You can blame Carter, Obama, yourself, anyone you want, but I think that if democracy fails in the Middle East, it is because there are not enough suppporters of democracy in these countries, which are essentially authoritarian. Democracy comes after, not before, economic prosperity. With half of the country living on meager wages, that is fodder for the Islamists, who have supported them with charities. A strong middle class, which is employed, would support democracy; not an unemployed mass. So what would happen if Obama supported Mubarek and a severe crack down on the people, unlike Carter, who was supporting human rights and criticized the Shah's secret service. Would that do the trick??? The present regime of ayatollahs hijacked the revolution and is now more cruel in its human rights than the Shah was. Mossadegh was a good man, but why did he fail? I read it was because he did not have enough support, democrat-inclined people (nor a strong army) to support him??? There can't be so many factions: they have to be united for a true democracy???? So, democracy is not a principle that can yet or ever be attained in the Middle East.
U.S. asks Uzbekistan to join anti-ISIS coalition (Reuters)
from the article: Cairo tremors will be felt here