The Mubarak regime still doesn't get it. Nothing illustrates its attitude more clearly than the decision yesterday to send F-16 warplanes roaring low over the thousands gathered in Tahrir Square, in the expectation that they would scurry away like frightened sheep.

Instead, the protesters stood their ground and chanted more loudly. Some of them arranged their bodies to spell out the words "Down with Mubarak" – big enough to be read from the air.

Meanwhile the regime's attempt to stop al-Jazeera's minute-by-minute TV coverage failed miserably and the "night-time" curfew (starting at 4pm and due to start at 3pm today) was widely ignored.

Today, in an effort to restore a semblance of normality, the police will be back on the streets – reportedly with instructions not to confront the protesters. They had been withdrawn over the weekend, apparently to facilitate looting by the regime's thugs and thus provide the excuse for a crackdown or get people pleading with Mubarak to save them. That move was thwarted by the public, who organised their own unofficial policing.

One of the most striking things about the uprising so far has been the resourcefulness of the protesters and their determination. At the same time though, on the other side, we have President Mubarak – equally implacable and determined to stay put.

The result, for now, is deadlock. But the deadlock cannot be broken by the army or the police shooting and teargassing people on the streets. At some point there will have to be movement on the political front – and that is not going to happen instantly. (It's worth repeating that the removal of Ben Ali in Tunisia took four weeks; the Mubarak regime is a tougher nut to crack and the uprising began less than a week ago.)

There seems to be widespread recognition, even by some of the regime stalwarts, that Egypt is moving towards "transition". The argument, basically, is whether it will be a transition supervised by Mubarak or not. The protesters' fear is that a transition under Mubarak will merely bring a change of faces without real change in the system they are protesting about. As far as the protesters are concerned, that is a deal-breaker.

Mohamed ElBaradei offered the regime a carrot yesterday by putting himself forward as "leader" of the opposition. Like him or not, this means a channel is now open for dialogue if and when the regime is ready to talk – though on the protesters' side that can't happen until Mubarak goes.

The US will also have to shift its stance. Obama, of course, is in a tricky position. He talks about the "aspirations of the Egyptian people" while at the same time having to contend with worried allies – especially Israel and the Arab autocrats – and American "opinion-formers" who expect Egypt to turn into an Islamic republic the moment Mubarak goes.

Over the weekend, Obama consulted the leaders of Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain about their aspirations for Egypt – which at present seem to be a higher American priority than the aspirations of the protesters themselves.

The time has come for the US and other countries to stop making supportive noises about the old tyrant (despite anything Israel may say to the contrary) and to stop buying into Mubarak's favourite line of defence: après moi, le déluge.

Yesterday, an open letter to Obama – signed by a large number of American academics involved with foreign policy and the Middle East – urged him to take a more robust stand:

If you seek, as you said Friday, "political, social, and economic reforms that meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people", your administration should publicly acknowledge those reforms will not be advanced by Mubarak or any of his adjutants ... 

In order for the United States to stand with the Egyptian people it must approach Egypt through a framework of shared values and hopes, not the prism of geostrategy.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 31 Jan 2011.