What are the reasons that made people in many Arab countries “revolt” against their regimes and call for change? The ultimate answer will not be determined for some time and the answers vary according to different given premises. The next question is whether the motivations of change are domestic or foreign. It seems that it is already answered. Demands of change have been basically pushed from inside, while some regional powers have benefited from them, and are trying to employ them, succeeding in some places while not succeeding in others.
To sum up the reasons that have stirred the uprisings in the Arab streets, at the heart lies the gap between expectations and hopes of a new Arab generation that aspire to cope with the world, on one hand, and stagnant political regimes that lack political mechanisms to reconcile between expectations and reality, on the other. It is the governments’ disastrous failure in modern management and the absence of political awareness that when combined with the demands of the new generations and the current developments in the world, in regards to the technological revolution expanding worldwide, that fuels these changes.
Whoever analyzes the internal or external factors is facing a divided Arab public opinion on what is happening. Some people support change in some countries and consider it a domestic action, while oppose it in others and think that it is directed from outside. Many Arabs, for example, agree with the change in Libya, but oppose it in Syria. From another side, if you ask an average-educated Arab citizen to explain what is going on, he will eventually point to an “American conspiracy” being behind all these events. This plot is explicitly mentioned by politicians who are opposing change, especially in the countries that are facing demands for change or are expecting them.
A better explanation is that the West, which was surprised by the events at the beginning, has been quick in putting its media and political weight on the side of the demands of change. Then, it has offered its military support (as in the case of Libya) to push change forward, either to satisfy its people, to achieve economic interests in the future, or to apply its own ideals. Anyway, this process of change would be less costly for the West than the money spent on its wars on terror.
Also, other powers have benefited from what happened in some areas. Iran has tried via its Arab allies to use the popular protests in Bahrain in the struggle for its revolutionary Shi’a theory and expansion in the region. It has intervened in the demands for reform in Bahrain by encouraging some of its followers to raise the ceiling of the demands—to the extent of calling for a change of the regime into a republic that is governed by the ruling jurist.
It has been easy to sell the idea of active western intervention in the current events to a broad sector of the public, given historical accumulations. For instance, it has been said that the US has trained some Egyptian youth to hold sit-ins and gather the masses. Here also appears the name of Wael Goneim, the marketing official in Google who has ties with American circles. Such narratives are believed by some people. Some regional powers have also tried to limit the negative consequences of the events. The Gulf Cooperation Council has intervened in Yemen and the Turks in Syria, and even Yemenis have sought the help of Turkey to find a political solution.
