The exceptional American attention granted to the developments in Egypt did not come as a surprise. Egypt is an essential ally to the United States in the region, a supporter of its policies and a pole in what has come to be known as the Arab “moderation axis” in the face of the pressures being exerted on the policies and interests of this axis in more than one location, from the Gulf to Yemen and Lebanon, going through Iraq of course. Moreover, Egypt has concluded a peace agreement - which is one of the oldest - with Israel, and which was able to survive despite all the difficult circumstances witnessed by the Arab-Israeli confrontations since Camp David in 1978 until this day. This is why Obama's administration wants to see the smooth transition of power in Egypt, in a way that prevents the bloodshed and maintains the political inclination of the regime. However, the smooth transition of power might not necessarily mean the insistence of the American Democratic administration on providing a cover for an Egyptian democratic process with the characteristics that are usually associated with the latter expression and in accordance with the demands of some of those who have gathered in Tahrir Square. This is due to the fact that such a process might not guarantee results in favor of the political inclination of the current Egyptian regime, in light of the popular strength enjoyed by the Muslim Brotherhood group and some other national forces whose slogans go beyond the improvement of the economic conditions and political reform, and feature a radical confrontation in the face of the American project in the region and all that this project implies. It would be difficult to imagine that President Obama does not remember the experience of his predecessor and fellow partisan Jimmy Carter in dealing with the Iranian revolution in 1978 and his – truthful – stand at the time alongside the slogan of human rights. This had led to the fall of the Shah of Iran who was hostile vis-à-vis these rights and the instatement of the current Iranian regime whose key “accomplishment” is the elimination of any possibility of seeing the establishment of a real democratic project in Iran. It would be difficult to imagine that Obama does not remember this experience which started with democratic promises and wide alliances between the opposition forces of different colors and leaders from the likes of Shapour Bakhtiar, Abolhasan Bani Sadr, Mehdi Bazargan, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh and Ebrahim Yazdi among others, and eventually ended with the elimination of all the latter and the control of the most radical and violent movement over Iran's capabilities, while blocking the road before the political process and civilian life. This is why Obama's administration is insisting – as it is clearly seen in its positions and the statements of its officials – on giving advice to the Egyptian president not to allow the confrontation with the oppositionists to reach a point where it would be impossible to maintain the political direction of the regime, seeing how this would greatly damage the American interests throughout the region. In this context, in addition to the American president's calls to President Mubarak, there were contacts announced yesterday between the American Chiefs of Staff committee and the chief of staff of the Egyptian army, Lieutenant General Sami Enan, during his presence in the United States and while the Egyptian uprising erupted. Through these contacts, there were guarantees that the army will remain “the power capable of ensuring security” as it was mentioned in remarks published yesterday and issued by Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen who added that the Egyptian armed forces had so far “behaved very well.” In Egypt, as in other Arab countries, America is facing the predicament of arranging the establishment of democracies in which the necessary conditions of such a step are in line with the specificities of these countries, namely the absence of institutions and parties that abide by normal political action and the peaceful rotation of power. In the absence of such civilian institutions that embrace plurality and reject the exclusion of others, it would be difficult for the democratic process to produce anything but radical and violent forces that are opposed to the American project and work to topple it. So, how can America combine between the protection of its interests and the protection of the democratic project whose bases it says it wishes to instate in our region? This may be America's predicament, but more importantly, it is the predicament of our countries which are rising against authoritarian regimes, only to fall in the hands of the sole institution that exercises authoritarianism as a profession, i.e. the army institution.
