With his plans to attend the Cairo Book Fair today regrettablydisrupted, President Mubarak will instead spend the day choosing a new cabinet to replace the one he dismissed on television last night. 

But his sudden offer of "dialogue" after 30 years in power is not going to cut any ice with the protesters on the streets whom he laughably accused in his TV broadcast of being "part of a bigger plot to shake the stability and destroy the legitimacy" of Egypt's political system. Nor will his promise that "We will not backtrack on reforms". The people want him to go and will not be satisfied until he does, but he is not listening yet.

Meanwhile, what is the United States up to? Despite Hillary Clinton's claim last year that "I really consider President and Mrs Mubarak to be friends of my family," and despite her call yesterday for Mubarak to "engage immediately" with the Egyptian people, there is no sign that the US is actually trying to keep the tyrant in power.

Yesterday's threat to cut American aid – "reviewing our assistance posture" as the White House spokesman put it – may even have been intended to help Mubarak on his way. Since the aid is mostly military, that will certainly give the Egyptian army cause to consider their position.

It seems to me, based on statements so far, that the US is focusing more on the post-Mubarak situation than on trying to save him. It is trying to engineer (and manipulate) a smooth transfer of power.

Unlike Tunisia, Egypt is of considerable strategic importance to the United States. While officially promoting freedom and democracy, the US wants an Egyptian government that can be relied upon to maintain the peace treaty with Israel, to keep the Suez canal open and cooperate internationally against terrorism. It is also probably seeking to allay fears in Israel which, despite being next door to Egypt, patently failed to see the trouble coming.

The subtext here, of course, is keeping the Muslim Brotherhood away from power, since as far as many Americans and Israelis are concerned, they are no different from al-Qaeda.

Personally, I think there's less to worry about on that score than many people imagine. As with the election of Hamas in Gaza, a lot of the Brotherhood's electoral support in Egypt can be considered as a protest vote against Mubarak and, once he is gone and the secular parties can operate more freely, that will start to wither.

The question now is how Mubarak – naturally stubborn and, at 82, extremely set in his ways – can be persuaded to leave. Once the Egyptian public have signalled their rejection of the new government (as they surely will), someone is going to have to tell him ... and my hunch is that it will be the military.

If so, that will bring the army to the fore, for the sake of "restoring order" if not actually running the country. Constitutionally speaking, (Article 84), the latter task should fall to the chair of the People's Assembly, with new presidential elections to be held within 60 days.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 29 Jan 2011.