An emerging consensus across the political spectrum argues that President Barack Obama should support the protesters' demand that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resign immediately. This view was prominently expressed in an open letter to Obama by dozens of well-known scholars of Middle East politics, who advised him to essentially abandon 30 years of strong support for the Mubarak regime by throwing in America's lot with the protest movement. 

Such a step would not clearly serve American interests and has too many potential negative repercussions. Instead, the U.S. should quietly but forcefully encourage the Mubarak regime to follow through with its commitments to reform, while making clear that the U.S. will continue to support it in the run-up to next September's presidential election. 

First, there are too many unknowns about where the Egyptian people as a whole stand to justify reversing 30 years of policy. Without question, the protests have shown that most Egyptians want reform, although it remains vaguely defined, and some of the most vocal protesters want Mubarak to resign immediately. Beyond that, however, the situation is unclear. If at the high point of the protests 1 million people filled Cairo's Tahrir Square, on most days the turnout was significantly less. Many of those who stayed at home are probably as opposed to Mubarak as the protesters, but it's also clear that a significant number of Egyptians continue to support him. There simply is not enough evidence to suggest that the protesters' demand that Mubarak leave office immediately represents a majority opinion. 

Second, U.S. policymakers should not be swayed by heat-of-the-moment characterizations that paint the entire Mubarak regime with a broad brush as a corrupt dictatorship. Some senior leaders of the ruling National Democratic Party have certainly used their positions to enrich themselves, and members of the security forces have committed human rights abuses. However, the Egyptian regime does not consist of just the Mubarak family and a few dozen of his cronies, but rather of hundreds of thousands of civil servants, many of whom are competent and genuinely concerned with solving Egypt's problems. One cannot neatly call for Mubarak's sudden removal without risking a wider collapse of Egypt's governing structure, something that is definitely not in American interests.

Third, while many Egyptians would welcome support for the cause of democracy, most do not want America to take a position on who should or should not be their president. Egyptians are known for a chauvinistic tendency to rally around the flag whenever they perceive that foreigners, especially the U.S. government, are telling them what to do. In that light, a continued U.S. stance against Mubarak or his regime, now or during the run-up to the presidential election in September, will only allow the regime to portray the reformists as pursing a foreign agenda, and may give the NDP's millions of supporters incentive to sabotage the democratic process.

Finally, Washington cannot separate its policy on Egypt from its relationships with other regional allies. Friends throughout the region need to know that America will stand by them when the going gets tough, otherwise the value of that friendship decreases. Key U.S. allies throughout the region have already expressed this concern. 

The good news, however, is that Washington does not need to adopt an especially active policy in order to support the reformist cause. By the force of their own actions, the Egyptian protesters have achieved a major victory for the cause of government accountability and created an expectation for reform that will be impossible to reverse. Egypt has always had the institutions of a modern democratic republic, such as a constitution, a parliament and elections. The problem has always been in their application. Until now, the opposition had never been angry or strong enough to force a culture of government accountability. 

As the two weeks of protests throughout Egypt demonstrate, that has now changed, and in response, Mubarak has pledged serious and unprecedented reforms. His son, Gamal, appears to have been forced out of politics and will not run for the presidency in September, a longstanding grievance of the opposition. Other key NDP officials suspected by the public of abusing their office have been removed from power, with their assets frozen and they themselves forbidden to leave the country. An interview on Egyptian state television with newly appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman, on Feb. 3 was a strong indicator that Egypt is entering a new era. Suleiman frankly admitted that the government had not been responsive enough to the demands of the people, accepted the validity of most of the protesters' demands, and seemed to indicate the government is serious about fostering a new era of openness and accountability. 

It is now up to Egyptians to hold their government accountable for the reforms it has pledged, as well as with others not yet formulated, and the U.S. should strongly encourage Mubarak to follow through on them. But it is not in America's interests to try and take an active role in that process. The situation in Egypt and the region is too tense for hasty measures, and there is no guarantee that a suddenly democratic Egypt won't become unstable if its leader of 30 years is forced from office too soon, especially if that happens because of pressure from Washington. 

**Nathan Field has a master's degree in International Security from Georgetown University. He spent the 2007 academic year in Egypt as a David Boren National Security Education Program Graduate Fellow, and subsequently worked as a journalist in Cairo in 2008-2009.