bush, George W.: address to UN
coup d’état led by, 88–9; death of General Assembly (2002), 146;
(1978), 69 administration of, xii, 139, 141,
Bourguiba, Habib: 31, 41, 83, 230, 241; foreign policy of, 146,
246; nominated as prime min- 240–1
ister (1956), 41; placed under
house arrest (1987), 83–4; proc- Caid-Essebsi, Beji: 245–6; founder
lamation of ‘president for life’ of Nidaa Tounes, 230; Speaker of
(1975), 42; state security appara- Tunisian Parliament, 232
tus developed by, 231; targeted Cairo Conference (2014): attend-
for assassination, 42 ees of, 226
Boussouf, Abdelhafid: founder of Camp David Summit (1977): 132,
MLGC/MALG, 65; leader of fifth 156, 189, 232; attendees of, 56,
wilaya, 65 132; pledges made at, 132, 215
Canadian Occidental (Canoxy):
Bouteflika, Abdelaziz: 68, 106–10,
facilities of, 127
179, 185, 187, 190, 205, 207;
capitalism: crony, 151, 172, 190;
appointed as counsellor to pres-
globalized, 12
idency, 70; electoral victory of
Carlos: 145
(1999), 114; exile of, 102; fam-
Carter, Jimmy: presence at Camp
ily of, 108; health issues of, 107,
David Summit (1977), 56
111–12; Minister of Foreign
Catli, Abdullah: 6, 8; death of
Affairs, 68–9; presidential elec-
(1996), 2; role in Susurluk Scan-
toral campaign (1998), 102–3;
dal (1996), 2–3
presidential electoral campaign Chad: 110, 186
(2009), 108; private secretary Chile: 170
of Colonel Houari Boumediene, China: 125; vetoing of UN Security
65; release of political detainees Resolutions 2011/2012 (2011),
(1999), 104 202
Bouteflika, Said: family of, 108 Chirac, Jacques: 105
Bozarslan, Hamit: 5 Christianity: 159, 182, 209, 241;
Brahimi, Lakhdar: 90 Coptic, 137, 175, 178, 252;
Brahmi, Mohammad: assassination Maronite, 90
of (2013), 238–9, 250 Ciller, Tansu: Turkish Deputy
Brazil: 35 Prime Minister, 2–3
Brecht, Berthold: 113 Cold War: 22, 62
British Empire: 21, 40 colonialism: 72; French, 31, 189;
Brown, Gordon: 144 neo-, 95
Brown, Nathan: 182, 235 Columbia University: ix
Bucak, Sedat: 2; role in Susurluk Committee for Union and Progress
Scandal (1996), 2 (CUP): 20; members of, 21
293
INDEX
Congress for the Republic (CPR): 177, 232; administration of Gaza
alliance with Ennahda and Strip, 214–15, 219; Alexandria,
Ettakatol, 236 34, 46, 50, 56, 157–8, 168; arma-
Constitutional Democratic Rally ment industry of, 120; Aswan,
(RCD): formerly Socialist Destou- 56; Aswan Dam, 246; Asyut, 57;
rian Party (PSD), 84 Bedouin population of, 184; bor-
Cook, Steven: 115–16 ders of, 229; bread riots (1977),
Cumhurryet: 9 55–6; Cairo, 24, 29, 34, 45,
50–2, 56, 59, 64, 73–4, 80, 137,
Dahlane, Mohammad: 220; Egyp- 149, 153, 159, 161–2, 171–2,
tian Chief of Preventive Secu- 176, 181–2, 184, 188, 191, 214,
rity, 219 219, 241–2, 245, 247, 249, 251–
Davos Forum: 151 2; Cairo burning (1952), 56; Cen-
Dawaa Party: electoral performance tral Security Forces (CSF), 56–7;
of (2014), 206–7; members of, Conscript Riots (1986), 57; Con-
209 stitution of (1956), 50–1; con-
Day, Stephen: 77, 128 stitutional referendum (2011),
Democratic Republic of Yemen 156–7; constitutional referen-
(DRY): declaration of (1994), 94 dum (2014), 182; Constitutional
Deep State: x–xii, xv, 7, 9–10, Assembly, 160; Coptic Chris-
16–17, 19–20, 117–18, 165, tian population of, 137, 175,
168, 170, 231, 247, 250; alleged 178, 182, 252; Damanhour, 168;
role in poisoning of Turgut Ozal economy of, 183–4; El-Arish,
(1993), 5; attempts at disman- 229; founding member of Arab
tling, 11, 13; concept of, 1; devel- League, 29; French Invasion of
opment of, 4–5, 23, 49–50, 124; Egypt (1798), 24, 45; General
exposure of, 1, 7–9, 15, 226–7 Intelligence Department (GID),
Democratic Party (DP): authoriza- 49, 138, 151, 156, 165, 172,
tion of (1946), 22 219–21, 224–5; General Investi-
el-Din, Hany Sarie: 172 gations Service (GIS), 49, 53–4;
Dink, Hrant: murder of (2007), 9 Independence of (1922), 27;
Dogan, Cetin: trial of, 9–10 Ismaïliya, 169, 171; Israeli Occu-
Droukdel, Abdelmalek: support for pation of Sinai (1967–82), 130–
Usama Bin Laden, 109 1, 134; Luxor Massacre (1997),
Druze: 35, 58, 61 138–9; Mansoura, 181; military
Duba, Ali: 124–5 control over cities in (2013), 172;
Military Intelligence Directorate
Egypt: x–xi, 16, 35, 37, 46, 51, (MID), 49, 52; military of, 33,
60–1, 81, 85, 89, 129–30, 136, 54, 73, 79, 116, 154, 181, 184,
174, 187–8, 193, 221–2, 226, 221, 227; National Council of
230–1, 233–6, 245, 251; 23 JulyÂ€
Defence, 229; parliamentary elec-
Revolution (1952), 34, 56, 130, tions (2010), 151; Port Saïd, 161,
294
INDEX
170–2, 233; Port Saïd Massa- European Commission: annual
cre (2012), 170–1, 233 Presiden- report on Turkey (2012), 11–12
tial Bureau of Information (PBI), European Union (EU): 206, 223,
