And from earlier, a big shout out for National Journal's coverage of developments in the Middle East:
This is a much better analysis than E.J.Dionne's (mentioned previously), and this is especially good:
In the short term, the democratic upheavals in the Middle East will almost certainly spread instability and cause furrowed brows in Washington and Tel Aviv. In the longer term, however, the strategic interests of both the United States and Israel could be well served by the death of the venerable idea that the only choice in the Middle East is between autocrats and theocrats.And speaking of Barry Rubin, he's got more here: "Whose Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? Answer: Sensible People." Rubin's responding to this at New York Times, "As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear." (And at Memeorandum.)
“Regime change is coming to Egypt whether we like it or not, so for the Obama administration to continue to back an ill, 82-year-old dictator like Hosni Mubarak would have been both short-sighted and unwise,” said Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The United States should instead seize a rare opportunity to embrace a mostly secular, democratic opposition that is on the march throughout the Middle East, Rubin said in an interview.
There are reports that the Muslim brotherhood has pledge an attack on Israel should they come to power, although perhaps the Times doesn't "get" the Internet. See, "Report: Muslim Brotherhood Wants Egyptians to ‘Prepare for War With Israel’." Maybe the Times is feigning ignorance? Wouldn't want some credible journalistic reporting to lead here: "U.S. 'held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood'."
RELATED: Get your kicks watching Conor Friedersdorf self-immolate: "Sophistry And Defining The Muslim Brotherhood, Ctd."
Hey, he claims to have lived in Egypt, so who knows, although the fact that he's posting at Sully's rabidly anti-Semitic blog doesn't much pump up the credibility factor.