By Hani Sabra and Willis Sparks

Some of the outsiders inspired by last year's protests in Tahrir Square and the power of ordinary Egyptians to oust their long-time dictator expressed surprise when the country's transitional government began in December to target prominent NGOs as agents of foreign (read Western) governments. They shouldn't be. So far, the great lesson of Egypt's ongoing "transition" is that it remains awfully hard for old dogs to learn new tricks.

Egyptian authorities are now prosecuting more than 40 people for operating NGOs without licenses and for receiving "illegal foreign funding." Among the accused are 19 Americans, including the Washington-based International Republican Institute's Sam LaHood, son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

The case is but one example of how far Egypt's revolution has unraveled. A year ago, after Hosni Mubarak's exit, even those Egyptian activists least willing to trust the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) believed that the generals understood that the country could not continue as it had for six decades, that power had to be shared, and that democracy demands much more than the conduct of hastily arranged elections.

The activists, and the rest of the country, watched the generals leap aboard the "January 25 Revolution" bandwagon and salute the struggle's young martyrs. Protesters believed they had an unspoken understanding with SCAF that the military would retain some political influence -- and some of the commercial assets they had amassed over the years -- in exchange for a willingness to pass political power to a pluralist civilian government following a period of transition, to reform state institutions, and to respect the rights of citizens to organize.

In the months that followed, minds changed and understandings evaporated. When the military killed more than two dozen Egyptian Christian activists in October, the illusion was publicly shattered. Clashes between activists and security forces in November and December upped the stakes. As 2011 drew to a close, it became clear that SCAF generals, who first rose to prominence via the intensity of their loyalty to Hosni Mubarak, shared their former leader's authoritarian worldview.

Over the course of 2011, SCAF froze out the protest leaders and struck a separate deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, one that gives various Islamist parties a dominant position in crafting Egypt's domestic policy while leaving the army in charge of foreign policy and key segments of Egypt's economy. Islamist parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, won about two-thirds of seats in recent parliamentary elections. The protesters, now marginalized, are becoming more confrontational.

The crackdown on NGOs reveals the understandings that are implicit in the Muslim Brotherhood-SCAF understanding. Credible allegations have emerged that Islamist groups have received foreign funding too, from Gulf Arab countries, but SCAF has taken virtually no action against them. It's the groups that lobby for human rights -- and who have criticized SCAF -- that have been targeted.

If these NGOs have indeed broken laws, they are Mubarak-era laws. SCAF has changed the rules on elections and the formation of political parties, but their unwillingness to tolerate civil society shows the limits of their willingness to change.

The generals' inflexibility bodes ill for Egypt's future. The Brotherhood, eager to finally enjoy a share of formal power, has become the army's enthusiastic partner. But neither group appears to recognize that elections alone will not guarantee stability. Their broader public popularity and the power of state television ensure that, especially outside of Egypt's largest cities, the military and Muslim Brotherhood represent the "silent majority."

But the vocal minority will keep pushing back, and the potential for violence is on the rise.

Hani Sabra is an analyst in Eurasia Group's Middle East practice. Willis Sparks is an analyst in the firm's Global Macro practice.

By Cliff Kupchan

On Sept. 16 and again on Sept. 19, the Palestinian Authority's President Mahmoud Abbas stated that his government would apply to the U.N. Security Council for full membership at the UN this week, a move which will further stoke already significant strains. The United States will almost certainly veto the application, however, amplifying ill-will among all interested parties.

Security Council approval requires at least nine votes and no vetoes; some international diplomats believe there is a chance that the Palestinian Authority (PA) will fail to secure the nine "yes" votes, obviating a U.S. veto. In any case, a membership application to the Security Council takes time, ranging from weeks to months. This would provide an interlude for other diplomatic actions, including a shift of focus to the U.N. General Assembly and efforts to return to the peace process, though that outcome is not likely.