49, 53–4; Revolution (1918– 225; Border Assistance Mission
19), 27, 34; Revolution (2011), (EUBAM), 220; boycotting of
ix, 12–13, 27, 110, 152–4, 156– Hamas, 220; member states of,
9, 167, 178, 180, 195, 221, 232– 241; Turkish accession to, 12
4; Security Investigations Service Evren, General Kenan: Chief of
(SSIS), 54; Sharm al-Sheikh, 153; MGK, 23
State of Emergency in (1981– Ezz, Ahmad: imprisonment of, 172
), 158–9; Suez, 169, 171; Suez
Canal, 31, 34, 53–6, 170, 221, Facebook: use in Arab Spring, 159,
246; Supreme Constitutional 173
Court (SCC), 163–4, 176, 232, al-Fadhli, Tareq: imprisonment
234; Tamarod Movement (2013– of, 141; left GCP (2009), 143;
), 173–6 release of (1994), 141
Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty Faisal of Saudi Arabia: 74; cutting
(1979): signing of, 56, 62 of Saudi oil exports (1973), 130–
Ennahda: xiv, 236–7, 239, 246; 1; death of (1975), 131; recog-
alliance with CPR and Ettaka- nition of Abdurahman al-Iryani
tol, 236; electoral performance as President of YAR (1970), 75,
of (2014), 230; emergence of 126; US support of, 126; visit to
(2011), 232; members of, 237 Damascus (1975), 131
Enver, Talaat: 20–1 Al-Faraeen TV: 225
Erbakan, Necmettin: 3, 7; response Farouk I of Egypt: 27, 33; removed
to Susurluk Scandal (1996), 6; from power (1952), 34, 42
Turkish Prime Minister, 11 Fatah: 59, 215; conflict with
Erdogan, Recep Tayyip: 16, 23; Hamas, 220–1; control over PA,
banned from politics (1999– 219; control over PLO, 61; mem-
2003), 7–8; conflict with Deep bers of, 53
State, 9–11, 14; founder of AKP, Fatah al-Islam: emergence of
7; launch of strikes against PKK (2006), 147
(2009), 15; Mayor of Istanbul, 3, Faysal I of Iraq: 28; family of, 26
7; restrictions placed on Internet Fidan, Hakan: head of MIT, 15
and social media, 14 First Indochina War (1946–54): 30
Ergenkon Case: 8–9, 11, 14; alleged First World War (1914–18): 20–1,
involvement of organizations in, 27; Paris Peace Conference
8–9; trials of suspects, 8, 11–12, (1919), 26–7; Treaty of Sèvres
16 (1920), 21
Ethiopia: Addis Ababa, 138 Firtina, Ibrahim: trial of, 9–10
Ettakatol: alliance with CPR and Foutouh, Abdelmoneim Aboul: 162
Ennahda, 236 France: 21, 25–6, 30, 35, 38, 51,
295
INDEX
79, 86, 105, 110, 209, 225, de Gaulle, Charles: 29, 41, 63–4;
231, 241; Charlie Hebdo Attack attempted assassination of
(2015), 250; Corsica, 30; military (1962), 64
of, 31, 37, 63, 67, 113; Paris, General Congress of the Peo-
25–6, 37, 107, 112, 250 ple (GCP): 143; formation of,
Free French: 63 77; members of, 141; proposed
Free Officers Movement (Egyptian): merger with YSP, 78–9
49–50, 66, 73, 130, 154–7, 177, German Democratic Republic
231–2, 246; communiqué num- (GDR): East Berlin riots (1953),
ber one, 34–5; members of, 34, 113
48, 52; militarization of intelli- Germany: 25, 241; Frankfurt, 41,
gence agencies under, 49; Rev- 68
olutionary Command Council Ghannouchi, Mohammad: 245
(RCC), 49, 51 Ghannouchi, Rashid: xiv; leader of
Free Officers Movement (Libyan): Ennahda, 237–8
80; Revolutionary Command al-Ghashmi, Ahmad: background
Council (RCC), 80 of, 76; death of (1977), 76; over-
Free Officers Movement (Yemeni): throw of Colonel Ibrahim al-
73; Revolutionary Command Hamdi, 76
Council (RCC), 73 Ghonim, Wael: open letter to Field
Free Syrian Army (FSA): 205–6, Marshal Mohammad Hussein
217; formation of, 202; members Tantawi (2011), 159
of, 202–3; territory occupied by, Global War on Terror: xii, 139,
202, 204 141, 145, 151, 232; globaliza-
Free Yemeni Movement: 72 tion of, 141–2; political uses of,
French Empire: 29, 45 232, 240
Friends of Yemen: 144 Gomaa, Shaarawi: head of VO, 54;
Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS): role in conspiracy against Anwar
87–8, 95, 99, 106; banning of, Sadat (1971), 54
100, 103; boycotting of Alge- Gorbachev, Mikhail: 89, 93
rian presidential elections (1995), Goya, Francisco: 45
99–100; dissolution as party, 96; Greater Syria: 25
legalization of, 87; members of, Greece: 21, 124
97, 99; militants, 88, 103 Guenaizia, General Abdelmalek:
Fuad I of Egypt: 27 Algerian Chief of Air Force, 87;
Algerian Chief of Staff, 96
Gamaa Islamiyya (Islamic Group): Gül, Abdullah: President of Tur-
138; ideology of, 137; members key, 8
of, 138–9; role in Luxor Massa- Gülen, Fethullah: 9; affiliates of, 13
cre (1997), 138–9 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC):
Ganzouri, Kamal: 161; background 195–6; aid provided to Yemen,
of, 160 143
296
INDEX
Gürsel, Nedim: Daughters of Allah, Hatum, Salim: assault on Amine al-
26 Hafiz’s palace (1966), 59; exe-
cution of, 60; role in 8 January
Â€
Hadi, Abd Rabbo Mansour: 199– Revolution (1963), 58

