Far fewer protesters were in the streets of Egypt on Jan. 26 than on the day before. That said, Egypt and the rest of the world are trying to make sense of what has been happening to the country in light of the regime change in Tunisia. The United States and the European Union called for Cairo to handle the unrest through reforms, while the region's other major Arab power, Saudi Arabia, expressed concern over the uncertainty surrounding the situation in Egypt. What happens in Egypt is far more significant than what occurred in Tunisia. Regime change in Egypt, the largest Arab state in the Middle East, would have regional and international implications. An Egypt that is no longer pro-Western, or that is generally unstable, would undermine U.S. strategy for the Middle East and Israel's security. But protests alone will not bring down the current government, just as protests alone did not bring down the regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali regime in Tunisia. In most cases, protests create a situation in which the forces that have been the mainstay of a regime — usually the military — are able to oust the very people they had been supporting. In some cases, these forces are the ones encouraging the unrest; in others, they take advantage of agitation occurring on its own. Though most observers have said the army moved in when the Ben Ali regime could no longer control the streets, one cannot rule out the possibility that there were differences between Ben Ali and the military. However, in Egypt, STRATFOR has pointed out that an intra-elite struggle has been taking place since long before the Tunisia protests. Given Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's advanced age and ailing condition, the Egyptian regime has been working on a succession plan, but there are no clear successors. Several possible successors have been mentioned: the president's son Gamal Mubarak, intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, and more recently the former air force chief and minister of civil aviation, Ahmed Shafiq. Personalities aside, the key issue is that those who have helped Mubarak remain at the helm for nearly 30 years are now feuding over how best to ensure stability in a post-Mubarak Egypt. The military is playing a key role in this struggle. The men in uniform do not appear to be confident that the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which has ruled effectively under Mubarak, would be able to do so when Mubarak is gone. The army appears to trying to stage a comeback after many decades of being subservient to civilians (albeit former military men themselves). Gamal Abdul Nasser, a colonel in the Egyptian army, founded the current Egyptian regime in a 1952 coup. He led a group of officers called the Free Officers Movement to oust the king and establish a socialist republic. Within a decade, Nasser founded the Arab Socialist Union (ASU), the successor to the Free Officers Movement. Nasser's successor, Muhammad Anwar El Sadat (another military officer and Nasser's vice president), in 1978 abolished the ASU because the party was splintering and founded the NDP, which his successor, Mubarak (himself a former air force general) has presided over successfully. The army remained loyal to the president all the while, because Egypt's presidents were able leaders and ran the ruling parties and the country effectively. Now that Mubarak's rule is coming to an end, the generals feel the need for the military to reassert itself regarding the issue of Mubarak's successor and policy matters in general. This was the case well before the unrest in Tunisia. After Tunisia, however, it is reasonable to assume that the army has even less confidence in the ability of a post-Mubarak NDP to maintain control. The protests, therefore, give the military an opportunity to force out the NDP and shape a new system in which the military would have the upper hand. That Egyptian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Sami Annan is leading an army delegation on a trip to Washington speaks volumes about the pivotal role Egypt's military will have in a post-Mubarak Egypt. The Jan. 26 rumor that Mubarak's son and many key members of the NDP fled the country is an interesting development. The rumor originated with a news website hosted in the United States by Domains by Proxy, a provider that conceals the location and identity of websites' registrants. Whether the rumor is true or not, its mere circulation is important. Even more interesting is that an unnamed U.S. Embassy official in Cairo told CBS News that there was no reason to believe the reports were true, when the standard response would be that the U.S. government does not maintain an up-to-the-minute itinerary for the Egyptian president's son. Also on Jan. 26, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on the Egyptian government to enact political, economic and social reforms. The unrest in Egypt is in a nascent stage, and the incumbent government is not under any immediate threat of being forced to capitulate to popular uprisings. Together, the rumor about the president's son and Clinton's statement raise questions about what is really happening behind the scenes both in Cairo and in Washington. Meanwhile, several groups can take advantage of the current discord in Egypt. Among them is the moderate Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest opposition force. There are also secular, liberal and leftist parties, nonviolent radical Islamist groups, and jihadist entities seeking to exploit the pending transition in the state as well as the civil society unrest. The leadership transition and the protests will help to shape Egypt's future to varying degrees, but the key is what is happening within the army and between the military and the NDP.