Thank you, Padraig, all I was trying to say is this: the prestige and importance -- based on all the reasons you describe -- are relics. It should not have persisted beyond 1968 and in reality didn't. Symbolically, though, is another matter. That's the intangible.
I think for those reasons it is harder to read, and slightly more mysterious, at least for me, anyway: reasons to do with self-image, pride, vanity, a stark (even for the region) colonial/post-colonial contrast, the sense that civilisations lived and died here even in the recent past, etc. The other countries have this to a certain extent, especially Iraq and Syria, but I think it is more pronounced and mercurial and corrosive in Egypt's, and the dynamics are not quite as straightforward as you suggest. (Although, of course, they might well be.)
(As regards the relative importance of the Turkish and Egyptian army elites, I think Nasser and Ataturk are interesting compare-and-contrast figures. I've always had a soft spot for Ataturk, but strongly objected to the Nasser crush I've witnessed in many a SOAS grad. I am not trying to say that this is right, however.)
The only other thing I can really think of to say about the jihadi thing is that I really do hope you are right, but there is no way that armed groups will not try to get into Egypt to cause chaos, especially when you consider that there already are home-grown salafist groups out burning churches.
I'm thrilled you seem to like the Syria piece, although I hope that wasn't too faint praise.