200, 242; consolidation of Hejaz: 25
power, 197; presidential election Hezbollah: 199; accusations of role
campaign (2011), 196–7 in Ergenkon Case, 9; creation of
al-Hafiz, Amine: 59 (1982), 134
Haftar, Khalifa: 252; defection to al-Hinnawi, Colonel Sami: assassi-
CIA (1987), 186; ‘Diginity’ offen- nation of, 33; overthrow of Colo-
sive (2014), 187; Governor of nel Husni Zaïm (1949), 33
Tobruk, 186; supporters of, 186 Hollande, François: visit to Iraq
al-Hakim, Boubaker: family of, (2014), 209
250; return to Syria, 250 Hoss, Selim: appointed as Lebanese
al-Hakim, Redouane: death of, 250; Prime Minister, 90
family of, 250 Hostan, Sami: arrest of, 8
Hamas: xiv, 168, 219, 222–3; arm-
Hrawi, Elias: 90
ing of groups in Syrian Civil War
Human Rights Watch: 178
(2011–), 217; boycotted by EU,
Hussein, Saddam: 78, 80, 91, 94,
220; conflict with Fatah, 220–
134, 146, 149, 240; appointed as
1; diplomatic relations with Nor-
vice president of Iraq, 80; pres-
way, 225–6; founding of, 99;
idential referendums organised
Israeli arrest of activists, 224;
by (1995/2002), 81; regime of,
kidnappings conducted by, 220;
xi, 57, 92–3, 240; removed from
members of, 221; opposition to,
power (2003), 149; rise to power,
181; parliamentary electoral vic-
tory of (2006), 220; Political 81
Bureau, 202; propaganda target- Hussein of Jordan: 91, 136, 142;
ing, 225; Qassam brigades, 220 agreement on parliamentary elec-
al-Hamdi, Colonel Ibrahim: assas- tions (1989), 84–5; severance of
sination of (1977), 76, 126; ties to West Bamk (1988), 40, 84;
background of, 76; leader of Cor- visit to Gaza, 219
rective Movement, 75 Hussein of Mecca, Sherif: family of,
Hanoune, Louisa: electoral perfor- 26; leader of Arab Revolt (1916–
mance of (2009), 108 18), 26; Ottoman Governor of
al-Haritihi, Qaïd Sinan (Abu Ali): Hijaz, 26
killing of (2002), 142
Hashid (tribal confederation): 76–8; Ibrahim, Mohammad: Egyptian
Sanhan (tribe), 76 Interior Minister, 181
Hassan II of Morocco: 30; family Ibrahim, Prince: family of, 72
of, 40; Green March (1975), 40; Ibrahimi, Ahmed Taleb: 105; elec-
recovery of Ifni Enclave (1969), toral performance of (1998–9),
30, 40 103
297
INDEX
Ifni War (1957–8): 30, 40 Iraqi Communist Party: 36
Ikhwan Revolt (1927–30): Battle of Iraqi Free Officers: 36
Sabilla (1929), 28 al-Iryani, Abdurahman: 75–6; exile
imperialism: 27, 43, 59 of (1974), 75
Indonesia: 125 Islam: xiii, 12, 22, 24–5, 39, 47,
International Monetary Fund 87; as state religion, 235; politi-
(IMF): 172 cal, 16, 23; Ramadan, 208; Shia,
Interpol: 2 25, 27–8, 71, 92, 134, 182, 208,
Iran: 21, 91, 98, 133, 149; Islamic 217, 240; Sufism, 30; Sunni, 28,
Revolution (1979), 132; oil 58–9, 72, 77–8, 90, 206, 240
exports of, 134; support for Islamic Armed Group (GIA): 109;
Bashar al-Assad, 202, 253; Teh- formation of, 97; internal purges,
ran, 93, 133 101; members of, 98–9; targeting
Iran-Iraq War (1980–8): belliger- of French-speaking professionals
ents of, 57, 91; smuggling activity and intellectuals, 99
of, 91; supply of weaponry dur- Islamic Bloc: electoral performance
ing, 91, 120 of (2012), 160
Iraq: xi, 25, 31–3, 37–8, 80, 92, Islamic Jihad: members of, 138
146, 191–2, 217–18, 240, 249; Islamic Salvation Army (AIS): 99,
17 July Revolution (1958), 36,
Â€
101; acceptance of ceasefire
42; Baghdad, 28, 36, 75, 132, (1997), 101
148–9, 208–9, 240; Basra, 24, Islamic State in Iraq (ISI): 147; affil-
28, 240; borders of, xv; Brit- iates of, 202; association with
ish Mandate of (1920–32), 26; Syrian Mamluks, 200–1; emer-
Christian population of, 241; gence of (2006), 200; territory
Civil War (2006–8), 241; de- occupied by, 202
Baathification efforts in, 243; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
Falluja, 206, 250; founding mem- (ISIS/ Daesh): xii–xiii, 208–11,
ber of Arab League, 29; insur- 242; affiliates of, 245, 247; air
gency activity in, 147–8, 240; campaigns targeting, xiii, 252;
Invasion of Kuwait (1990), 63, Assault on Mosul (2014), 207–
90–2, 127, 134–5, 140; Kurdish 9; Attack on Bardo National
population of, 92, 146; Mosul, Museum (2015), 246, 250;
21, 28, 36, 207–9, 240; Najaf, camps of, 246; expulsion of
208; oil reserves of, xii; Opera- Christians from territory of,
tion Iraqi Freedom (2003–11), 209; execution videos released
xii, 146, 148–9, 200–1, 240– by, 249–50; killing of Egyptian
1; Shia population of, 25, 28, Copts (2015), 252; proclama-
240; Siege of Falluja (2014), 206; tion of (2013), 204; propaganda
Sunni population of, 28, 240; of, 251; restoration of Caliphate
Uprisings (1991), 92, 94; Yezidi announcement (2014), 208; Siege
population of, 241 of Falluja (2014), 207; territory
298
INDEX
held by, 205–6, 209; use in polit- Jadid, Salah: 60; control over
ical rhetoric of heads of state, Bureau of Officers’ Affairs, 58–9;
207; use of public executions/ member of Baathist military com-
punishments, 205 mittee, 58
Islamic University of Gaza: estab- Al-Jazeera: criticisms of, 177
lishment of, 215 Jebali, Hamadi: 237; resignation
Islamic Youth (MCCI): 252 of, 238
Islamism: ix, xiv, 78, 91, 99, 106, jihadism: xii, 250
110, 137; Algerian, 86–8, 94, Joint Meeting Parties (JMP): 143
98, 102, 104–5, 113, 122, 129, al-Jolani, Mohammad Abou al-
193–4; Egyptian, 57, 156–7, 159, Fateh: 204; founder of Nusra
161–2, 171–2, 177, 181, 222, Front, 202; pardoning of, 201–2
234; extremist, 103; judicial tar- Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of: xi,
geting of, 182; Libyan, 187–8; 41, 60, 84–5, 90, 93, 136, 214;
Palestinian, 202; Sudanese, 138; Amman, 91; Bedouin population
Syrian, 90, 133, 145; Tunisian, of, 40; Black September (1970–
83, 85, 230, 232, 235–9, 246; 1), xi, 40, 48, 53, 61–2, 130,
Turkish, 3, 6–7, 11, 13–16, 25–6; 214; borders of, 218; founding of
use in political rhetoric, 223 (1946), 29; Kerak, 84; Maan, 84;
Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Par- Salt, 84; Tafileh, 84
tisi/RP): 3, 7; electoral victory of Jundi, Abdelkarim: member of
(1995), 6 Baathist military committee, 58,
Ismaïl, Abdelfattah: leader of YSP, 60; suicide of (1969), 60–1
77 Justice and Development Party
Ismailis: 58, 61 (AKP): 9–10, 13–14, 23; elec-
Israel: xii, 32–3, 35, 51–2, 54, toral performance of (2002), 8,
61–2, 69, 79, 90–1, 93, 131, 136, 15, 117; electoral performance of
156, 181, 184, 193, 213–14, (2007), 8; electoral performance
216, 226; Invasion of Lebanon of (2011), 9–10; founding of
(1982), 62; Israeli Defence Force (2001), 7; ideology of, 7–8; sup-
(IDF), 216, 220, 224–5; PLO porters of, 12
