Last Update 17:52
Monday, 22 July 2019

Egypt and the Mashriq region: Prioritising the East

Egypt is slowly finding its way around the Mashriq region which includes Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Lebanon

Dina Ezzat , Friday 6 Feb 2015
Sisi, Abdullah and Abdullah
Egypt's President Sisi, Jordan's King Abdullah, and the late Saudi King Abdullah. (Photo: Reuters)
Views: 2888
Views: 2888

When Russian President Vladmir Putting arrives in Cairo on Monday for talks with President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, developments in Syria and in the other countries of the Mashriq will figure high on the agenda.

Syria, say Egyptian diplomats, is a particular concern for both Moscow, for whom Damascus is about the only remaining trusted Arab ally, and for Cairo.

Egypt’s leaders are convinced that the stablisation of the political-military situation in the four-year Syrian conflict would be an essential step in the war on terror.

Both Cairo and Moscow have recently held independent sets of talks for Syrian opposition figures and some of the representatives of the ruling regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Both are of the opinion that the top priority for Syria is not the elimination of the regime of Al-Assad, the original demand made in the early, peaceful weeks of the demand for democracy in the spring of 2011, but rather the containment of the highly militant radical Islamist groups that are fighting the army of Al-Assad. These groups have now spilled over the region, including into Egypt’s restive Sinai peninsula.

With the receding opposition of Riyadh, Cairo’s top economic and political guarantor after the 2013 ouster of Mohamed Morsi, to a political formula that allows for a presence of Al-Assad regime somehow, Cairo and Moscow might now find it easier to move forward on promoting a gradual political settlement in Syria.

“There is no quick fix for the situation in Syria and this is not just because of the war between the regime and the opposition of all types, but also because of the many differences, one could safely use the word ‘battles’, among the Arab opposition,” said an Egyptian diplomat who had taken part in the recent Cairo talks.

Like Moscow, Cairo is planning to host a new round of talks for some of the top figures in the Syrian political equation.

“We are not pushing for any particular political formula to be adopted but we are pushing for a formula to be found – yes, we don’t want to give prominence to the Islamists of Syria in this formula but we acknowledge the presence of some of their elements there,” another Egyptian diplomat said.

A mission against radical Islamism

Cairo, to an extent, views the war in Syria as a matter of consequential influence of the overall regional anti-Islamists’ mood that it has been actively promoting for close to two years in cooperation with Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The elimination of the highly Shia-biased government of Nouri Al-Maliki in Iraq allowed Egypt to open up to the new authorities in central Iraq to work on the coordination in the war against ISIS – a predominantly Sunni militant group that is said by some observers to have the sympathies of angry Iraqi Sunnis who have suffered discrimination at the hands of Al-Maliki.

In December, there was an upgrade in the exchange of visits between the two countries from that of the technocrats to one that included the foreign minister of Egypt and the prime minister of Iraq – in addition to the exchange of cooperation on the security front.

Jordan is another key partner in the war on ISIS given its role in the international military coalition against the militant group and the recent high-profile anti-Islamist statements that were made by Jordanian officials following ISIS’s gruesome killing of a Jordanian military pilot last week.

“I think it is safe to say that Egypt is slowly working to create a network of cooperation across the countries of the Mashriq to confront the influence of Islamic militants,” argued an Egyptian official. He added that Cairo is also pursuing wider Arab and international support for this anti-Islamist scheme.

Ahmed Ban, an expert on political Islamist movements, argues that political and military coalitions are not the ultimate tool to confront radical Islamism in the Mashriq countries.

“By their nature militant Islamist groups in the Mashriq argue their case on the radical interpretations of the text and they use the deteriorating socio-economic conditions to strengthen their case; this is substantially different from the case in large parts of the Maghreb where the Islamic preaching and the political discourse are independent,” Ban said.

The longer the delay towards democratic reforms and the more limitations that are put on public space, Ban added, the tougher the mission to combat radical Islamism – no matter the intelligence and military efforts.

“Today, ISIS is at the heart of the Arab Mashriq and it has extensions or sympathetic arms almost across the Mashriq, so the first step is to make sure that this expansion is checked and that the zone of sympathy is contained,” he argued.

This would for sure, he explained, require a clarity of vision to avoid mingling ISIS and its sympathisers with other radical groups. To lump all Islamist groups of all styles together is not going to help the war on ISIS.

“We need to be clear that there are groups that consider their societies and the states they are living in as infidels; these are different from other Islamist groups who do not take issue with the faith of their societies or with those like Hamas, in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon that have a moral pretext related to the war on Israeli occupation,” Ban said.

Mistakes of the past, a role for the future

Arab diplomats in Cairo and Egyptian diplomats who have served in the countries of the Mashriq argue that traditionally, Egypt, although being the very centre point between both the Mashriq and the Maghreb, and being located in Africa, has traditionally associated itself more with the Mashriq.

“The influence of Egypt across the Mashriq was hard to challenge for years until Egypt decided to turn its back on its leadership and to act essentially as a country associated with the wishes of the leading country of the Arab Gulf, Saudi Arabia,” said a former Syrian diplomat who has served in Cairo.

Arab diplomats also complain about what they qualify as an unfortunate Egyptian tendency to get into political decline followed by miscalculations.

The most recurrent complaints these diplomats refer to include an all but total retreat of Egyptian diplomacy in Iraq following the US invasion, and “clear support for the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006 in the hope of eliminating Hezbollah”.

