It's getting really difficult to analyze the situation in Egypt amidst increasingly conflicting reports regarding the role of the army in all of this. I for one, always had my suspicions about the double handed game the army has been playing since the protests began. It failed, after all, to defend the protesters when they came under a brutal attack from Mubarak's paid thugs and by most eyewitness accounts, actually facilitated the entry of the NDP goons into Tahrir Square. The regime was no doubt hoping then that the resort to violence would have been enough to end the demonstrations.
Now it appears, though the situation is extremely uncertain, that the army - or at least the high command - is supporting Mubarak's desire to see out his presidential term and preside over the transition period. This may yet change again. There are reports now that Mubarak has fled to Sharm el-Sheikh - no doubt to consult with the two Abdullahs (Jordan and Saudi), both of whom have been urging Mubarak to hold onto power. Most likely, Mubarak's top generals (Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and chief of staff, Lieutenant General Sami Einan) , also thought it would be a good idea for the President to take a break in an attempt to relieve tensions. The problem is, the protesters will only be happy when he makes the trip across the Red Sea to Jeddah.
Right now, I don't believe any analyst can predict the outcome. The scenarios are far too numerous and range from the sudden departure of the President and possibly Suleiman, to the complete fracture of the army between the old (Mubarak's men) and new guard. Leaked cables reveal US concerns about the army. Sensing that the tide is firmly against the old guard, will the younger generation of officers make a move? The only certainty is that the military will eventually decide the final outcome, the problem being that it itself appears to be in disarray.
Enter the Americans. The Obama administration's role has also been ambiguous. It began with Clinton's now infamous remark that the regime was "stable" (well technically she was right, just a pity it's loathed by the people). From the start the US regarded what was taking place as a huge geo-strategic headache, and hoped it would blow over quickly. When the administration realised that Mubarak was finished it quickly swung its weight behind Suleiman, no doubt with the backing of the Israelis, regardless of the fact that Suleiman is possibly more despised than Mubarak himself. Since then, the US has become increasingly vocal in calling for change, though notably has refrained from calling for Mubarak to go. The US admittedly has many strategic concerns, and is possibly also worried about what may be revealed when the regime collapses.
Interestingly, America's $1.3 billion in military aid appears to have given the US less leverage than one would imagine. I'm sure the US has had an impact on curtailing the regime's use of violence, but little else it seems. This may be partly due to the fact that if the US where to withdraw its aid package, it would have even less influence over events in the region. However, it is also clear that Mubarak's main backer - Saudi Arabia - is doing all it can to prop the ailing dictator up. King Abdullah has reportedly told the Americans that Mubarak must be allowed to complete his term and leave with dignity. The Saudi King has also pledged to step in with funding to cover any cut in aid from the US. No doubt, one of the reasons the regime feels it can withstand the huge economic losses right now is that it has secured Saudi backing.
Or maybe, it is just taking Mubarak and his cronies all this time to sort out their assets before the Swiss decide to freeze them?