recognition of (1994), 135; rec-
ognition of PLO (1994), 135; ter- Kafi, Ali: Chair of HCE, 97–8
ritory occupied by, 29, 60, 130, Kanaan, Usman: member of
134, 215 Baathist military committee, 58
Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty (1994): Kandil, Hazem: 51
135 Karadayi, General Hakki: Turkish
Italy: 21; Rome, 99 Chief of Staff, 10; trial of, 10–11
Karman, Tawakul: barred from
Jaabari, Ahmad: assassination of entering Egypt, 177
(2012), 222; leader of Qassam Kemal Atatürk, Mustafa: 21–3, 39,
brigades, 221 41, 115
299
INDEX
Kemalism: xi, 22–3, 39 DRS, 98, 101; secret talks with
Kenya: 15, 124 AIS, 101
Kerry, John: 226; US Secretary of Lamari, Mohammad: 107; Alge-
State, 178 rian Chief of Staff, 105; Algerian
Khalil, Chakib: Algerian Minister of Land Forces Chief, 96; death of
Energy, 108 (2012), 111
Khider, Mohammad: assassina- Lebanese Civil War (1975–90): 62;
tion of (1967), 68; co-founder of Taif Agreement (1989), 90
FLN, 37, 68 Lebanon: 53, 85, 93, 123, 207,
Khameneï, Ayatollah Ali: 209 240–1; Beirut, 33, 133, 213, 215;
Khomeini, Ayatollah Ruhollah: 133 Cedar Revolution (2005), 147;
Kissinger, Henry: 131; ‘shuttle Chtaura, 90; founding member
diplomacy’, 61 of Arab League, 29; French Man-
Kocadag, Huseyin: background of, date of (1923–46), 26, 29; Inde-
2; death of (1996), 2 pendence of (1943), 29; Israeli
Küçük, Veli: alleged founder of Invasion of (1982), 62, 133–4,
JITEM, 8; arrest and trial of, 8, 213; Nahr al-Bared, 147; Syr-
10 ian Invasion of (1976), 62, 120,
Kurdish Regional Government 131–2
(KRG): 209; territory controlled Le Monde: 179
by, 209 Lesch, David: 59
Kurds: 2, 124; language of, 167; Liberation Rally: 49, 52; protests by
nationalist, 7; revolts led by, 21; members of, 50
territory inhabited by, 92, 146, Libya: 31, 54, 80, 185–6, 240, 245;
204 Arbab population of, 242; Beng-
Kuwait: expulsion of Jordanian hazi, 38, 185–7, 238; Benghazi
and Yemeni nationals from, 93; Attack (2012), 238; Berber pop-
financial aid provided to Egypt, ulation of, 242–3; Civil War
177; Independence of (1961), (2011), 110, 185–6, 241–4; Cyre-
31; Iraqi Invasion of (1990), 63, naica, 30, 242–4; Derna, 244,
90–2, 94, 127, 134–5, 140 252; Egyptian-Emirati air raids in
(2014), 187–8; Fezzan, 30, 242–
Laarayedh, Ali: 237–8; Tunisian 3; General National Congress
Prime Minister, 239 (GNC), 242–4; ISIS camps in,
Bin Laden, Usama: 109, 138; assas- 246; Italian Invasion of (1911),
sination of (2011), 204; back- 20, 30; Mistrata, 187–8, 242;
ground of, 145; departure from National Transitional Council
Saudi Arabia, 92, 140; family of, (NTC), 242; oil reserves of, xii;
145; supporters of, 109; travel to Political Isolation Law (2013),
Afghanistan (1997), 138 243, 245; Supreme Court, 244;
Lamari, Colonel Smaïn: death of Tobruk, 186–7, 244, 247, 252;
(2007), 111; Deputy Chair of Toubou population of, 242–3;
300
INDEX
Tripoli, xii, 147, 186–7, 243– cal, 46–8; Egyptian, 58, 72–3, 79,
4; Tripolitana, 30, 242; Zintan, 93, 125, 134–5, 149, 155, 157,
186–8 162, 164, 167, 173, 177, 180,
Libyan Arab Republic: 80 185–6, 188–90, 192, 194, 210,
Likud Party: 133 219, 232, 234, 242, 244–6, 251;
Louis IX of France: defeat and cap- opposition to traditional elites,
ture during Seventh Crusade 48; Ottoman conquest of histor-
(1249), 46 ical (1516–17), 47; presence in
Napoleonic Imperial Guard, 45;
Madagascar: 30, 39–40 Syrian, 63, 79–80, 93, 125, 131–
Madani, Abassi: imprisonment of, 2, 145–6, 149, 177, 188, 194,
97; release of (1997), 104 199–201, 223, 251; Yemeni, xii,
Madrid Peace Conference (1991): 94, 125, 128, 142, 144–5, 154,
participants in, 93 194, 199, 251
Magariaf, Mohammad: Chair of Mandela, Nelson: visit to Gaza, 219
GNC, 242 Mansour, Adly: 177; Interim Egyp-
al-Mahdi, Zeinab: suicide of tian President, 176
(2014), 249 Marcou, Jean: 23
Makhlouf, Rami: family of, 125, Martinez, Luis: 122–3, 128
216; personal wealth of, 125 Marx, Karl: 247
Mali: Bamako, 110; Civil War Marxism: 2, 78, 140
(2012–), 110; government of, Massoum, Fouad: President of Iraq,
110 209–10
al-Maliki, Nouri: 209; administra- Mattelart, Armand: Spirale, 170
tion of, 241; background of, 148; Medeghri, Ahmed: 65; Algerian
electoral performance of (2014), Interior Minister, 66–7
206–7; opponents of, 208; sectar- Mediene, Colonel Mohammad
ian policies of, 206 (Tewfik): 111–12; head of DRS,
Mamluk Sultanate: x–xi; Battle of 87, 96, 98, 102, 105, 107
Ayn Jalut (1260), 46, 79 Mehmed V, Sultan: 20
Mamluks: xiii, 43, 45–8, 50, 57, Menderes, Adnan: trial and execu-
59, 74, 76, 80, 85, 91, 96, 102, tion of (1960), 22
114, 118, 121, 136, 140–1, 148, Merbah, Kasdi: 65; head of SM, 68;
150–3, 170, 174, 200, 207, 210– killing of (1993), 98
11, 230–1, 233, 239, 245, 247, Meshaal, Khaled: leader of Hamas,
252–3; Algerian, 66, 79, 89, 94, 221
97–9, 104–5, 112–13, 123, 125, Military Security (SM)(Algeria): 88;
148, 165, 186, 193–4, 242, 244, as DRS, 98, 103; General Direc-
251; Arab, xii, 112–13, 115– torate for Prevention and Security
17, 119, 125, 127–31, 135, 139, (DGPS), 71, 86–7;
149, 177, 213, 226–7, 241, 247, al-Mir, Ahmad: member of Baathist
249; cultural practices of histori- military committee, 58
301
INDEX
Mitterand, François: electoral vic- Movement for the Triumph of the
tory of (1981), 95; foreign pol- Democratic Liberties (MTLD):
icy of, 95 64; Special Organization (OS),
Moawad, René: death of, 90 64–5
Mohammad, Prophet: 238; descen- Movement of Society for Peace
dants of, 26, 46 (MSP): parliamentary electoral
Mohammad Ali: massacring of performance of (1997), 100
Mamluks, 45, 47 Mubarak, Gamal: 152
Mohammed V of Morocco: 9, 67; Mubarak, Husni: 48–9, 56, 85,
death of (1961), 30; exile of 118, 121, 134, 136, 148, 151,
(1953), 30, 39–40; family of, 40 153, 158–9, 162, 172–3, 183,
Mohieddine, Zakaria: Egyptian 219, 221; attempted assassina-
Interior Minister, 49–50; member tion of (1995), 138; Egyptian
of RCC, 49 Vice President, 55; foreign pol-
Mongols: raids into Palestine, 46 icy of, 91; nominated as pres-
Morocco: 23, 39–41, 63, 108 244; ident (1981), 57; presidential
borders of, 123; coup d’état electoral performance (2005),
attempt (1971), xi; coup d’état 148–9; regime of, 156, 190, 221,
attempt (1972), xi; Figuig, 67; 236; release of (2013), 180, 246;
French Protectorate of (1912– removed from power (2011), ix,
56), 25; Independence of (1955), 154–5, 161, 180, 195, 232, 234
30; Oujda, 65; Rabat, 123; Span- Muslim Brotherhood (MB): xiv, 16,
