The concept of “speaking truth to power” – a phrase made popular by a 1955 Quaker pamphlet – only really applies when great power is arrayed against you, and all you have on your side is truth and right. Welcome to Egypt.
When Hosni Mubarak, then the country’s president, was under siege during the original 18-day protest in 2011, the population at large was either supportive or lukewarm about the protests and the revolution. Eventually the majority came to agree with the demand that he leave office.
Under Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi, who succeeded Mr Mubarak, most Egyptians were supportive of the army; even after a year, only a slight majority opposed military involvement in politics.
After that, Mohammed Morsi’s popular support evaporated most quickly, because his actions and policies made it easy for the masses to reject his rule.
But with each of these changes in government came, and comes, a corresponding crisis.
Within a few weeks of Mr Mubarak’s departure, the pro-January 25 forces were split. Most of them wanted to engage in thorough reform, and did not view the military’s road-map as the first step in achieving that.
Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood decided to proceed alone and to engage with the military. Had the MB stayed with the revolutionary camp, things might have turned out very differently.
[Stabilization is] difficult to do in Iraq and especially Syria because no one wants the U.S. to put lots of forces on the ground to be doing that and locals will struggle to do it well.
[Trump has] given Iran the moral high ground and that is an exceptionally difficult thing to do given the history and reality of Iran's misdeeds at home and in the region. It's just malpractice on the part of an American president.
The way the Trump administration is moving forward [with its Iran policy] is just so hostile to all aspects of Iran that it’s unlikely to produce any traction with the Iranian people or to encourage divisions within the system.