Print edition: 
A few items came across the desk last week that underscore the challenge America faces in making policy toward the Islamist parties that are emerging as the early beneficiaries of the uprisings across the Arab world.
The first was a news article about the Jan. 11 meeting in Cairo between Bill Burns, a deputy secretary of state, and Muhammad Morsi, the chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, during which Morsi said his party “believes in the importance of U.S.-Egyptian relations,” but said they “must be balanced.”
Two days later came a report from the Middle East Media Research Institute, which tracks the Arab media, about recent writings on the Muslim Brotherhood website. It said the site “contains articles with anti-Semitic motifs, including Holocaust denial and descriptions of the ‘Jewish character’ as covetous, exploitative and a source of evil in human society.”
Then came the news that Naguib Sawiris – an Egyptian telecommunications mogul and Coptic Christian who is the founder of one of Egypt’s new secular, liberal parties – was being charged with “contempt of religion” for re-tweeting images that show Mickey Mouse with a full beard and wearing a traditional Islamic robe and Minnie Mouse wearing a full-face veil with just slits for her eyes.
There are two ways to read these news reports. One is that the Brotherhood and other Islamists are cleverly hoodwinking the naive foreigners, feeding them the lines they want to hear. The other is that the Islamists never expected to be dominating Egypt’s new parliament – with more responsibility than other parties for completing the country’s democratic transition, constitution-writing and election of a new president – and they are trying to figure out how to reconcile some of their ideology with all of their new responsibilities.
My view is that both can be – and are – true at the same time.
U.S. policy needs to be based on the assumption that, like all parties, Islamist parties contain moderates, centrists and hard-liners – and, in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, lots of small-business owners. Which wing will dominate as they assume the responsibilities of governing is still an open question.
America needs to offer the Islamists firm, quiet and patient engagement that says: “We believe in free and fair elections, human rights, women’s rights, minority rights, free markets, civilian control of the military, religious tolerance and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and we will offer assistance to anyone who respects those principles.”
Egypt is not destined to be Iran, but the Muslim Brotherhood is not destined to be the Muslim version of Christian Democrats either. There is an evolution under way, and our best chance of having an effect is to make sure we deal in a principled way with the Islamists and with the Egyptian army. We need the Egyptian army to play the constructive role that the Turkish army once played – as midwife and protector of a gradual democratic transition – and not become the Pakistani army, which evolved into a predatory institution dedicated to an aggressive foreign policy to justify its huge budget.
In short, the days of dealing with Egypt with one phone call to one man just one time are over. This is going to require really, really, really sophisticated diplomacy with multiple players – seven days a week.