Despite Abbas' statements, there is still a small chance that the Palestinians will go straight to the General Assembly and avoid the provocative Security Council option. Significant debate is ongoing within the PA, with Abbas and his senior advisor Nabeel Shaath favoring the Security Council route. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad favors a less inflammatory path. At the General Assembly, the PA would apply for non-member state status. Most observers believe the PA would need a two-thirds majority to attain that status, which appears to be within easy reach. The weight of that majority would be enhanced by affirmative votes from France and, probably, Britain. Again, the United States would vote against the proposal.

The Palestinians are taking the U.N. path because the PA has given up on the peace process in its current form. A high-level Palestinian recently visited Washington, delivering the message that leverage between Israel and Palestine had to be equalized and that U.N. membership or de facto recognition (non-member state status) was the only peaceful option. The PA leadership appears genuinely committed to a two-state solution, and does not believe its gambit will lead the Israelis to abandon further negotiations.

The biggest, and most likely, risk is of Palestinian unrest and violence directed against Israel, though casualties will likely be limited. The mood among the population in the West Bank is a mix of apathy and anticipation over the U.N. vote. PA officials have stated that they will prevent any violent reaction, though celebratory marches have already been planned. The population is likely to be emboldened, angry at the United States, and frustrated by lack of actual change on the ground following the vote, a factor that will grow stronger over time.

The combustible mix will probably lead to actions, peaceful or otherwise, against Israeli soldiers or settlers. In any case, a Palestinian mobilization will probably push Israel into a defensive crouch that could lead to preemptive actions. Israeli forces would probably curb movement by Palestinians and enter refugee camps and cities, settlers may commit hostile acts, and the government could withhold tax remittances. Palestinian security forces will likely seek to curb unrest, but at the risk of the PA's legitimacy. Fear of uncontrolled escalation on both sides will probably limit violence, but the West Bank could well remain unstable for a protracted period.

Any unrest would likely come in waves. Abbas is scheduled to address the United Nations and submit the Security Council application on Sept. 23, shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech; unrest could well occur on Friday. After that, disorder is most likely following Security Council or General Assembly action.

Cliff Kupchan is a director in Eurasia Group’s Middle East Practice

By Philippe de Pontet and Willis Sparks

Why would President Omar al-Bashir allow the southern third of Sudan to secede, taking 80 percent of the country's oil with it? Maybe he won't. It's far from a done deal. But for the moment, it appears his government might be willing to do just that.

South Sudan is hoping to hold a referendum on January 9 that will almost certainly lead to its independence from the government based in Khartoum. After years of negotiations, North and South remain far apart on issues that must be resolved if a credible vote is to take place, and if an independent South Sudan is to be truly viable. But incentives and pressure from outsiders may help bring this off.

Last week, the State Department formally offered the North some attractive conditions-based carrots. If Khartoum accepts the results of the referendum, Washington will lift restrictions on non-oil trade and investment. And upon fulfillment of the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the civil war in January 2005 and "resolution" of the Darfur conflict, the US will give al-Bashir's government much of what it says it wants: sanctions removal, normalization of relations, and support for a multilateral plan to reduce Khartoum's astronomical $38 billion debt.

In return, the South will have to share some of its oil wealth with the North, moving gradually over the course of several years from the current 50/50 split to a smaller share for the North that's large enough for Khartoum to accept. The two sides will also have to demarcate the border and resolve the status of the oil-rich province of Abyei -- not easy tasks. On Friday, a U.N. summit on the issue will bring together representatives of North and South with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, President Barack Obama, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

There are solid grounds for optimism beyond the persuasive powers of the diplomats involved. First, China, one of the few international players with real influence in Khartoum, wants a North-South agreement that averts any risk of a return to civil war, since most of the 480,000 barrels of crude oil that Sudan exports each day are bound for China. That's more than 5 percent of China's imported oil. A North-South conflict in Sudan would cost Khartoum and Beijing dearly.

Second, Washington will lean heavily on the South to compromise on the sharing of oil revenue and the border demarcation process. The South depends on support from the United States and the United Nations for the referendum and its independence. With billions of U.S. aid dollars spent, and billions more to come, it's high time that the United States put real pressure on the South to make necessary compromises, starting with oil revenue-sharing.

