Jordan: bending over backwards

The Jordanian regime is worried, overly so in my opinion. Since the protest began in Tunisia the Hashemites have been quick off the mark to coopt opposition forces (possibly with some US pressure to contain the unrest sweeping the region).

Firstly, the regime announced that it would subsidise basic food and energy. Secondly, it announced a public sector wage increase of $20 per month. Thirdly, King Abdullah sacked the government; and fourthly we are now hearing that the new PM, Marouf Bakhit, has been in negotiation with the Islamic Action Front and has offered the Islamist movement several positions in the new cabinet. The Islamist, feeling in a rather strong position right now despite having no representation in parliament, rather cleverly refused the offer, saying that ' they would rather be part of the process in an elected government'.

A delegation from the Muslim Brotherhood met with Bakhit on Sunday and according to a statement on the Islamist organisation's website presented the PM with a list of 14 demands, including: a new elections law, amending the Public Gatherings Law, the establishment of a teachers association, more public freedoms, and dissolving the current Parliament and electing a new Lower House under the new law.

Bakhit is still in the process of forming his new Cabinet, the composition of which should give some clues as to how serious the regime is concerning reform.

Egypt: procrastinate and wait

The process of change - or rather non-change - is beginning to take shape in Egypt. Backed by Washington and the EU (along with Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia), Omar Suleiman has emerged as the preferred strongman to oversee the so-called 'transition to democracy'. Just one problem: he is neither trusted by the people nor the opposition groups. The key slogan of this peaceful revolution has been: 'al-Sha'b Yurid Isqat al-Nizam' (The people want an end to this regime). No one is more symbolic of this regime after Mubarak than Suleiman.

Without seeking to be too pessimistic, Washington's decision to back Suleiman would appear to suggest that those who have argued throughout these events that US strategic interests must come first have triumphed over pro-democracy voices. Since this uprising began the US administration has been deeply divided on how to respond, which explains Washington's constantly shifting positions over the past two weeks. Interestingly, events in Egypt have also revealed divisions within the traditionally pro-Israel neoconservative supporters of the Bush era, with hawks such as Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan arguing that Mubarak should go.

However, the momentum now appears to be with the 'better the devil you know' advocates. This is hardly surprising given that caution has been the watchword during the Obama presidency. And in this context, Omar Suleiman is the obvious candidate. With a military career spanning almost six decades, Suleiman enjoys the support of the army and security forces and forms a link between Egypt's military and political elites. Furthermore, as Mubarak's trusted ally and confidant, he also shares the president's views on the key regional issues, from Israel to Iran, and is therefore crucial to maintaining Washington's strategic interests in the region. He has also served the US in its 'war on terror' and the controversial CIA renditions programme.

According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, his 18 career as Intelligence Chief has been marked by 'widespread abuses and torture' and has played a commanding role in suppressing political dissent and free speech. Indeed, Suleiman was considered Egypt's 'torture-in-chief' for terror suspects and is widely known to hold strong anti-Islamist sentiments. Recent and timely cables released by Wikileaks also reveal Suleiman's long history of citing the Islamist threat to justify years of authoritarian rule. He is also an integral part of Egypt's vast patronage (Mubarak has an estimated fortune of $80 billion) network that has - like similar Arab regimes - regarded Egypt as a private ATM to be plundered at will.

The tactic of the regime now - with perceived US backing - appears to be: procrastinate and wait. After exhausting all other strategies, (repression, media control, fermenting chaos through hired thugs, pretending the military is on the side of the people etc ... ), the regime is now holding out the carrot of reforms in the hope of dividing the 'official opposition' and isolating the 'real opposition' (those in Tahrir Square). A the same time it continues to detain activists. If the regime can succeed in making deals with Egypt's weak opposition parties, though this is not guaranteed, it hopes the protesters will eventually be forced to pack up their tents and go home (and wait for the dreaded knock on the door from Suleiman's security thugs).

The opposition's lack of unity is its Achilles Heel. The various parties and non-parties need to quickly agree on a set of demands and stick to them until the regime yields. The mass protests over the past two weeks and the losses suffered at the hands of the Mubarak-Suleiman security goons now need to be protected if Egypt is to move forward. The protesters after all have the greatest weapon: the demographic factor, a youthful population that has the stamina to keep the protests alive.

On a side note, nervous Arab regimes have been adopting and array of tactics to contain the possibility of the unrest spreading, with the European Union funded Palestinian security forces clamping down in the Occupied West Bank.