How to Speak Softly

Why President Obama’s do-nothing Egypt policy is Washington’s best option

When a political crisis with dramatic implications and a furious rate of change shrieks through headlines worldwide, a policy of “wait and see” is nothing short of maddening. Caution is rarely popular, pragmatism is sometimes ugly, and the words “strongly condemn” never comfort the families of the dead.

But boldness is too often equated with dramatic and aggressive change. The Obama administration, cautious about the appearance of picking sides, has appeared timid in articulating an Egypt policy. That perception has led to attacks of the president from many groups, both in the United States and Egypt.

But, for all the political cost, the president should stand firm in his do-nothing Egyptian policy. No group has threatened American regional interests, and no American action or intervention is likely to improve the situation in Cairo. Until these facts change, the White House should be laying out its vision of the roadmap to an inclusive civilian government in Egypt, and doing little else.

Cutting aid? Ask why, not why not

To cut Egyptian military aid would be a mistake for two reasons: First, it would do nothing to create the “leverage” that’s missing in the U.S.-Egyptian relationship; second, isolating Sisi is likely to convince him to use more violence, not less.

By removing a long-standing diplomatic norm, the Obama administration would be sending a clear message that the relationship between Washington and Cairo has changed fundamentally and unalterably. The permanence of the move would not be lost on the Egyptians, because while cutting the aid could be done without much controversy, reinstating it would not be as easy.

The US holds sway with Egypt’s generals, especially when dealing with regional security issues, but that leverage is irrelevant when policy choices become existential. The generals will stop at nothing to establish control, and the Muslim Brotherhood is the biggest threat to their legitimacy. Sisi might not have listened to American requests before the crackdown in Rabaa, but it is doubtful he would have caved to any foreign power.

And while the $1.3 billion in U.S. aid is given to the military, it is not likely that the Egyptian military budget will shrink. That money will come from somewhere, and it will probably hit the Egyptian consumer’s pocket. Faced with potential political and economic crises, Egypt’s military is more likely to respond with repression and violence than political compromise if isolated.

Preach values, protect interests

When it comes to America’s vital regional interests, no party or group in Egypt has been seriously threatening. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, whose election raised the specter of a possible confrontation with Israel, showed they were willing to play ball after a flare-up in Gaza in November 2011. Mohammed Morsi was a valuable partner to the U.S. in helping create a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel.

It should not matter to the U.S. who prevails in Egypt, so long as a stable Egyptian government that respects of the rule of law emerges, and that the victor continues the American-Egyptian partnership. President Obama spelled out what the U.S. would like to see in Egypt in his August 15 statement:

We call on the Egyptian authorities to respect the universal rights of the people. We call on those who are protesting to do so peacefully and condemn the attacks that we've seen by protesters, including on churches. We believe that the state of emergency should be lifted, that a process of national reconciliation should begin, that all parties need to have a voice in Egypt’s future, that the rights of women and religious minorities should be respected and that commitments must be kept to pursue transparent reforms to the constitution and democratic elections of a parliament and a president.

So long as the Suez Canal remains open to U.S. ships, the Sinai remains demilitarized, Egypt does not become the target of a new insurgency, and the military continues to show some restraint in its repression, the US should do nothing more than advocate for peace building and a transition to civilian government.

This does not minimize the tragedy unfolding in Egypt. It is, however, an eyes-wide-open assessment that the best thing the United States can do to minimize violence in Egypt is to remain its stable, patient partner, even in the face of terrifying uncertainty.