ish Protectorate of (1912–56), 35, 91–2, 126, 133, 153, 160,
24, 30; Tangier, 30 169–73, 180, 189, 191, 194,
Morsi, Mohamed: xiv, 167–8, 171– 210, 242–3; dominance of Egyp-
3, 178, 186; curfews enacted by tian constitutional commission,
(2013), 171; electoral victory of 160, 164; detaining of members
(2012), 164, 222; foreign policy (2013), 179; Egyptian, 33, 155–
of, 222; MB candidate for Egyp- 7, 179, 236; electoral perfor-
tian presidential elections, 162–3; mance in Egyptian parliamentary
jihadi terrorism fatalities under, elections (2010), 151; electoral
191; protests against 172–5, 189; performance in Egyptian parlia-
referendum for MB-drafted con- mentary elections (2012), 151,
stitution (2012), 168–70, 182; 160–1; electoral performance in
removed from office (2013), 177, Jordanian parliamentary elec-
190, 222–3, 234; supporters of, tions (1989), 84–5, 90; finan-
176, 178 cial support provided for, 177;
Motherland Party (ANAP): 2–3, 7; Freedom and Justice Party (FJP),
collaboration with DYP (1996), 158, 160–1; ideology of, 156–
3; electoral performance of 7; initial support for SCAF, 234;
(1983), 3 Libyan, 186; Libyan electoral
Moussa, Amr: 163 performance (2012), 186; mem-
302
INDEX
bers of, 50, 99, 175; offices of, National Liberation Front (FLN):
169; opposition to, 90; political 31, 37, 63, 65–6, 86–7, 95, 97,
relationship with SCAF, 156–7; 99, 103, 106, 193; Algiers Con-
repression of, 180–1, 184, 246; ference (1964), 67; boycotting
role in passing of Political Isola- of Algerian presidential elec-
tion Law, 243, 245; Syrian, 33, tions (1995), 99–100; marginal-
62, 137, 181; targeted by MID ization of, 100; members of, 37,
(1965), 52; targeting of Gamal 42, 68–9, 89, 112; parliamentary
Abdel Nasser, 48; Yemeni, 78 electoral performance of (1997),
Muwafi, General Murad: 167; head 100; Political Bureau, 38; pro-
of GID, 156 paganda of, 213; strongholds of,
105
Naguib, Mohammad: 34, 50; Egyp- National Salvation Front (NSF):
tian Prime Minister, 49 166, 170, 175; members of, 168
Nahnah, Mahfoudh: electoral per- National Security Council (MGK):
formance of (1995), 100; founder members of, 23; memorandum
of Hamas, 99 published by (1997), 3, 23
Nasser, Gamal Abdel: 36, 48, 50, National Service Projects Organiza-
52, 68–9, 72, 79, 151, 157, 178, tion (NSPO): 120
246–7; control over RCC, 49; nationalism: xiv, 10, 22, 24–7,
death of (1970), 69, 130; focus 30–1, 38, 40–1, 49, 66, 87, 96,
on security, 49–50; foreign pol- 113, 115, 148, 187, 189, 236;
icy of, 73, 75, 91; political narra- Arab, 58, 133–4, 186, 190; Iraqi,
tives focusing on, 48–9; President 36; Kurdish, 7; Libyan, 242, 244;
of Egypt, 50–1; rise to power Palestinian, 93; Tunisian, 233;
(1952), 34, 42, 130; supporters Turkish, 20; ultra-, 15
of, 73, 126; targeted by Muslim Nationalist Action Party (MHP):
Brotherhood (1954/ 1965), 48, Grey Wolves, 2, 6, 10
50; use of political legalization of Navy Officers Club (Cairo): politi-
political parties (1954), 50; visit cal meetings held at, 172–3
to Yemen (1964), 74 Neo-Destour: 31
Nasserism: 58, 163, 183, 185 Netanyahu, Binyamin: 225–6
National Democratic Party (NDP): Nezzar, General Khaled: 66, 87–8,
151; attacks on headquarters 94, 96, 102; Algerian Chief of
(2011), 153; dissolution of, 167; Staff, 86; Algerian Defence Min-
formation of, 56 ister, 96; suppression of riots
National Democratic Rally (RND): (1988), 86
establishment of (1997), 100; Nidaa Tounes: 239; electoral per-
parliamentary electoral perfor- formance of (2014), 230; mem-
mance of (1997), 100 bers of, 230
National Liberation Front (NLF): Nidal, Abu: 145
75; Marxist wing of, 75 Niger: 109
303
INDEX
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1925–6), 251; Istanbul, 24; mil-
(NATO): 12, 186; air raids/no-fly itary of, 21, 25; National Assem-
zone enforcement during Libyan bly, 20; territory of, 23–4, 47;
Civil War (2011), 110, 185–6, Young Turk Revolution (1908),
241, 244 20, 25
Norway: 125; diplomatic relations Ouyahia, Ahmed: Algerian Prime
with Hamas, 225–6 Minister, 100, 106
Nour Party: 160 Ozal, Turgut: 2, 7; death of (1993),
Nuqrashi, Mahmoud: assassination 3, 5
of (1948), 34
Nusra Front: 203, 250; founding Pakistan: 140
of, 202 Palestine: xiv, 32–4, 211, 217;
Arab Mamluk relationship with,
Obama, Barack: administration of, 213, 226–7; British Mandate of
144, 210, 241; foreign policy of, (1920–48), 26, 29, 214; Gaza
144, 168, 209, 223, 241; speech Massacre (2014), xiv, 224–5;
to Turkish National Assembly Gaza Strip/Gaza, 29, 84, 130,
(2009), 12 167, 214–15, 220, 222–6; Jeru-
Öcalan, Abdullah: capture of salem, 30, 56, 130, 214; Nab-
(1999), 15, 124; leader of PKK, lus, 46; Rafah, 221–2, 225, 229;
15, 124 Ramallah, 223; West Bank, 29,
oil counter-shock (1986): 149; 40, 84, 130, 214, 223–4
political impact of, 75, 128 Palestinian Authority (PA): 219;
oil shock (1973): 69; financial Fatah control over, 219; person-
impact of, 130 nel of, 221, 223–4
oil shock (1979): 85, 132; political Palestinian Liberation Army: 215
impact of, 128 Palestinian Liberation Organi-
Okacha, Tawfik: owner of Al-Far- zation (PLO): xiv, 32, 40, 61,
aeen TV, 225 130–1, 213, 215; Cairo Agree-
Oman: 31; Muscat, 23–4 ment (1969), 53; expulsion from
Omar, Mullah: leader of Taliban, Lebanon (1983), 133, 213–14;
145 Israeli recognition of (1993), 135;
Organization for African Unity launch of (1964), 53; movement
(OAU): 67 to Tunis, 214; presence in Leb-
Orientalism: 45 anon, 62, 133; recognition of
Ornek, Ozden: trial of, 9–10 Israeli (1994), 135
Oslo Agreements (1993/1995): 225 Pan-Turkism: 20
Ottoman Empire: 20, 39–40; Arab Party of the True Path (DYP): 2;
Revolt (1916–18), 26; Arme- collaboration with ANAP (1996),
nian Genocide (1915), 21; col- 3
lapse of (1923), 27; Constitution Pasha, Djemal: 20–1
of (1876), 20; Great Arab Revolt Pasha, Enver: 20–1
304
INDEX
Pasha, Muhammad Ali: rise to founding of, 140; operatives of,
power (1805), 24 142; political use of in rhetoric of
People’s Democratic Republic of state leaders, 148; senior leader-
Yemen (PDRY)(South Yemen): ship (AQSL), 147; territory con-
72, 74–5, 143; Abyan, 78; Civil trolled by, xiii; training camps of,
War (1986), 214; formation of 145; USS Cole Bombing (2000),
(1967), 31; Shabwa, 78 141
Persian Gulf War (1990–1): 94, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penin-
140; belligerents of, 57, 90–2, sula (AQAP): 142, 194–5, 210;
146; Operation Desert Storm ambushing of Yemeni soldiers,
(1990–1), 134–5; political impact 195, 197; members of, 143;
