Egypt's political chasm continues to widen following the military's ouster of former President Mohamed Morsi, who, despite his many flaws and blunders, was the only democratically elected president in the country's history.
Turkey and Iran were quick to condemn the military takeover. Does this new-found unanimity mean a new era of closer relations between the two countries? It is important to keep in mind that Ankara and Tehran have very different reasons for taking this stance.
The real reason for the ousting of Morsi is that the army has been in charge all along. The reality is that the army is currently using the protests against Morsi to their benefit as they did in 2011 with the protests against Mubarak.
Egyptians want accountable and responsible leadership that cleans up government, creates economic growth, and provides opportunities. It wants inclusive leadership that fosters a religiously tolerant, politically pluralistic society.
When the Egyptian military overthrew President Morsi, I did not expect a long debate on the question whether this power grab should be labeled a coup. It looks like a coup, it smells like a coup, it acts like a coup. So who would seriously want to challenge that observation?
he Muslim Brotherhood want power to be returned to former President Morsi and other Egyptians are demonstrating in support of the new temporary administration of Mansour. Where does Egypt go from here?
I have lost count of the number of essays I have read on the unfolding events in Egypt. In all of them, however, the modern political imagination -- in the East as well as in the West -- seems to be thoroughly, if not exclusively, informed by Western thought.
As coups go it was a fairly restrained one, but celebrating a populist/military overthrow of a democratically-elected leader is an unusual stance for Americans to take, for obvious reasons. Even if we do like the new guy. Which brings us to a few lessons Americans find very hard to accept.
American politicians and pundits know almost nothing about Egypt but were quick to endorse the military coup against Morsi. The reason is Islamophobia: the biased U.S. presumption that Morsi's fall is simply the result of Islamist authoritarianism. The truth is a little more complicated.
The United States is partially governed by a deep state: undemocratic, secret, aligned with intelligence agencies, spying on friend and foe, lawless in almost every respect. If this doesn't constitute a coup d'etat, it's hard to imagine what would.
The Egyptian army claims that it was forced to overthrow a legitimately elected president because it was merely giving effect to the will of the Egyptian people. But most of these people are forgetting basic facts that do not bode well for the future.
Embarrassingly, our law professor president refuses to label the arrest of Egypt's freely elected president by the military a coup because that would trigger an end to the $1.5 billion in U.S. aid as a matter of law.
We now have to ask ourselves: Are coups always bad? Because of our bad experience with coups, we tend to permanently associate their engineers with suppression, lack of freedoms, arbitrary arrests, flamboyant generals, and decades-long rule.
We have played a role in bringing democracy to many nations, but we tend not to boast so much about the many instances in which the United States has overthrown democracies abroad when the citizens of other countries elected leaders we didn't like.