As Egypt teeters between the end of the regime and an uncertain future, President Obama has steered a cautious but ultimately wise path. While every American would prefer a more democratic Egypt, the future of the country will be determined not by us but by internal forces. But we do have a strategic interest in peace in the region. And for all his faults, Mubarak has kept the peace of the Camp David Accords.
In talking about Mubarak and his relationship with the US, people are leaving out the most crucial piece which explains why successive US governments, from Carter to Obama, have not pushed him out.
Egypt and Israel fought four wars. In 1978, they signed the Camp David accords, establishing relations and have had peace since then, albeit a cold peace. Mubarak has kept this peace, despite many factions in Egypt that opposed it. Remember, the man who signed the agreement and Mubarrak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated in broad daylight by members of his own security forces.
One of the most organized parts of the anti-Mubarak opposition are the Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan. They may have taken a peaceful path now, but their origins are drenched in blood and they have assassinated past Egyptian leaders. They were originally banned by Gamal Abdel Nasser, the charismatic anti-Western Arab Socialist leader. The Brotherhood is no friend of the west, nor are they favorable to women's rights, gay rights, and religious minorities. Do not suppose that what they say and do now, in a position of weakness, is the same thing they would say and do were they to wield actual power.
As with the elections in Gaza, a democratic election in Egypt could easily bring to power forces that renounce the peace treaty with Israel. While many protestors have been quoted as saying that they want the treaty to go, but don't want another Israeli-Egytian War, what is the practical reality of a treaty renunciation? It certainly makes war more, not less, likely.
So it is not that easy for Obama. He has some hard choices to make. Clearly, we would prefer Egypt have a representative democracy, prosperity, etc. That has been the word to the Egypt leadership for decades, most recently by Hillary Clinton - reform yourselves, you are heading for a fall eventually. But they are a sovereign power and people are kidding themselves if they think Egypt is anyone's puppet. Ask their Soviet sponsors who came before us. Mubarak, by unleashing his own supporters, seems to be poking a finger in Obama's eye as much as preserving his own power.
And we also do not want chaos leading to the rise of Islamist forces that will re-ignite Egyptian-Israeli tensions. Those alive in 1979 should recall how the western media initially reported Khomeinis' return, supposedly "moderated" by his exile in France. What the Iranian mullahs said to get rid of the Shah was very different from what they did once they had the reins.
Obama does not have the luxury of wishful thinking. He has to calculate as if the worst was a possibility, which it is. No one knows what would happen if Mubarak simply fled the country now. El-Baradei is not a powerful figure politically in his own right - the strongest party to fill a vaccum is the Brotherhood. The only thing keeping them down is the Egyptian Army. But if the army dissolves or fragments into factions, the Ikhwan could easily grow into a real force that could make short work of the western-oriented technocrats if push came to shove.
The domino effect here, unlike the Vietnam analogy, is real. Jordan and Yemen are also starting to teeter and the potential replacements for those ruling regimes also run the full gamut from status quo to really, really bad to a hoped-for but unlikely improvement. Those who want to see the Jordanian and Yemeni regimes topple should recall that each country has had bitter civil wars in the modern past, each has strong Islamist elements, and in Jordan's case it is also another front-line Arab state with a cold peace with Israel that could easily be tossed out by a new government.
Americans also need to be smart about their own security. If the leaked cables are correct and Al Quaeda is getting a "dirty bomb" do we really want to cheer the immediate overthrow of the leadership of countries that are currently helping us fight them?
We are in a lose-lose situation, and the origins of the underlying problems are neither America's doing nor can we pretend to control events. Egypt's Free Officers revolt in 1952 went from Soviet to US sponsorship, but had its own internal Egyptian logic and motivation. Ironically, the US under Eisenhower saved Nasser in 1956 when we kept the Brits, French and Israelis from overthrowing him after he nationalized the Suez Canal. Speaking of which, that is another current US interest. Chaos in Egypt could affect transit of oil tankers through the canal, with impact on already high oil prices on world economies.
So we need to be smart. We really have limited authority to make things better. But we should not make things worse. I think Obama is doing his best so far. The best outcome may be a managed transition to elections - which is what Mubarak offered in his speech. If this process occurs, we should do all we can to hold the ruling party to this commitment and ensure free and fair internationally monitored elections. An opposition that has been repressed for thirty years needs time to organize as well.
A sudden overthrow with a resulting vaccum sounds exciting, but it would unleash forces we cannot predict. We could easily end up with a renewal of the existential threat to Israel and a new series of wars in the Middle East. Or a reduction in cooperation against terrorism.
Mubarak, or whatever ruling party figure emerges as a caretaker if he flees, may be a necessary evil in a transition that reduces the chances that the peace treaty is thrown into the waste basket by a new government. These are not easy or palatable choices. But Obama doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the dangers that lie ahead.