of, 146 National Day parade bombing
Pétain, Philippe: Chief of State of (2012), 197–8; networks of, 199;
Vichy France, 29 presence in Saudi Arabia, 143;
Philips, Sarah: 128 presence in Yemen, 194; Sanaa
Massacre (2014), 200; training
Polisario Front: 40, 123
provided by, 144; use in political
Pontecorvo, Gillo: Battle of Algiers,
rhetoric of state leaders, 194–5
The, 67
al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Popular National Army (ANP):
(AQIM): affiliates of, 110;
opponents of, 38
Algiers Attacks (2007), 109; for-
Popular Union: 170
merly GSPC, 109; members of,
populism: 49
109, 237; presence in Tunisia,
Provisional Government of Algerian
238; rise of, 193–4, 237
Republic (GPRA): 37, 65, 70;
Qandil, Hisham: Egyptian Prime
Ministry of Armament and Gen- Minister, 167–8
eral Liaisons (MLGC/MALG), Qashlak, Yasir: arming and fund-
65, 68 ing of mercenaries in Syrian Civil
Putin, Vladimir: armaments pro- War (2011–), 217
vided by, 208 Qasim, Abdelkarim: overthrow of
(1963), 36; regime of, 36
Qaddafi, Muammar: 42, 80, 110, Qatani, Saad: Egyptian Speaker of
118, 185, 188, 239, 242–3; National Assembly, 161
Jamahiriyya, xi, 80, 185; regime Qatar: 31, 170–1, 186, 203, 223;
of, 186; rise to power (1969), 38, Doha, 177; financial aid provided
42; supporters of, 241–2; use of for Egypt, 170–1; support for
global war on terror, 240 MB in, 181
al-Qaeda: 111, 139, 201, 204–5, Qutb, Sayyid: execution of (1966),
240; Aden car bombing (1992), 52
140; affiliates of, xv, 200, 237; Qutuz: assassination of, 46
Djerba synagogue bombing
(2002), 237; escape of detainees Ramdane, Abbane: 64; assassina-
from Sanaa jail (2006), 142–3; tion of (1957), 65
305
INDEX
Reagan, Ronald: administration of, Safavid Empire: 21
133 Saladin: 46
Reda, Crown Prince Hassan: fam- Salafism: 78, 92, 160, 163, 171,
ily of, 38 182, 203, 236; militant, 169; rad-
Republican Guard Club (Cairo): ical, 237
176 Salafist Group for Preaching and
Republican People’s Party (CHP): Combat (GSPC): 109; as AQIM,
authorization of (1946), 22 109; secession from GIA (1998),
Revolutionary People’s Liberation 101
Party–Front (DHKP–C): accusa- Salah, Gaïd: 113; Algerian Chief of
tions of role in Ergenkon Case, 9 Staff, 111–12
Ricciardone, Frank: US Ambassa- Saleh, Ahmed Ali: attempted assas-
dor in Ankara, 12 sination of (2012), 198; Chief of
Rogan, Eugene: 24 Yemeni Republican Guard, 195–
Rougier, Bernard: 147 6, 198; family of, 196
Russian Empire: 25 Saleh, Ali Abdullah: 78–80, 94,
Russian Federation: 205; Moscow, 116, 118, 122, 128–9, 141–2,
124, 208; support for Bashar 144, 152, 198, 210, 214, 242;
al-Assad, 202, 206, 253; veto- elected as President of North
ing of UN Security Resolutions Yemen (1978), 76; family of,
2011/2012 (2011), 202 145, 196, 198–9; Military Gover-
nor of Taez, 76; political rhetoric
Saadani, Amr: FLN Secretary Gen- of, 194–5; President of Yemen,
eral, 112 79; removed from power (2011),
Sabbahi, Hamdin: electoral defeat 196–9; supporters of, 154, 177,
of (2014), 183 199; UN sanctions targeting,
Sabri, Ali: head of ASU, 54; role in 200; visit to Washington DC
conspiracy against Anwar Sadat (2001), 141
(1971), 54 Saleh, Ammar Mohammad: demo-
Sadat, Anwar: 34–5, 48–9, 52, 54, tion of, 198
61–2, 69–70, 73, 75, 81, 131, Saleh, Yahya Mohammad: demo-
151, 178, 214, 234; assassination tion of, 198; development of
of (1981), 56–7, 134, 137, 158; CSF, 142; family of, 142
connections with Muslim Broth- Sallal, Abdullah: 74; removed to
erhood, 34; conspiracy targeting power (1967), 75; rise to power,
(1971), 54; Corrective Revolu- 73; Yemeni Chief of Staff, 72
tion (1971), 54, 84; Opening pol- Sands War (1963): 67; ceasefire
icy, 55, 71; presence at Camp (1964), 67
David Summit (1977), 56, 132; Sanhan (tribe): 195
visit to Jerusalem (1977), 56; Ibn Saud, Abdelaziz: 27, 39, 41
withdrawal from Yom Kippur Saudi Arabia: xi, 58, 62, 71, 73–4,
War (1973), 55 78, 92–3, 125–6, 140, 143, 150,
306
INDEX
171, 181, 201, 223; AQAP pres- Shehata, Rafaat: head of GID, 165,
ence in, 143; expulsion of Jorda- 172
nian and Yemeni nationals from, Shishakli, Colonel Adib: fled to
93; financial aid provided to Brazil (1953), 35; rise to power
Egypt, 177, 253; founding mem- (1949), 33
ber of Arab League, 29; Jeddah, el-Sisi, General Abdel Fattah: 160,
140, 145; Mecca, 28; Medina, 168, 173–4, 177–8, 182–3, 185,
28; Riyadh, 28, 73, 126, 131, 187, 190–1, 207, 211, 226,
171, 195; US military presence 246; Chair of National Coun-
in, 91–2 cil of Defence (2014), 229; Egyp-
Seale, Patrick: 32 tian Defence Minister, 165,
Second World War (1939–45): 173; Egyptian Director of Mil-
21–2, 63, 125–6; belligerents of, itary Intelligence, 154, 165;
29–30 jihadi terrorism fatalities under,
Sécurité militaire (SM): alleged role 191; potential role in expan-
in assassination of FLN ‘found- sion of ISIS, 252; political use of
ing nine’, 68; Offices for Security Cairo Conference (2014), 226;
and Prevention (BSP), 68; person- regime of, xii, 183–4, 225–6; rise
nel of, 70 to power (2014), 183–5, 187–
security mafias: 140; emergence of, 8, 190, 234–6; supporters of,
135–6; funding of, 129–32 175–6, 180; ultimatum given to
Sellal, Abdelmalek: Algerian Prime Mohammad Morsi (2013), 175;
Minister, 112 visit to USA (2014), 188–9
al-Senoussi, Idris: 30; family of, 38; Sistani, Grand Aytollah Ali: 208
removed from power (1969), 38, Six-Day War (1967): 59, 74, 184;
42 belligerents of, 48, 52; political
Shafiq, Ahmed: 245; Egyptian impact of, 53, 79, 247; territory
Prime Minister, 152; supported occupied by Israel during, 60,
by Egyptian Deep State, 167 130, 215
Shalit, Gilad: kidnapped by Hamas Sledgehammer Plot (2010): 11, 14,
(2006), 220–1 16; trials of suspects, 9–10
Sharaf, Essam: 245 Sobhi, Sedki: Commander of Egyp-
Sharaf, Sami: 160; head of PBI, tian Third Army, 154
53–4; role in conspiracy against Socialist Forces Front (FFS): 87,
Anwar Sadat (1971), 54 99; boycotting of Algerian presi-
Sharon, Ariel: 146; withdrawal of dential elections (1995), 99–100;
IDF from Gaza Strip (2005), 220 marginalization of, 100; parlia-
al-Shater, Khayrat: MB candidate mentary electoral performance of
for Egyptian presidential elec- (1997), 100
tions, 162–3 Somalia: 173
Shazly, Saadeddine: 57; Egyptian SONATRACH: 108; joint venture
Chief of Staff, 55; exile of, 57 with Statoil, 111
307
INDEX
Sonbol, Amira el-Azhary: 55 147, 192, 202, 209, 214, 226,
Soumman Conference: creation of 245, 249–51, 253; 8 March Rev-
Â€
wilayas system, 64–5 olution (1963), 58–9; Abou

