'Mubarak loses all legitimacy'

Press TV: The Egyptian opposition seems to be resilient in its quest for the quick ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Mubarak has pledged to die in Egypt, indicating that he should not be compared with President Ben Ali of Tunisia. Is this a sign of a bloody showdown to come in Egypt?

Williams: I think one of the most interesting things (is) looking (as if) ... he might get his wish to die there, but it might not be the way that he wants. Because if you look at the security forces, it strikes me that yes, they have caused casualties and some of them were brutal. But there seems to be a notable lack of willingness on the part of both the police and the army to risk and put themselves on the line to kill their fellow citizens on behalf of him.

The real point of the crumbling here is that he has lost all legitimacy. It really has crumbled and it is reminiscent of some of the events in Eastern Europe, when suddenly people looked around and decided that the regime really did not have any strength left.

Press TV: All indications suggest that both the US and President Mubarak are counting on the Egyptian army as a crucial factor here. What are the options in front of the Egyptian army, now that it is in a corner?

Williams: In the Egyptian army, the military, the senior officers, traditionally looked forward to a career in government-owned industries. Forty percent of industries are military-owned, pretty much. They must be contemplating whether that can continue into the new dispensation.

But on the other hand, they are commanding an army of conscripts and junior officers, who do not have that to look forward to. So, with the events of the last few weeks, and the attritions in discipline that have clearly taken place, if the generals did order the troops out, the question is whether they would be obeyed beyond the generals' minds, as well.

They obviously have a large power-broking role here, and I think the opposition will certainly come to accommodation with them, if they are willing. Because for the Egyptians, the army has not been a means of direct repression. This is the army that fought in 1973 and sort of pushed back the Israelis. It was defeated on previous occasions, but it has a patriotic record as much as Egyptians are concerned, and with conscription, most of the Egyptians have been within the army. So, it is not some sort of alien elite dominating force. It has been integrated into the society in many ways. So, yes they will be power brokers ...

Remember that the present administration in Egypt took place, because of a junior officer's coup. It was Gamal Abdel Nasser, who many people liked and deposed the senior officers in the government. So, that must be in the back of their minds, as well. It happened once before and it will happen again.

Press TV: The West has been portraying the hijacking of the revolution by the Islamists in the future, but US and Israeli intervention have been evident from Day One. What does that say about US claims of supporting democracy, wherever it takes form?

Williams: Of course, ever since the [former US President Bill] Clinton era, many of the administrations have been quite explicit. They support democracy everywhere in the Middle East, because the prime dominant point of foreign policy for any American politician has been support of Israel.

So, it did not matter if regimes were dictatorial, tyrannical, murderous and torturing, as long as they were not going to go against Israel. That is where the real problems come now. Any student knows that any popular administration in any elected Arab government is going to be more vigorous against Israel than the people, who have been brought up with American aid and American promises.

That really weighs on how American politicians think about this, and you can see it in the confusion. [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's support of Mubarak, let us say, is more counterproductive as far as the Cairo streets are concerned.

[US President Barack] Obama is balancing between his own desire for democracy and his domestic political constituencies, who want to do what is good for Israel and not what is good for Egypt or America. He cannot be seen to be on the losing side of the dichotomy.