On 11 February, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak resigned as president handing control to the Armed Forces Supreme Council following a historic 18-day tsunami of protest demonstrations. His resignation followed a defiant speech wherein he refused to quit, despite persistent popular demand and searing pressure from foreign allies, including American President Barack Obama.
According to United Nations estimates more than 300 lives were lost and several times that many were injured in the upheaval.

NOTEWORTHY
Interestingly, the Egyptian revolution occurred 32 years to the day that the Iranian revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini toppled the regime of the Shah of Iran, another staunch ally of the United States. Though vastly different in character and in the instruments employed, the impact of the recent Egyptian turmoil is likely to be as consequential as the Iranian.
Will the post-Mubarak regime turn out to be as anti-American as the Iranian? As far as one can tell, that does not seem very likely. Yet, given the great unknowns that characterize the abrupt and dramatic political transition and confusion, it may be best to withhold judgment on that score.     
It may be recalled that the Iranian revolution was spearheaded by people fired with religious fervour stirred by Imam Khomeini while the Egyptian was a mixture of secular opposition and the popular  Muslim Brotherhood. Though a revolution of the people, it was largely guided or modulated by the military which, after all, still controls the affairs in Cairo.    
Hopes are being pinned on the military adhering to their vow to hand over power to a civilian government after free and fair presidential elections and constitutional reforms. While very many people are confident or at least hopeful that the Supreme Council will honour their solemn pledge, many others are keeping their fingers crossed, as is apparent in that while scores of demonstrators have returned from Tahrir Square, others are still there.

WHAT NEXT?
It is best to be cautious. After all, according to the Supreme Council, which has dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution, it will take six months or so before presidential elections can be held and a new incumbent elected.
That aside, it should not be forgotten that the military has not merely controlled Egypt for six decades but also that in many respects it, in fact, represents the state, owning industries and being  heavily involved in a whole slew of economic activities that, in most democratic states, are outside its purview.
Besides, if transition to a fully democratic order is interrupted – and this can happen due to a host of unforeseen circumstances not to talk of squabbles between various political parties in the interregnum – the military will simply soldier on, as it has done for nearly sixty years since the ouster of King Farouk in 1952 in a military coup d’état.
At this euphoric but still dangerously fluid time, it will be useful to remind oneself that the hard part is only beginning. For, while the protests against Mubarak, a modern-day Pharaoh, was spectacular, its instrument was a mishmash, a huge and amorphous conglomeration, that apart from desiring the president’s ouster, had no detailed blueprint or agreed agenda beyond that.
As we have seen for ourselves in Nepal, a lack of political consensus about aims and aspirations on the shape of the future can lead not to just great disappointment and frustration but indeed to political mayhem, gridlock and corrosive frustration.

WHO NEXT?
After Mubarak, who next? In theory, one could name former Vice President Omar Suleiman, an ex-intelligence chief and Mubarak appointee, as also former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik. Though a great deal will depend on the trajectory of future events, the possibility of any of them succeeding Mubarak is remote as they are too tainted by association with Mubarak.
Besides, though Mubarak’s National Democratic Party is down but not quite dead, it could hypothetically still produce a claimant for the presidency. In practical terms, however, this too, is highly unlikely for much the same consideration.
As available reports go, there are at least three front runners. On top of the heap is Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister, currently Secretary-General of the Arab League from which he is stepping down. Widely known and respected both in Egypt and in the broader Arab world, including for his occasional tough line vis-a-vis the United States and Israel, Moussa is a man to watch.
Also in the limelight is Mohamed ElBaradei, the former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in recent times an outspoken critic of Mubarak, who seemed to have won over many Egyptian hearts and minds. Though considered more of a suave diplomat than an astute politician, his drawback is that he does not belong to an organised grouping. Perhaps his weakest link is that much of his career was spent outside Egypt.
In the shortlist is Opposition figure Ayman Nour who contested the 2005 multi-party election against Mubarak and was subsequently jailed. He has already thrown his hat into the ring. Finally, one cannot rule out a Muslim Brotherhood leader emerging though that too seems remote as there were no obvious religious overtones to the Egyptian revolution.
Of course, if it now attempts to change Egypt’s secular character with help and encouragement from Islamic fundamentalists outside Egypt, possibly including those in Iran, the situation could not only change drastically but even invite the wrath of Israel and even the United States which has contributed so visibly to Mubarak’s downfall.
Thus far the region remains largely stable though disturbances have erupted in Algeria, Bahrain and Yemen. That the situation is delicate as suggested by President Obama’s dispatch of a special emissary to Israel and Jordan, another signatory of a peace agreement with Israel.
Israel’s worry is, as explained by Amos Harel in the Guardian, that although “the Muslim Brotherhood does not yet pull the strings...it remains the only organised force within the Egyptian opposition.”

Hijacking the revolution
The hijack of the Egyptian revolution by the Euro-Atlantic axis has begun, and the Egyptian people should be alert to the dangers of this underhand attempt to steal their revolution and blunt its transformative potential.

After Mubarak's forced departure - it was no resignation, the people kicked him out - one of the first speeches beamed to the protestors in Tahrir Square was a live feed of Obama's response to Mubarak's expulsion. Eloquent as ever, Obama - in one move - distanced the US from its faithful servant, and embraced the Egyptian revolution.

Unless the Egyptian movement for change remains alert and continues to assert its political independence, this embrace will squeeze the life out of the revolution and turn it into a polished version of the recently departed Mubarak regime - a new democratic order that, again, prioritizes the interest of Washington, London, Berlin and Tel Aviv over that of the Egyptian people.
Egypt’s political fortunes will be most fascinating and educative to monitor.

113214-1-2

The sources are available in AFRAN institute