With current heightened tension re: mob attacks on US embassies - it is possible that if Morsi’s speech at UN GA goes off in parallel with Ahmadinejad and Chavez - that might be something really Obama admin wants to avoid. (It’s kind of impossible to predict from now - how global and America’s domestic perception re: Obama’s Middle East policy performance would be at the end of this September.)
But then, by so far, experts on Egypt have been saying this in unison: America really has no leverage on how Egypt’s ruling types (politicians and military) thinks, speaks and acts.
However, Wapost’s this article is suggesting Obama should negotiate with Morsi beforehand - if you want to meet me - please let us censor your UN speech.
To that end, Obama should condition any meeting with Morsi on the latter’s clear and public renunciation of 9/11 revisionism. This position would present Morsi with a stark choice: He can either repudiate the hate-filled conspiracies that he has helped to sow and reap the benefits of Obama’s embrace, or he can expose himself as an irresponsible ideologue with whom few members of the international community will want to deal. Failure to lay down a marker with Morsi before he comes to New York means Morsi may never have to make that choice.
It is true that while Morsi delivering Brotherhood’s uncensored view on 9/11 in NY and then - meeting Obama (while not meeting Netanyahu) - would look fairly odd. But I can’t know where American public’s sensitivity on this issue will be then.
Also, an important fact:
huge majorities in major Muslim countries — 75 percent of Egyptians, 73 percent of Turks — still deny that Arabs carried out the attacks, as a Pew study reported in July 2011.