Finally, the North is not entirely vulnerable to southern control of oil. The South may hold 80 percent of the reserves, but the existing pipelines run north. The two sides must get along if either is to profit from the oil.

Last week, Hillary Clinton told a Council on Foreign Relations audience that Sudan is "a ticking time bomb of enormous consequence," reminding everyone involved how much work remains to be done-and how easily negotiations could fly off the rails. The United Nations will offer to play a leading role (with the African Union) in preparing the referendum. That's critical since preparation time for such an ambitious vote is running short, in a region almost entirely devoid of infrastructure. Khartoum's response to this proposal will give some indication of its willingness to make compromises of its own, as it has grudgingly done on several occasions since the 2005 peace agreement.

The Obama administration has adopted an ambitious (and risky) strategy. Much of what it has promised Khartoum will depend on "resolution" of the conflict in Darfur, an issue not directly related to the North-South conflict. Khartoum will want clarity on what the word resolution actually means, balking at allowing the South to secede without knowing just how high a bar it must clear to claim the incentives Washington has promised. The United States, European Union, United Nations, and Khartoum's friends in China and Egypt will have to remain actively involved if talks are to remain on track.

In the end, despite hot heads and tough talk on both sides, North and South will probably move toward compromise on oil profits, the border, and Abyei during the six-month transition period between the referendum and the official birth of a new nation (whose name has yet to be determined). A return to civil war would serve neither government. An end to conflict and a stable environment for oil production would profit the two governments' most powerful foreign friends.

If things go wrong, either side could get aggressive. A breakdown in talks before the referendum could push the South to simply declare independence unilaterally -- not an auspicious start to nationhood in one of the world's toughest regions. Alternatively, the North could decide to seize control of the South's largest oil fields. It could also destabilize border regions -- though Khartoum knows well that any attempt to stoke a broader conflict across the South would invite a military response that could trigger a return to war that virtually no one wants.

But for the moment, there are solid grounds for optimism that one Sudan can peacefully become two. And that would be an accomplishment worth celebrating.

Philippe de Pontet is Director of Eurasia Group's Africa practice. Willis Sparks is an analyst in the firm's Global Macro practice.

For the sixth time in less than four years, the U.N. Security Council has voted to impose new sanctions on Iran in connection with its nuclear program. Nothing new there. U.S. officials wanted stronger measures, but the Chinese in particular pushed back hard. Nothing new there either. The sanctions, which are still significantly tougher than earlier models and include tightened restrictions on arms sales, new headaches for Iranian shipping, and an assault on the finances of the Revolutionary Guard and about 40 Iranian companies, will not persuade Iran's government to renounce its nuclear ambitions. Nor is there anything new there.

The real news is that Turkey and Brazil voted no. That's a diplomatic coup for Tehran, which in five previous UNSC votes had won virtually no support. Qatar voted no on the first round of sanctions in July 2006. Indonesia abstained on the fourth round in March 2008. Support from regional heavyweights like Turkey and Brazil (and an abstention from Lebanon) give Iran something tangible to build on as its embattled government works to ease its isolation and to persuade other governments to resist U.S. and European calls for further sanctions outside the U.N. process.

President Ahmadinejad's recent dance card-a Russia/Turkey summit on security just before the sanctions vote and a trip to Beijing just after-illustrates the value of that strategy.

But there's a larger point here about the current state of international politics. It's getting harder for Washington to exercise international leadership. With 10 percent unemployment, an ambitious legislative agenda, an oil spill, and mid-term elections to worry about, President Obama has limited time and energy to invest in grand strategy on foreign policy. Managing geopolitical risk has also become much more complicated in a world that has shifted from a G7 model of international leadership to a G20 model that brings countries like Brazil and Turkey to the international bargaining table. And there is no emerging power willing and able to fill the gap left by new limits on American power and resources, because European powers, China, Russia and others who might lead on key transnational issues are likewise occupied with complex challenges at home.

In other words, no one is really steering this ship, and we can't expect it to sail smoothly through troubled waters.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?