Soviet Union (USSR): 21, 60, 63, Kamal, 147–8; Alawi popula-
69, 73, 83, 93; arms provided by, tion of, 61–3, 120; Aleppo, 46,
62, 134; collapse of (1991), 78, 133, 203–5, 216; borders of, xv,
85, 88–9, 135, 149; Committee 90, 124, 202; Bureau of Officers’
for State Security (KGB), 54, 65, Affairs, 58–9; Civil War (2011–),
68, 83; Moscow, 93, 133; sup- xiii–xiv, 201–6, 216–19, 251–2;
port for Yemeni Republicans, 75; coup d’état (1949), 32; Damas-
vetoing of Jordanian admittance cus, 26, 33, 36, 46, 51, 54,
to UN, 29 58–60, 124, 126, 131–3, 146–
Spain: 24, 30; Madrid, 25, 45, 60, 7, 177, 179, 200, 202–3, 205,
68 209, 218, 251; Deir Ezzor, 204;
Statoil: joint venture with Deraa, 201; Druze population
SONATRACH, 111 of, 61; founding member of Arab
Stephens, J. Christopher: death of
Â€ League, 29; French Mandate of
(2012), 238 (1923–46), 21, 26, 29, 37; Golan
Sudan: 98, 138, 140; Khartoum, Heights, 54, 60–1, 131, 134,
138 201–2, 214, 216; government of,
Suez Crisis (1956): belligerents of, 208; Great Syrian Revolt (1925–
35, 48, 51, 79 7), 29; Hama, 133, 201, 216;
Suleiman, General Omar: 151– Homs, 58, 201–2, 216; Houla,
2, 156; disappearance of, 155– 203; Independence of (1943),
6; Egyptian Vice President, 152; 29; Koubeir, 203; Kurdish pop-
head of GID, 138, 151, 219–20 ulation of, 204; Latakia, 201,
Suleiman, Samer: 152 216–17; Milihouse, 120; military
Supreme Council of the Armed of, 60, 133, 208; Quneytra, 60;
Forces (SCAF): 153–5, 158–9, Raqqa, 204, 209; repression of
163, 182, 186, 189, 234, 245; MB in, 181; secession from UAR
constitutional declaration (2012), (1961), 36–7, 58, 72; Sunni pop-
169; members of, 154–6, 161–2; ulation of, 59; Yarmouk Camp,
political rhetoric of, 158–9, 191, 216–18, 226
231; protests against, 159–60; Syrian Communist Party: 33
relationship with MB, 156–7; rise Syrian Islamist Uprising (1979–
to power, 154; social media pres- 82): 62–3, 90, 133; Aleppo Artil-
ence of, 158–9, 137 lery School Massacre (1979), 62;
al-Suri, Abu Musab: influence of, Hama Massacre (1982), 62, 133
145
Switzerland: 70, 98; Geneva, 38 Taliban: members of, 145; regime
Syria: x–xiii, 32, 34, 42, 46–7, 54, of, 138
58, 75, 81, 85, 89, 93, 129–30, Tantawi, Field Marshal Moham-
308
INDEX
mad Hussein: 155, 158–9, 189; Tunisian Bar Association: 233, 239
as presidential adviser, 164; Tunisian General Labour Union
Egyptian Defence Minister, 120, (UGTT): xiv, 233, 239
154; opposition to, 159–62; use Tunisian Islamic Fighting Group
of ‘loyalty allowance’, 121 (GICT): members of, 237
Tilly, Charles: 118 Tunisian League for Human Rights
Tlass, Mustafa: 60 (LTDH): 239
al-Tohamy, General Mohammad Turkey, Republic of: x–xi, 1, 4, 13,
Faird: head of Administrative 17, 22, 115, 253; Ankara, 12,
Oversight Authority, 176 21, 124; Bursa, 2; Constitution of
Toubous: territory inhabited by, (1982), 3, 9, 23; Constitutional
242–3 Court of, 14; Council of State,
Transjordan: 26, 84; Amman, 27; 8–9; coup d’état (1960), 16, 22;
Treaty of London (1946), 29 coup d’état (1971), 16; coup
Treaty of Lausanne (1923): provi- d’état (1980), 16, 22–3; establish-
sions of, 21 ment of (1923), 21; Gendarmerie
Tunisia: xiii–xiv, 16, 41, 63, Intelligence Branch (KITEM), 8;
65, 108, 135, 157, 186, 230– government of, 10; Hatay/Iskend-
1, 236, 243–4, 246, 250, 253; erun, 21, 58; Istanbul, 2–3, 7, 21;
AQIM presence in, 238; Biz- Kurdish Revolt (1937), 21; mil-
erte, 41; Bizerte Crisis (1961), itary memorandum (1997), 16;
41–2; Constantine, 37; Constitu- military of, 9; National Assem-
ent Assembly, 229–30, 235; Con- bly, 2, 8, 12; National Intelli-
stitution of, 235; Constitutional gence Service (MIT), 4, 14–15;
Assembly, 157; Constitutional Sheikh Said Rebellion (1925),
Court, 232; Djerba synagogue 21; Susurluk, 2; Susurluk Scan-
bombing (2002), 237; econ- dal (1996), 1–3, 5, 16; Tak-
omy of, 232; French Protector- sim Square Protests (2013), 12;
ate of (1881–1956), 25; general Supreme Board of Judges and
strike (1978), 83; Ghardimaou, Prosecutors (HSYK), 13; Syrian
65–6; Higher Authority (HA), refugee population of, 207; Urfa
232–3; Independence of (1956), Province, 2
30–1, 231; Jabal Chambi, 238– Turkish (language): 14, 167
9; Jasmine Revolution (1987),
83–4; Kasserine, 239; military Umran, Mohammad: leader of
of, 41, 231; parliamentary elec- Baathist military committee, 58
tions (2014), 229; PLO presence United Arab Emirates (UAE):
in, 214; Revolution (2010–11), Dubai, 183, 188; establishment
ix, 109, 150, 152–4, 194, 232– of (1971), 31, 126; expulsion of
4, 237; riots (1984), 83; Sidi Bou- Jordanian and Yemeni nationals
zid, ix; Tunis, 24, 214, 238, 241, from, 93; financial aid provided
245 to Egypt, 177, 182–3, 253
309
INDEX
United Arab Republic (UAR): 51, Wafa Party: 106; lack of authoriza-
58; formation of (1958), 36; Syr- tion, 104–5
ian secession from (1961), 36–7, Wafd Party: 35; electoral perfor-
72 mance of, 34
United Kingdom (UK): 25, 29, 35, al-Wahhab, Ibn Abd: 24
37, 51, 75, 79, 241; London, Wahhabism: xi, 28, 39, 171, 203;
26–8, 55, 124, 144; military of, development of, 39; political use
27 of, 125–6
United Nations (UN): 29, 109, Warsaw Pact: defence systems of,
241–2, 245, 247, 252; General 133
Assembly, 146; member states of, Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK):
31–2; observer status in, 32; per- 2–5, 15–16, 124; baba, 6; col-
sonnel of, 203; role in Houthi lapse of ceasefire (2004), 15;
Insurgency ceasefire agreement counter-insurgency activity
(2015), 199; Relief and Works against, 117; heroin laboratories
Agency (UNRWA), 218; role in of, 124; members of, 15; opposi-
Libyan Independence (1951), 30; tion to, 3–5
Resolution 1441 (2002), 146; World Bank: 123
sanctions enacted by, 81, 92–3, al-Wuhayshi, Nasir (Abu Basir):
240; Security Council, 146, 200, 143
202–3; Supervision Mission in
Syria (UNSMIS), 203 Yahya, Ahmad: family of, 72
United States of America (USA): xii, Yahya, Imam: 27, 71; assassination
9, 73, 91, 116, 131, 137, 139, of (1948), 72; family of, 72
143–4, 147, 151, 156, 178, 188, Yahyaoui, Salah: 69; removed from
194, 201, 205, 210–11, 219, office (1980), 70
223, 225, 243; 9/11 Attacks, Yemen: xi–xii, 51–2, 73, 81, 93,
109, 139, 141, 145, 148, 193– 140, 152, 192, 198–9, 210, 242,
4, 210, 240; Central Intelligence 245, 251; Abyan, 144, 194, 198;
Agency (CIA), 54, 142–3, 146, Aden, 75–7, 85, 122, 127, 140,
180, 186, 219; Congress, 149; 214; al-Qaeda affiliate pres-
Federal Bureau of Investigation ence in, xv, 194; British Occupa-
(FBI), 141; military aid provided tion of Aden (1839), 25; border
to Egypt, 56, 89, 134–5, 149, war (1979), 77; Central Secu-
156; military of, 147; New York, rity Forces (CSF), 142; Civil War
139, 145, 193; Pentagon, 142; (1994), 94, 117, 122, 129, 141;
Washington DC, xii, 90–1, 94, Colony of Aden, 25, 71; Con-
132, 139, 143, 145–6, 149, 193, stitution of (1991), 93; found-
195–6, 208, 240; World Trade ing member of Arab League, 29;
Center Bombing (1993), 138 Hadramaut, 127, 140, 144, 194;
Hodeida, 72–3; Houthi Insur-
Vichy France: 29 gency (2004–15), 143, 198–9;
310
INDEX
Kitaf, 74; Marib, 144, 194; mili- 69, 131; belligerents of, 54–5,
tary of, 195, 197, 252; National 130; ceasefire declaration, 55;
Security Bureau (NSB), 141, 199; economic impact of, 69
oil reserves of, 127–8; Politi- Younes, General Abdelfattah: defec-
cal Security Organization (PSO), tion of (2011), 185; execution of
141; privatization in, 121– (2011), 186
2; Republican Guard, 141–2,
144, 152, 195, 198; Revolution Zaïm, Colonel Husni: execution of
(2011–12), 154, 177, 195; Saada, (1949), 33; rise to power (1949),
143; Sanaa, 72–4, 77–8, 126–7, 32–3, 129–30
140, 142–3, 195–6, 198–9, 252; al-Zarqawi, Abu Musab: 250
Shabwa, 144, 194; Sunni popu- al-Zawahiri, Ayman: 139, 204; dec-
lation of, 72, 77–8; Taez, 72–3, laration of jihad against Bashar
76–7, 195; Unification of (1990), al-Assad, 202; leader of Islamic
79, 121–2, 136, 141, 214; USS Jihad, 138; travel to Afghanistan
Cole Bombing (2000), 141; Wadi (1997), 138
al-Masila, 127; Zinjibar, 196–7 Zaydism: 27, 71–2; tribal struc-
Yemen Arab Republic (YAR)(North ture, 77
Yemen): 72, 75, 197; interna- Zayed,S heikh: 126
tional recognition of, 75, 126; Zbiri, Colonel Tahar: Algerian
Marib, 78, 126–7; oil reserves of, Chief of Staff, 67–8; attempted
78, 127 coup d’état led by (1967), 68
Yemeni Civil War (1962–70): 42, Zeidan, Ali: Libyan Prime Minis-
75; Egyptian bombing of Kitaf ter, 242–3; removed from power
(1967), 74; Egyptian expedition- (2014), 244
ary force in, 73, 75, 91, 119–20, Zerhouni, Noureddine (Yazid):
126, 247, 251; use of chemical Algerian Minister of Interior,
weapons during, 251 105, 107; Chief of SM, 70
Yemeni Popular Union: 74 Zeroual, Lamine: 101, 106, 112,
Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP): 76; 122; Algerian Defence Minister,
confiscation of properties of, 98; Chair of HCE, 98; electoral
122; members of, 77; Political victory of (1995), 100; with-
Bureau, 77 drawal of, 101–2
Yom Kippur War (1973): 57, 61, Zionism: 26, 32, 43, 59, 130, 213
311

