It can't be overstated how important Egypt's role has been in regards to holding the region back from outright war over the past 30 years. With the strong liklihood of internal strife and a massive shake-up in Egypt somebody in the region needs to step into that role.
Turkey, it seems, is very well-suited, being strong, big, economically developed and secular in nature.
In regards to Turkey departing NATO, I think there is a strong movement against NATO in Europe and if one big player takes the step you may well see others rushing to join them in order to be the leader of a new alliance rather than be America's lapdog. This image of course immediately calls to mind Sarkozy, who could do a large bit in repairing France's credibility with Turkey by forming a post-NATO military alliance with them (thus pushing the EU question back a few more years whilst accelerating integration).
Sooner or later Russia is going to - have to? - be institutionally brought into Europe. How much, through what, and with what is beyond my pay grade. At which point the entire point of NATO gets problematical.
With Mubarek sure to die/become incapacitated within the next 2-5 years and no clear succession in Egypt, nevermind all of their internal problems, Egypt won't be the "old Egypt" anymore either.
Meh. None of the people likely to succeed Mubarak would change much.
It can't be overstated how important Egypt's role has been in regards to holding the region back from outright war over the past 30 years.
Uh, yes it can. You just did. Egypt would like everyone to believe that (thus justifying its continued receipt of some $2 billion per year in US bribes military and civilian aid), but it's just not true. Jordan has had a greater role in "regional stability" than Egypt, even before it signed its own peace deal with Israel. The only war Egypt has prevented is one involving Egypt. (Which Egypt would have lost, but don't tell them that, they think they won the last one.)
I will note as well that there was an outright war just four years ago, in Lebanon. I was there. Many Lebanese believe that Syria's chemical weapons were the main deterrent to the spread of that conflict. It certainly wasn't Egypt.
With the strong liklihood of internal strife and a massive shake-up in Egypt somebody in the region needs to step into that role.
There is no "strong likelihood of internal strife," and probably little chance of a "massive shake-up."
A political protest that draws 200 people in Cairo, a city of 20 million, is considered a smashing success. (If you get the Brotherhood involved, which only happens when specific issues are at stake, you might get 2000, big freaking deal.) The only thing that moves any significant number of people to action is personal economic interest, which is why you see yet another wave of labor actions going on now -- but even those are fairly limited in scope. If anything, most Egyptians strive to avoid contact with the state, never mind trying to change it.
Egypt jealously guards its alleged "regional leadership" role, and any successor to Mubarak would do the same, but honestly that role has long since eroded. "Regional leadership" (such as it is) has shifted to the Gulf. Turkey has had a growing role, but there will be no "next Egypt" because there was never really an "old Egypt" in the sense of "holding the region back from outright war." It's propaganda.
