Regardless of the path that dialogue will take and the results to which it will lead, and regardless of the direction that will be adopted by the transitory phase in Egypt, the reality is that change has occurred. And it seems that some sides in the opposition have agreed to sit around the table with conditions, in light of the insistence of Ahmad Shafik's government on that and after the United States became convinced of the position of this government. As for Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama's envoy, he said that President Hosni Mubarak “must stay in office in order to steer those democratic changes through.” He was followed by many European officials who stressed the necessity of seeing a “peaceful transition,” although some pushed toward a rapid one. As for the next days, or maybe even hours, they will carry the street's answer. So will it listen to Washington's will, although the latter has not listened to it throughout decades? Will it give Washington and the crumbling regime a chance to arrange the situation in a calm way? The predicament Cairo is facing is also faced by Washington with the same interest and concern. The “regime” that crumbled in Egypt, and before this in Tunisia, Beirut, the Gaza Strip and Iraq, and what could be seen in Afghanistan and other countries prone to witness surprises in the Great Middle East, falls in the context of a regional system which was sponsored by the United States for many years - since the days of the Cold War – and did not crumble with its collapse and the collapse of the Berlin wall, which toppled the entire system that revolved in the space of the Soviet Union. The best expression for what is happening was conveyed by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said in a speech before the Munich security conference that “the region is being battered by a perfect storm of powerful trends. It is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the area. The status quo is simply not sustainable.” What the United States wants is to see the success of the transitory phase, so that with enough time, it can contain the losses. The Egyptian regime, or rather the entire old regional system, has been maintaining its vital and strategic interests in the region, from the oil interests to Israel and its supremacy. The relations were thus enhanced with Egypt under Mubarak's rule, as he provided Washington with a cover and offered an “Arab legitimacy” to its war against the regime of Saddam Hussein, in order to oust him from Kuwait then from Baghdad itself. The man also stood and is still standing on the frontlines of the United States' confrontation with the Islamic Republic and its allies, which is why it did not come as a surprise that Tehran raised its voice to urge the Egyptians to topple the regime, considering it has reaped and is still reaping what the Americans have planted throughout decades. The transformations which will be generated by this “perfect storm of powerful trends” will not be limited to the people of the region. They will affect the United States that has started feeling its way toward building a new strategy. Therefore, Washington seems cautious in the way it is dealing with the situation in Egypt, showing exceptional concern over balance between its position toward the angry people and their demands on one hand, and its position toward the regime that is trying to control the transitory phase in order to remain close to the new regime on the other. It does not wish to appear distant from the aspiration of the crowds, just as it does not want to sever the lines with the past, in order to contain the losses and avoid additional surprises. It thus seems to be walking on a tightrope, along with Europe and the people of the region. This also includes Israel, where one of the writers commented on the situation by saying: “There is not one Israeli in his right mind who is unconcerned by the outcome of the events in Egypt. It would be hard to assess the security, economic and even psychological value of the peace agreement with Egypt. Going back to a state of conflict, even if it is a cold and unannounced one, will have a major impact on our lives.” This is the first time in decades that the United States finds its credibility at stake, considering it can no longer claim to be raising the banner of human rights and the sponsorship of democracy, at a time when it is remaining silent vis-à-vis the sacrificing of democracy, human rights, political reform and the wise rule at the expense of “stability,” special strategic interests and the preservation of the existing balance of powers in the region and around the world. It is no longer possible to remain idle in the face of regimes which used “the option of stability” to act as they please and without any consideration for the ambitions of their people. It is no longer possible for Washington to proceed down two tracks, which the events in Tunisia and what is happening in Egypt among other Arab countries proved they were parallel and could never meet. It is no longer possible to see this schizophrenia and this duplicity between what it is claiming and what it is actually sponsoring. For a long time, the United States converged with some ruling elites over the miscalculation of the aspirations of the people of the region, and just like certain regimes, it made bad assessments and relied on the existing traditional systems. For their part, these regimes sponsored America's interests in the region in exchange for the support of the pillars of their authority. President Mubarak has experienced five American presidents, while none of the latter was able to convince him to listen to the voice of the street, i.e. the voice of the opposition, just as it was the case of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Washington's problem is that it totally believed that the transition of power will mean its fall in the hands of the “extremist Islamic groups.” Consequently, it did not deem it necessary to listen to the viewpoint of the detractors of the practices of their regimes. When the September 11, 2001 earthquake hit the United States on its own turf, the latter embarked on a new strategy. The administration of President George Bush Jr. thus simultaneously raised the flag of war on terrorism and the flag of the spread of democracy in the “New Middle East”, from Afghanistan to Mauritania. However, its efforts on both fronts were obstructed, in light of the difficulties it faced in Kabul, and later on in Baghdad. Indeed, it did not realize that the response to terrorism could not be secured through military force alone, as it did not realize that democracy could not be imposed or imported from abroad like any other product. Consequently, it settled for issuing calls - from time to time - for the adoption of reforms, which it limited to the amendment of the curricula in this or that state, the improvement of the image of certain regimes and siding with its own strategic interests, at the expense of the principles and slogans of democracy and human rights which it had been promoting… Today, as it is facing the Egyptian developments, what Washington remembers is that when the administration of George Bush Jr. was pushing toward democracy in the region and insisting on seeing the staging of elections in the occupied Palestinian territories, it did not listen to Mubarak's advice who personally called for the postponement of this event to prevent Hamas from coming to power. The rest of the story is known and the Gaza Strip is still enduring a blockade and aggressions as a result of the movement's victory, without anyone asking Washington about the fate of the “two-state” slogan which Bush had raised! No one in America or Europe asked about the absence of ideological slogans on the banners of the angry crowds in Tunisia and Cairo, and no one asked about the absence of the slogan “Islam is the solution.” This is the uprising of a generation of young people who constitute more than one third of the Arab world's population and are seeking “dignity,” work and freedom. This is the uprising of a generation that was very optimistic when it heard President Obama's speech in Cairo, and in Turkey before that, in the hope that the change which was seen in America will affect America's approach to reform in the Arab world and its policy vis-à-vis the people of the region, leading to the elimination of the “hostility” that is felt toward it, toward its allies and the ruling elites. True, the angry crowds limited their slogans to their own affairs, but Washington and the Western capitals know that there is not one Arab citizen who is not disappointed with all the American administrations, the last of which is the current one. Moreover, there is not one Arab citizen who does not feel humiliated when seeing his country without any value in the existing balance of powers in the region and around the world, and is not provoked by the way the international community is disregarding the interests and aspirations of the Middle Eastern populations. In such circumstances and following all these developments, will the Quartet Committee settle for pushing toward the resumption of the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Can Germany, among other European states, settle for linking stability and the ongoing efforts to secure the peaceful transition of power in Egypt to the resumption of the negotiations, or will it surrender to the rowdiness of Netanyahu's government as Washington has done? Change in the Middle East has been launched by the people, and the big question is: Will President Obama's administration adopt a new policy that recognizes the right of the region's youth to seek additional freedoms, justice and a wise rule, which could consecrate stability and preserve the joint strategic interests of all the concerned parties? Will it relinquish its fears of seeing the authority controlled by the extremist Islamic powers? Neither the experience in Tunisia showed that the extremist Islamists are the main force that can inherit the regime alone, nor the experience in Egypt showed that the Muslim Brotherhood, although it is the most organized and cohesive movement, can do so. Is this administration not dealing with the Turkish “Muslim Brotherhood”, which is running an Islamic state enjoying the same size and weight as Egypt in the Middle East and Central Asia, and is it not agreeing with it over the steps to consecrate stability in both regions?
