It is fair, I think, to call Bret Stephens a neo-conservative. He has an intense belief in liberal democratic values, particularly when regressive tax cuts and deregulation are sprinkled in, and he thinks America has a moral obligation to evangelize for them. Limited government and individual rights, in his view, can and will work everywhere.
That is, everywhere except Egypt. Stephens thinks the only choices on the menu in Egypt are a variety of kinds of dictatorships, of which the military kind are the best. Stephens has some qualms about the Sisi government, however. He doesn’t believe Sisi has the finesse to keep the genie in the bottle forever, and he suspects the dictator who will inevitably follow him will be much worse. On that point, he is probably right, given that Sisi has done everything in his power to delegitimize liberal democracy as an alternative.
What is the basis for the Egyptian exception? Stephens doesn’t bother to explain, but the answer is obvious; his overriding interest is in the security of Israel, and military dictatorships in Egypt have historically helped the Israelis in two ways. First, they have no qualms about using force to keep the lid on with regard to pro-Palestinian sentiments; and second, they give Israel a stronger moral claim to America’s friendship. When American and Israeli interests diverge, the Israelis can always play the liberal democratic solidarity card against the Arab dictatorships they actually support, and it generally works.
Does this sound almost absurdly hypocritical to you? Of course it does. That’s why the Israelis rely on American surrogates like Stephens to provide the open defense for Arab autocrats, rather than doing it themselves; they can’t afford to be seen with dirty hands.