Egypt Has Lit a Fire under Washington’s Assets

Egypt will never be the same. After the events of the last week, United States foreign policy toward the Middle East must be subsequently changed and its directives reprioritized. The Obama Administration can no longer skirt the reality that Washington has been propping up a repressive police state for the past thirty years to secure U.S. interests. Today, President Hosni Mubarak is crippled and Cold War policies in the region are quickly becoming obsolete. A new political landscape has at last surfaced – the one shut up for decades – and the United States must adapt to the shifting terrain.What are the possibilities for government leadership in this environment going forward? Mubarak’s cabinet reshuffle and appointment of the country’s first Vice-President, Omar Suleiman, are simply last-ditch attempts to manipulate the Egyptian public and Western governments looking for solutions. Suleiman may hold credibility internationally and with the Egyptian military, but he is being rejected domestically as a Mubarak-crony.The military is playing an increasingly central role as the story unfolds. Although, in the past, the military has provided Mubarak protection in return for favors, it appears to be breaking the tight bond. It is in a powerful position to either take sides with what remains of the regime and ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), or with the people calling for change. Given the legitimacy of the military, both with the public and upper echelons, Washington will be forced to follow its lead in coming days if a modicum of stability is to be maintained and a transitional government formed.How will this be established? What comprises the Egyptian polity? Who are the potential stakeholders apart from Mubarak’s NDP and the military?For decades, an insignificant and elitist liberal-left has failed to facilitate change through legal channels or to connect lofty democratic ideals to improving the lives of the impoverished underclass. Although internal divisions and crackdowns have sapped its strength in recent years, the Muslim Brotherhood (technically banned, but tolerated by the regime) is influential. The organization has been stretching its influence horizontally, with the provision of welfare services and informal networks. This is in contrast to President Hosni Mubarak’s vertical reach, more distant from the Egyptian people. The presence of the Muslim Brotherhood is ubiquitous: They are in mosques, universities, professional associations and unions, and even sympathized with within the ranks of the military.Scenes from the Egyptian streets offered a mixed picture of the role the religious organization might play if the aging president lets go of the few strings he has left to pull and flees the country. As has been reported, the protests were secular, driven by unaffiliated youth demanding an end to the current regime. The Muslim Brotherhood finally joined the movement by Friday, but religious slogans were either absent or drowned out by the central message: “Mubarak, step down.”Egyptians are a very devout people, however, and despite the nonreligious nature of these events, religion is certain to play a role going forward. This is evident given that protesters paused during street battles with police in order to pray en masse. Washington cannot relegate this Egyptian public – many of whom are loyal to or sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood – to the sidelines in a democratic system of government. Regardless of Mubarak’s status going forward, the Obama Administration can no longer legitimately call for democratic reform if the voice of the single most organized and viable opposition group and its millions of sympathizers remains unheard.President Obama must take a stand either with the Egyptian people or with the regime, but cannot continue to straddle both sides. Pressing Mubarak on reform at this point is beyond superfluous. The longer Washington fails to ignore the calls by the public for him to resign, the less legitimacy it will have with a transitional government: which means lost influence to secure foreign direct investment, protect the border with Israel, and maintain access to the Suez for transporting arms to troops in Afghanistan.What is happening in Egypt and its Tunisian precursor are salient examples of why rusted Cold War tactics are unsustainable in a 21st century world. Such strategies have rendered the United States inflexible and scrambling for appropriate means to deal with an untenable situation. Entrusting the people of the Middle East’s most populous nation to have a stake in their own government – and listening to them – is a matter of securing U.S. interests in the region. Accepting the religious color that may take, however, is no longer a choice. Washington must adjust if it seeks to protect its assets. This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original source can be found here.