Filiu, Jean-Pierre From Deep State To Islamic State The Arab Counter-Revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filiu, Jean-Pierre From Deep State To Islamic State The Arab Counter-Revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filiu, Jean-Pierre From Deep State To Islamic State The Arab Counter-Revolution and Its Jihadi Legacy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM DEEP STATE TO ISLAMIC STATE

THE CERI SERIES IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS

Series editor, Christophe Jaffrelot

This series consists of translations of noteworthy manuscripts

From Deep State

After an early involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood’s youth wing—which

â•‡ 1.â•‡Meet the Deep State 1

It has been four years now since Mohammad Bouazizi’s self-

matrix’ is the focus of Chapter 4, before we turn, in Chapter 5,

third of the country and by August–September 2014 had dragÂ�

revolution until today, for instance, is key to understanding both

â•… Finally, ‘Jihadis could become obsolete’ may sound preposter-

their liberation, but also for all of us to live in a more peaceful

Paris, December 2014

MEET THE DEEP STATE

The concept of a ‘Deep State’ (dawla ‘amîqa) has only recently

A Fateful Car Crash

When reality surpasses fiction, unexpected concepts can take

cedes crashed in Susurluk, a Turkish town a few hundred km

eventually compelled to step down in favour of an ANAP-led

A State with Many Mansions

The depth of the shameful connections revealed by the ‘Susurluk

ures are questionable, the trend itself is undisputable. And PKK

â•… The ‘Susurluk scandal’ struck the Turkish public as an electro-

anti-communist the security apparatus was. The September

Erdogan Versus the Deep State

We saw above how the military’s crackdown against Erbakan in

form of Islamism. Erdogan’s venture was so successful that, dur-

government in 1997. The trial was expected to last several years,

cases have been overshadowed by their wide scope and the

posed to demonstrate how Islam and the West could finally

ary–February 2011) was embarrassing for Erdogan: the ‘Turk-

supreme judicial body (HSYK) that would constrain the inde-

enemy, the PKK. This formidable achievement has to be taken

into account when assessing Erdogan’s appalling performance on

as had been the standard procedure in Turkey, every actor

THE MYTHICAL FATHERS OF THE NATION

In the contemporary Turkish debate, the notion of ‘parallel state’

istic vision of its people. And it is being rooted in the historical

No Turkey without Kemalism

The roots of contemporary Turkey are commonly traced back

Ottoman defeats, first against the Italian invasion of Libya in

Enver, Talaat and Djemal (the so-called three Pashas), seized

1914 and launched the following year a mass deportation of the

parties. Terrorist violence, from both the extreme-right and the

From Ottoman Arabs to Colonized Ones

1581 to 1588). More than two centuries of Ottoman domination

nialism and reversing Ottoman decline. Today, the first trend

â•… On the contrary, the ‘nationalist’ and ‘Islamist’ components

from the British. His older brother Abdullah settled in Amman,

â•… In Iraq, the British Empire amalgamated under its mandate

assassinated in Jerusalem, during Friday payers at the Al-Aqsa

the nationalist Neo-Destour, Habib Bourguiba and Salah Ben

completed, with one major caveat: Palestine, a full member of

It took half a century for the Arab countries to rid themselves of

past repeatedly interfered in state politics, but had never dared

‘jihad’ in Palestine. In December 1948, a Muslim Brother assas-

â•… The self-righteousness of such an opening salvo is impressive.

push for union with Egypt. Disgruntled officers went to Cairo in

â•‡ 1.â•‡Meet the Deep State 1