Then there is always the complaint over the bias of Egypt in the internal Palestinian political war between Fattah, chaired by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Hamas, which expelled the Palestinian Authority and took control of Gaza in the summer of 2007.

There are also accusations of Egyptian illicit and/or implicit support for the Israeli war on Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

Cairo has denied all these accusations and insisted that what it was doing was opposing the challenge that radical groups put to state sovereignty in a country like Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority to pursue a peaceful settlement with Israel.

This argument is reiterated today with a new line suggesting that when all is said and done all these groups are simply off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood which was recently qualified by the Egyptian president as “the most dangerous underground organisation.”

A comeback to the Mashriq

There is a debate today within the quarters of Egyptian diplomatic-security decision-making circles on what course Egyptian authorities should take to secure a balance between a comeback in the Mahsriq, an essential to the Egyptian objective of regaining regional influence, and a continued confrontation with the radical Islamist groups which are, according to political-economists, the “rasion d’etre” of the ascent to power of the current authority and perhaps to the claim for international support.

Western diplomats in Cairo agree that a good deal of the decision of world capitals to accommodate the otherwise apprehensively received regime in Egypt has to do with the expansion of militant Islamist groups across the Mashriq, a strategic zone of interest due to the very close proximity to Israel and to Gulf oil reserves.

Some from within the heart of Cairo’s diplomatic-security quarters preach pragmatism. They warn that a long delay on the side of Egypt to reach out to “all the political components in the Mashriq” would simply mean a prolonged political vacuum that could be filled with a keen Turkish presence – “especially now that Turkey is reaching out to the new ruler in Saudi Arabia with the intention of building bridges and jointly promoting political settlements.”

Former Egyptian ambassadors to leading Mashriq countries say that overwhelming the local populations have no taste for radical Islamism, or at least fear the expansion of militant groups.

“In this sense there is a chance for Egypt to simply say that it is not at odds with the concept of political Islam provided that groups affiliated to it should acknowledge the role of the sovereign state,” said one.

According to another, “Egypt in fact does have in-roads with almost all the non-militant and in some cases militant components of political groups in all the Mashriq countries and this makes it the best fit to promote political compromises -- only if the decision-making authorities decide to part ways with the excessive sensitivity against all that is Islamist.”

Both ambassadors argued that if Egypt does not move forward then other regional powers will, both in the settlement of internal disputes, including the Palestinian issue, and the promotion of a political deal “of sorts” between Israel and the Palestinians.

The expected changes in the immediate backyard of the Arab Mashriq, with the possible deal between Iran and the West, and the significant in-roads that Iran has with most of the Mashriq states, the same ambassadors said, should prompt Egypt not to take too long before it decides to opt for political pragmatism.

Short link:


Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.

George Fadel
07-02-2015 12:18am
Secularists in Arab world are not democrats, they are just anti-Islam
Otherwise, they do support Nazi-like dictators like Bashar el-Assad who has murdered hundreds of thousands of his people and effectively destroyed his country in order to extend the life span of his family in power for a few more years. IS is the legitimate daughter of Assad and his likes. They offer the masses either of two choices: either they join D
Comment's Title

06-02-2015 09:02pm
one clear road
First, the article makes no mention of Ikhwan. Ikhwan is the common enemy of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Every 'radical, militant' terrorist' has come out of Ikhwan. 'Democracy' by the definition of the enemy of the above countries, is tyranny by an ignorant majority, voting for Islamist leaders who tell the masses that it is a religious obligation. The masses have tasted this pre-stone age brew, and spit it out, and that is also the reason Ikhwan/'ISIS' is collapsing in Syria/Raqqa. Secondly, I would like to see a 10 kilometer-long freeway/railway linking Taba in Egypt to Aqaba in Jordan, and thus a highway/railway/pipeline from Cairo to Basra. Also, if there is a railway from Aswan to Adis Ababa, that would mean a railway/highway from Cairo to Capetown.
Comment's Title
06-02-2015 10:56pm
Real problem is dictatorship from Yemen to Algeria
These dictators need to be kicked out for better future.
The Ikhwan represent the hopes of the masses for a
06-02-2015 10:00pm
the Ilhwan are the true representatives of the masses
This is the reason the terrorist regimes refuse to hold honest elections. Ikhwan went for elections and won. They won every other election. The Nazi-like secularists oppose the Ikhwan because they know the Ikwan would easily win in any honest elections. As to extremists, they are the legitimate children of Arab tyrannies

06-02-2015 06:49pm
I Mostly Agree
I mostly agree with this article about Egypt being more active in the East, however, I do not believe this should come at the expense of Egypt's activity in Africa. I believe Egypt's real problems are to its West and South, not in the East. Its Eastern problems are not existential, while its other problems are. For instance, Libya is unsecure. This allows Libyan weapons to fuel the problems in Sinai. Furthermore, foreign intervention in Libya could lead to destabilization of Egypt. Egypt must deal with Libya, and not allow others to decide the outcome of Libya. Next, Egypt must ensure that the situation in Yemen doesn't effect the Suez Canal, which provides foreign currency to the nation. Lastly, Sudan and Ethiopia are partnering on the Nile to deprive Egypt of its life blood. This is the definition of an existential problem. Egypt must put this as its top priority. All of Egypt's most important problems are not in the Mashreq, but are in Libya, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Yemen.
Comment's Title

© 2010 Ahram Online.