Quotes of the Day

It is increasingly apparent that the crisis in Egypt will end in one of two ways: either the hundreds of thousands of people demanding Hosni Mubarak's ouster will succeed in toppling him, or the Egyptian army will quash the demonstrations by force. Any expectation that Mubarak's token gestures of "reform" — like appointing his intelligence czar as Vice President — would placate the masses has proven illusory. The people are not backing down. They won't tolerate an interim government or wait until elections in September. Outside of resignation, the only option left for Mubarak is to order a violent crackdown, which the army may or may not be willing to carry out. A tense stalemate may last for a few more days. But sooner rather than later, something is going to give.

How should we respond? The events unfolding in Cairo represent the most significant popular uprising in the Middle East since the 1979 Iranian revolution. This time, there are no American flags burning in the streets or students calling out "Death to the U.S.A." Far from rebuffing American support, the demonstrators in Cairo have expressed disappointment that they have not received more of it. But based on statements issued by some U.S. officials this weekend, the Obama Administration intends to remain on the sidelines. After a fumbling initial response, in which White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described Mubarak's regime as stable and Vice President Joe Biden suggested it was too soon for Mubarak to step down, the Administration has now concluded that there's little chance that Mubarak will hold on to power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the U.S. would support an "orderly transition" to a new government, though she did not explicitly call for Mubarak to step aside. Whether, when and how he goes is "something the Egyptians need to decide," as an Obama aide told the New York Times. "We don't get a vote."

True enough. There are decent arguments for the Administration's strategy of calibrated caution. Washington can't be seen to orchestrate an endgame in Cairo, even if it had the leverage to do so. The same Arab voices criticizing the U.S. for propping up Mubarak would howl even more loudly if we were to stage-manage his exit. Holding quick elections may well bring the Muslim Brotherhood or similar Islamist groups to power, at least in the short run. Egypt's 32-year cold peace with Israel could be in jeopardy. At best, the post-Mubarak power struggle in Egypt will be contested and chaotic. At worst, it could set off a wave of upheaval across the greater Middle East at a time when the White House had hoped to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and solidify a coalition against Iran (not to mention win the future at home). Egyptian democracy, in other words, could wind up undermining our primary goal in the region: stability.

The trouble is, stability doesn't exist anymore. For decades, the U.S. has privately prodded Arab dictators like Mubarak to open up their political systems, even while plying them with weekends at Camp David and billions in American weaponry. It turns out that approach has bought us time, but not stability. The pace and scale of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have exposed not only the resentments of millions in the Arab world, but also the fecklessness of the strongmen the West considered its allies. The ease with which the demonstrators in Tunis, Cairo and Alexandria overwhelmed thugs loyal to the old regimes could embolden the masses in Amman and Sana'a, Yemen, and even in Riyadh, to do the same. There is every reason to believe this winter of Arab discontent will become an even more clamorous spring.

It's time to get behind it. Obama's choice, in Egypt and beyond, is no longer about whether to preserve stability or promote reform. The choice is to embrace change or be overrun by it. The forces unleashed in the Middle East may produce a generation of leaders that is less friendly to Washington than the current batch of autocrats. But the U.S. is better off welcoming the new democratic era than fearing it. Distancing ourselves from Mubarak and siding with the Egyptian people won't damage America's image in the Arab world; continuing to fail to live up to our values will. This President, after all, has already rejected the old strategic bargain, in which advancing U.S. interests required compromising on our ideals. As Obama said in his 2009 speech in Cairo, "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them." He may never have a better opportunity to prove it.

• Romesh Ratnesar
• The events unfolding in Cairo represent the most significant popular uprising in the Middle East since the 1979 Iranian revolution. What should the U.S. do?