The Middle East is on the tide of revolution, and both the protagonist and antagonist forces are keen to take to flood to reach new political shores, in Shakespearean terms. The political upheaval that erupted in Tunisia last month, and culminated in the achievement of its initial objective, registered its ripple effects in other Muslim Arab states. After weeks of popular protests, the Jordanian monarch dissolved the cabinet and replaced the premier. In Yemen, in the face of public demonstrations for his resignation, the President rescinded his determination to remain in office for life. Similarly, Algeria experienced street riots. And there is a likely danger that the regional upheaval may spread to Syria headed by a President belonging to a minority sect where the Baath party has been in power for almost half a century. Whether the tide of revolution will reach the political shores of Pakistan, is not a matter of remote possibility, for the revolutionary situation that is, the political situation containing factors that generate revolutionary activity does exist in the nation-state. However, Egypt witnessed the largest upsurge of popular protests, demanding the immediate resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, who has been in the seat of authority in the land of Pharaohs for the past 30 years; the hub of protests continues to be Tahrir Square in Cairo. The President publicly announced his intention to relinquish his office coming September, and not to seek re-election. Revolution is a term that designates fundamental change. The distinction from other terms such as mutiny, revolt, coup, and rebellion is to be made. For this reason, revolution, at times violent, is defined by and large as a successful struggle to transfer the political rule in a country from a political group or economic class to another. A radical perversion in social institutional practices and fundamental principles, and values and beliefs of a society furnishes the basis or reason for a revolutionary transformation. In the course of historical process, revolutions and wars are history-making events. A study of major revolutions in the world e.g., English (1688), American (1776), French (1789) and Russian (1917) demonstrates their capacity. Accomplishment of political freedom, realisation of human potential, creation of a new humanitarian order reflecting the needs and welfare of the people, and getting rid of oppression and tyranny in a society are indicative of the inherent capacity of revolution. In the western capitals, particularly in Washington, intense diplomatic activity was noticed with the pouring forth of popular discontent in Cairo. On Friday, February 04, with the congregational prayer arrangement in Tahrir Square attracting an extraordinary multitude of attendants and protestors, the day was described as the day of fury, and the occasion for Mubaraks abdication and departure. US President Barack Obama declared that the Egyptian President should definitely relinquish his office. And the same message was conveyed by British Premier David Cameron, invoking the compromise of future credibility of the Egyptian President in the event of delay in establishing an interim government. From these capitals, statements were issued that a military takeover would avoid the future loss of human life so far incurred by the protestors. A host of other western capitals issued affirming statements in favour of the stance adopted by the US administration. However, the designated day for the enforced abdication of Mubarak passed without any change, despite the manipulations by Washington. During the next day, the US retracted its previous stance, and declared the new policy of supporting the stay of Mubarak as president during the interim period until the holding of elections due in September. The issue, therefore, remains as to what lay at the centre of western strategy to strive for the instantaneous abdication of authority by Mubarak. The de facto spokesman for the protestors, Mohamed El-Baradei, former head of the IAEA, also issued a deadline of February 04 for President Mubarak to abdicate his office. This inquiry should be viewed in the perspective of US policy related to Egypt under Mubarak during the preceding 30 years. The economic aid on a regular annual basis that was extended to Cairo by Washington, and the political coordination in the region between the two countries, furnish a reliable reference point. The suppression of political dissent has been a consistent feature of the Mubarak regime and the US had throughout chosen to condone it in silence. On the contrary, witnessing that the Arab world was beginning to be on fire, as reported by Al-Jazeera communications network, the US undertook furtive moves to bring the issue of change of regime in Cairo to an abrupt culmination. This US posture was in contradiction with Mubaraks announcement during a national address to step down at the end of his present tenure coming September. There are three underlying reasons for the short-lasting US position concerning the regime change in Cairo: Realisation that the demonstrations of popular dissent in Egypt are a part of the severe reverberations of the uprising in Tunis that drove out the western-backed dictator Zein El-Abidein Ben Ali. Therefore, the logical progression of the revolutionary social movement into a genuine democratic setup in Egypt would compromise the US national interests in the region. For the US and allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy in other countries is acceptable only so far as it conforms to Americas strategic and economic objectives. In case the transition of political rule happens to adopt a relatively regulated course under the present political regime in Cairo, thereby managing a fair election process, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen) is likely to emerge as the dominant political entity in Egypt. Such an outcome is deemed to excessively galvanise political Islam in the Middle East, with tangible consequences to the US and its allies, inclusive of Israel. The rigour of Islamic nationalism in the region will become a force for political coherence. Given the vacuum of an outstanding Arab political figure presently, that could provide counterbalance through Arab (secular) nationalism in Nasser-style, adverse ramifications of the Islamic nationalism to the US interests in the region would be substantive. It is noteworthy, the US policy in the region traditionally has been to promote secular nationalism such as is confined to the nation-states, and the same policy is also extended to the Islamic world at large. For the preceding main reasons, the US actively endeavoured, albeit unsuccessfully so far, to facilitate the installation of an interim government in Cairo preferably under a military dispensation. In this perspective, the valuable analytical undertaking yet remains to identify the desirable course of political events in Cairo from the standpoint of the Middle East. Because Egypt has historically served as the political and cultural centre for the Middle East, whereas the prevailing circumstances in the vital region are reminiscent of 1848 revolutions - a series of uprisings during the year against established authorities in several European states. The writer is the chairman of the Pakistan Ideological Forum. Email: suhrabaslam@hotmail.com