This is the key point to understand. There is a critical distinction between the regime and Hosni Mubarak. The regime consisted — and consists — of complex institutions centered on the military but also including the civilian bureaucracy controlled by the military. Hosni Mubarak was the leader of the regime, successor to Nasser and Sadat, who over time came to distinguish his interests from those of the regime. He was increasingly seen as a threat to the regime, and the regime turned on him.

That is the point. What happened was not a revolution. The demonstrators never brought down Mubarak, let alone the regime. What happened was a military coup that used the cover of protests to force Mubarak out of office in order to preserve the regime. When it became clear Feb. 10 that Mubarak would not voluntarily step down, the military staged what amounted to a coup to force his resignation. Once he was forced out of office, the military took over the existing regime by creating a military council and taking control of critical ministries. The regime was always centered on the military. What happened on Feb. 11 was that the military took direct control.

Analysen kan ses som en av flera pusselbitar för att förstå vad den egyptiska möjligen innebär egentligen. Det bör dock påpekas att författaren, historikern Georg Friedman, en av Stratfors grundare, är en inte helt okontroversiell debattör. Han har anklagats, visar en snabb nätresearch, både för att vara lobbyist åt vapenindustrin som för att dra alltför vida slutsatser av fakta. Resonemanget i den här texten ska ses ihop med all övrig rapportering om den politiska omvälvningen i Egypten. Men en sak är ändå utom tvivel: Egyptens politiska framtid är ännu till största delen oskriven.

Läs texten här: