The LA Times this morning:
One former senior administration advisor said he had spoken to his old colleagues inside the Obama administration in recent days about the unrest in Egypt. As early as last Wednesday, the Obama administration recognized that they would not be able to prop up the Mubarak regime and keep it in power at all costs, the former official said.
"They don't want to push Mubarak over the cliff, but they understand that the Mubarak era is over and that the only way Mubarak could be saved now is by a ruthless suppression of the population, which would probably set the stage for a much more radical revolution down the road.''
As I diaried on Friday night, President Obama gave a speech on the Egyptian situation. I have seen a number of accounts of the speech since then. For what it's worth this was my own take:
For the most part Obama’s speech seems to be a warning shot across Mubarak’s bow. Its focus on avoiding violence is probably the right path to take, since it doesn’t seem possible for Mubarak to hold onto power WITHOUT violence. Nevertheless, the speech doesn’t call for Mubarak’s removal, and in that sense it is probably a disappointment for those in the streets of Cairo. Whether the President SHOULD be calling for Mubarak’s ouster is another question.
The New York Times reported "In recounting Saturday’s deliberations, they said Mr. Obama was acutely conscious of avoiding any perception that the United States was once again quietly engineering the ouster of a major Middle East leader."
There is evidence that the Administration feels constrained (as it should damn well feel) by Obama's speech on the Middle East last year. The LA Times reports that "Obama gave a much-publicized speech in Cairo in 2009 warning that governments cannot suppress people's rights. With protesters massing in the street demanding Mubarak's ouster, Obama would be hard-pressed to side with a repressive leader."
My sense is we are closer to the end game than the beginning. The Administration has essentially told Mubarak not to use violence, and without violence it is hard to see how he holds on to power.
<update>
I should have added this a discussion about WHO will be taking over. In that regard the Guardian reported yesterday:
Sensational political developments in Cairo, with reports that five opposition movements, including the key Muslim Brotherhood, have mandated Mohammed ElBaradei to negotiate over the formation of a temporary "national salvation government."
Osama Ghazlai Harb of the National Democrsatic Front told BBC Arabic that this would be a transitional administration that would oversee the cancellation of the emergency laws and the release of all political prisoners
One of the reasons for the "Velvet Revolutions" were possible was the formation of a recongized group that the Communists could negotiate with. In this regard I think we have seen something akin to Civic Forum already arise in Egypt.
