The Arab Spring is not an adequate explanation for this upswell of anger More than three years ago, President Barack Obama famously told a Cairo audience that "we meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world". His speech, titled A New Beginning, sought to transcend the acrimony of the Bush era. This week, as violent protests rage across the Middle East and beyond, the president might ask himself: What went wrong? The truth is that there is no single explanation. One answer is that last year's wave of political uprisings, the so-called Arab Spring, is responsible. After all, protests began in Egypt, which last year became the most populous Arab democracy, and spread to Libya, which became the largest by area. The Arab Spring did indeed invigorate a range of Islamist movements and weakened the law enforcement capabilities of the affected states. The crowds ransacking embassies this week are negligibly small when compared to the popular mobilisations that swept away dictators. They are a shrill minority” In that febrile political environment, protests might have been easier to start, simpler for violent extremists to exploit, and harder for confused security forces to manage. However, this cannot explain why some of this week's most serious violence took place in Sudan, and other protests in places normally calm, as Qatar. Additionally, such violence long pre-dates the Arab Spring and frequently took place under dictators, the most prominent examples occurring in the Middle East in 2006 after a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The second argument is that we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism - with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger. According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favourable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009. Polls indicate that anti-Americanism stems from a variety of grievances, including US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American wars in the Middle East, and US backing for friendly dictators. The irony is that, whereas Barack Obama is sometimes pilloried by critics in the West for naively supporting the revolutions, most Arabs see his actions as too late and too little. In Tunisia, for instance, only a third believe that the US response to their revolution had a positive impact. We should, however, distinguish anti-Americanism from religious extremism. Although Arab ideas about freedom of expression are fundamentally divergent from Western ones - 84% of Egyptians want the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion - there are big generational gaps. Those under 35 - the generation widely held up as the engine of the Arab Spring - are far less likely to pray several times a day, attend the mosque regularly, or read the Koran daily. They are being catalysed less by religion, and more by politics. Pro-US current Anti-American sentiment is not universal Despite the widespread xenophobia evident in Egypt, 35% of Egyptians actually want Egypt-US relations to remain as strong as they were before the revolution, and a surprisingly high 20% want them to get even better. Sixty percent of Tunisians say that they like American ideas about democracy. A Gallup poll this year showed that 54% of Libyans approve of American leadership, near the highest approval ever seen in the region. Indeed, Libya has seen a series of protests supportive of the US, and against the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. [The Benghazi attack] represents broader Libyan opinion no more than Anders Breivik did that of Norway” Perhaps the most important fact is that the crowds ransacking embassies this week are negligibly small when compared to the popular mobilisations that swept away dictators. They are a shrill minority. Even where it is widespread, anti-Americanism is simply not a sufficient explanation for outbreaks of violence. In many cases, protests might have had little energy had local religious and political entrepreneurs, eager to bolster their following and create disorder, not exploited them. In Khartoum, for instance, local buses were laid on to transport prayer-goers to protest sites. In Libya, to speak of a protest is misleading. The assault in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens died was probably a co-ordinated, complex undertaking by an organised militant group, perhaps in concert with al-Qaeda's North African affiliate. It represents broader Libyan opinion no more than Anders Breivik did that of Norway. This wave of violence will have longer-term repercussions. The US has no legal mechanism to censor the provocative film and, with eight weeks to go before a national election, President Obama will be careful not to appear unduly willing to appease mob violence. US hampered American freedom of expression cannot be a subject of compromise for any administration. This means that such triggers for protest will recur, as there is no shortage of provocateurs. BBC News - Film protests: What explains the anger?