Egypt: the Outcomes for Israel

As the Egyptians continue demonstrating against the government of President Hosni Mubarak, there have been three outcomes posited, although only one of those results would be advantageous for security in the Middle East and Israel’s future.

1. The pro-democracy movement takes hold: the protests began as an economic referendum on the Mubarak government, with pro-democracy activists now leveraging the demonstrations to press for representative government. For Israel, a more democratic Egypt would likely substantially reduce cooperation between the two countries or, at worst, transform the Jewish state’s key regional alley into an enemy. The Egyptian people are not pro-Israel, but the Mubarak government has pushed strong security measures to thwart weapons smuggling into the Gaza Strip and clamp down on terror activity in the Sinai. An Egyptian ambassador to Israel said a few years ago that he originally would have refused an appointment to Israel. Even though there is a peace treaty, the countries’ relationship is considered “cold,” and Israel cannot rely on the Egyptians electing a pro-Israel government. Populist antipathy toward Israel has helped Arab governments throughout the Middle East point to an external enemy as the reason for their own problems, and a democratic Egypt is not likely to counter the strong-seated sentiments of the population.
2. The Muslim Brotherhood takes over:  This is the worst case scenario, with the Muslim Brotherhood seeing the opportunity to take hold of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood is affiliated with Hamas and subscribes to a radical Islamic ideology that would lead another one of Israel’s neighbors to support terror. The Mubarak regime keeps a firm hold on the border with Gaza and often intercepts weapons smuggling to Hamas. With the Muslim Brotherhood in control, the Iran-backed Hamas terror network would have free access to more weapons and could receive far more complicated weapons than the Qassam rockets currently utilized to attack civilians in southern Israel. While not likely entering an all-out war with Israel (as Egypt would face an unprecedented loss), the Muslim Brotherhood would substantially increase the threat to Israel in the south, and the Israeli military would likely respond in kind.
3. Mubarak retains power: In the only positive outcome for Israel, Mubarak would make a handful of — largely superficial — concessions to the population and ultimately retain the same policies that have been in place for thirty years. Mubarak, though, would learn from these demonstrations and crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood’s organizational capabilities. While at first the Egyptians might gain more clout in the government, Mubarak would not the population challenge his regime in the long-term and ensure that the opposition and the radical Islamists are suppressed.

The Obama administration has come out for democracy and is slowly distancing itself from the Mubarak regime. However, the administration should keep a watchful eye on the outcome of these demonstrations, as the future of the region could hinge on whether the future Egyptian government embraces radical Islam and opposes its alliance with Israel. All people have the universal right to self governance, however U.S. and Israeli interests, combined with regional stability, might be better suited by a strong Mubarak regime that slowly democratizes instead of the Egyptian people distancing themselves away from Israel and toward radical Islam.