As the sponsor state of Egypt, the United States will not tolerate such a crackdown. Supporting an autocratic regime for the sake of regional stability is one thing, but continuing to sponsor that regime while it executes a brutal repression is completely unacceptable and would, without a doubt, force the U.S. to completely withdraw support. Do you really think the Egyptian military would sacrifice its nice $1.3 billion yearly check from Uncle Sam just to keep Mubarak in power? I can't profess to know the answer, but I find it hard to believe the military would comply with such orders.

Iran and China had no reason to care about human rights when they exercised force against demonstrators. Their militaries weren't propped up by a state with a global moral agenda.

Mubarak is toast because he is 83 years old. Who would want to go out on a limb for somebody that close to permanent retirement?

Also, comparing Egypt 2011 to Iran 2009 misses an important point. As far as I can tell, there is no segment of the population of Egypt that is willing to take to the streets and crack heads like Ahmadinejad had and has.

I guess the China 1989 analogy makes a little more sense, but the PLA is an organ of the CCP, so of course it would defend the party. The same is not true in Egypt, as far as I know.

"All available pressure -- including an aid cutoff -- should be put on that institution to not intervene and not attack civilians. "

Compare that to what Hillary said - that Egypt Aid is not on the table. Why would she say that?

As 'LONESTAR28' has said, it will be disastrous for Obama Admin to allow any kind of Tienanmen situation there. Given that, one is at loss to understand why would Obama not say this -

"These are all internal matters of Egypt is true and we all hope for a smother transition to full Democratic System. As a long time ally and significant contributor to Middle East Peace, America would like to help whatever is needed for Egyptian Society to make a peaceful transition. But America regards that Egyptian People have universal rights to assemble and undertake peaceful political demonstrations. While Egyptian people are doing that, it is completely unacceptable to America and American People that any State Force engages in violent means to suppress Egyptian protesters."

Question is - what Obama Admin cannot afford (another Tienanmen); why does it not say it so explicitly and emphatically? It does not have to be taking sides with protesters or Mubarak, but just lay down where we draw the line.

The thing is that itself is going to be such a big boast to political forces of change in Egypt.

Mubarak stays or not; Obama needs to make it very, very clear that any usage of Military to perpetuate Tienanmen is completely unacceptable. Say that from the Podium President, that is what is needed. Spell consequences of that. You do not say 'aid will continue unconditionally'.

Fearing about how othe autocratic allies would make GWOT difficult; that is just cowardice and immense weakness. Obama should not be 'chiken' for that challenge if other autocratic rulers in Middle East start moving from cozy relations with America. To build our security on such 'flimsy' foundation is in the end disservice to American People.

You use the figure $3 billion a year, which I've seen elsewhere as well. But I've also seen a lower figure. State Department says:
"U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided over $28 billion in economic and development assistance to Egypt since 1975." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm (I don't know why they don't give a yearly figure for USAID.).

This unofficial summary says $1.550 billion for 2010 in total. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

But he overlooks two fundamental differences. First, I would say those are mostly apples to oranges comparisons. Kashmir is a far more complicated issue as the U.S. tries to balance relations between two critical allies. Saudi Arabia is largely invisible; its internal affairs are kept fairly quiet. I'm pretty saavy on international affairs and follow lots of foreign media, but I personally have never seen tanks open fire on large crowds of demonstrators. Even the the Grand Mosque seige in 1979 is almost completely unknown outside students and close observers of the region. I can give you Saddam, but I think the United States has paid a heavy price for that policy and it certainly remains an embarrassment in American foreign policy history. And while abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan hurt U.S. credibility throughout the Muslim world, this is all collateral damage in warzones. Depending on your point of view, there is a degree of justification to this argument. Wars aren't excuses for such abuses, but they provide cover.

Secondly, and I would say probably most importantly. This is 2011. Barack Obama is president, and has proclaimed a new era of American foreign policy.... in Cairo, no less. While his foreign agenda has largely continued the policies of President Bush, he has committed to an observance of universal human rights. Media exposure of these events are unprecedented. I am rather uninformed on Tiananmen Square so I can't really speak to the media coverage there. But in 1989 there was no Twitter, no Facebook, no Google and no web browsing at all. Iran did not have the press freedom that Egypt does (though that has obviously deteriorated to an extent). A brutal crackdown will draw international condemnation, UN pressure, and end all domestic support for Mubarak. It will undoubtedly force the United States to cut off all aid and demand the end of the regime.

As I was reading what you said about "Gamel Mubarak is not going to succeed his father," I could not help thinking that this might be a compromise outcome. An awkward one (and maybe along the Leverett's line of argument lol), but if packaged appropriately, it might find some support - at least behind the curtains outside Egypt.

The thing about change is you never know exactly where it ends up. Revolutions are the same. This urgency for democratic goverment is spreading. People do have the right to pick their leaders. The problem is picking the right leaders. We in this country have made so bad choices too. We live with them and then change them. The thing is herd mentality. When the herd moves, sometimes it moves into bigger problems than it was running from. The hope is that they won't.