Lines of communication remain open. For now, that is the only certainty.
“The Iranians are open and want to communicate with the American side,” a senior Egyptian official told Ahram Online. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he insists that “there is a complete openness.” However, this openness runs up against a much harsher reality, he adds. “From the Iranian point of view, the American tone is highly escalatory.” A rhetoric that mechanically pushes the Iranians “to escalate in turn,” making the atmosphere “uncomfortable.”
Within this narrow space, Egypt has tried to act as a shock absorber, offering a channel of communication and multiplying contacts. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty has spoken several times with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi and with American officials. More than that, there was also contact between President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian.
“Egypt is deeply concerned by the new cycle of escalation in the region and believes that a diplomatic solution to any dispute is the only and best option,” El-Sisi conveyed to Pezeshkian in a phone call on Saturday.
Egypt’s priority is clear: to avoid a new war after the Israeli war against Iran in June, and well before the war against Lebanon and the genocide in Gaza, which has yet to see any real respite. “We insist on the importance of de-escalation in the coming phase.”
The sole mediation focus
Egypt’s role, as described by this official, is twofold.
“We offer our contacts with the Westerners; sometimes we convey messages on behalf of the Americans, and at other times we try to push toward calm by stressing the urgency for the Iranians to send signals and give rapid responses so that things do not slide into a more dangerous situation.” Because Trump’s Washington, he emphasizes, “will not tolerate any type of threats, especially in light of certain Iranian statements.”
Substantively, a single issue has structured these exchanges. “There are discussions on the nuclear programme,” the official explains, “and on the level of enrichment that Iran could accept.” These are technical, sometimes detailed discussions. “So far, there has been no breakthrough. On the contrary, escalation continues, and all indicators show it could intensify.”
This focus on the nuclear file is not accidental, but a deliberate choice.
An Egyptian diplomat confirms that “Minister Abdelatty sought to mediate on the nuclear programme issue, not on regional issues.” He also stressed that, “Our mediation did not concern the other American demands.”
Those American demands have indeed expanded.
“It is clear that the Americans do not want to be satisfied with a solution limited solely to the nuclear programme,” the diplomat observes. Washington wants “to go beyond.”
“The Americans are demanding zero enrichment,” he says, “not even the percentage allowed under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” They are also demanding an end to Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, and the end of any regional projection. “They are asking the Iranians to submit. They want total submission,” he concludes.
This helps explain why Ankara, through its foreign minister Hakan Fidan, is insisting on a gradual approach to negotiations. According to him, the United States should resolve its disputes with Iran "one by one," starting with the nuclear issue, to avoid humiliating Iranian officials.
“If you put all the files together, it will be very difficult for our Iranian friends to digest. It may seem humiliating and complicated to explain to their leadership,” Fidan said in an interview with Al Jazeera.
Multilateral mediation
Egypt is not acting alone. Its initiatives are part of a multilateral diplomatic effort, coordinated with Oman, Qatar, and sometimes Türkiye.
Why, then, did Cairo choose to deliberately limit its action to the nuclear file?
The foreign minister was particularly active on this issue, relying notably on relations with Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and with the head of Iranian diplomacy, and had managed to secure an agreement in Cairo last September, a technical agreement intended to restore a minimum level of trust and offer verification guarantees.
Abdelatty hosting Araghchi, and Grossi in Cairo.
But that phase was short-lived.
“We quickly went back to square one,” the diplomat says. The Iranians announced they would no longer respect the agreement after a new hostile resolution against them at the Security Council. “We are no longer as active,” the diplomat explains. “We cannot be the unconditional lawyers of the Iranians, especially when they behave in a somewhat suicidal way, refusing more pragmatic options.”
In this context, limiting mediation to the nuclear issue appeared to be the only possible ground. But in hindsight? “We should also have taken an interest in regional issues,” the source acknowledges. For him, the mistake was to artificially separate the nuclear issue from Iran’s regional projection.
“It was also in our interest to negotiate more broadly with Iran, to ask them for concessions not only on the nuclear programme but also on their power and regional influence in Arab countries,” he stated. “The scope of this nuclear mediation is limited.” And above all, “in the past it has not been enough.”
Could Cairo go further? According to media reports, Egypt, Türkiye, and Qatar are working together to organize a meeting, in Ankara, between American officials, including US envoy Steve Witkoff, and Iranian representatives. “It’s one of the ideas on the table,” said one of the sources who spoke to Ahram Online.
That coordination is expected to be reinforced this week, when El-Sisi meets his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in Cairo on Wednesday. Iran is likely to dominate the talks, according to diplomatic sources. Cairo and Ankara are building on their experience as mediators, having previously brokered, alongside Doha, the Gaza ceasefire agreement signed in Sharm El-Sheikh last October.
The Gulf countries are also watching anxiously. “They have always dreamed of seeing this regime disappear, but they are nonetheless very cautious.” If it chooses, Saudi Arabia is poised to play a pivotal role, holding the greatest influence with Washington on the issue. According to the diplomat, Riyadh even contributed to “delaying” certain decisions and to ending the 12 days of war when Iran was attacked by Israel and the United States. A paradoxical caution.
“The Saudis fear both an Iranian retaliation and the chaos that would follow the fall of the Iranian regime,” the diplomat says. The memory of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq looms large. “An even worse disorder.”
An 'Iraqization' of Iran could directly threaten the Gulf. In a region already saturated with conflicts, a new war would have consequences far from localized.
The diplomat believes this Iranian firmness rests on a calculation of American indecision. “The Iranians are betting on the idea that the Americans are incapable of imagining their victory,” he believes. Because, in his view, Washington does not know exactly what it wants to achieve.
“What is their objective? What is victory? Toppling the regime? Eliminating number one? Bombing a country and having nothing change, that’s not an American victory.” Comparisons with other theaters do not hold. “In Venezuela, it was easier. Here, we’re a thousand kilometres away. They can’t even get into the Gulf.”
Yet despite these hesitations, the Egyptian official acknowledges that the military dynamic is very real. “Everything points toward the possibility of a strike,” even if “we don’t know whether it will be limited or expanded.”
The argument is logistical. “It costs tens of millions of dollars to move all these military assets,” he says.
A mobilization of this scale cannot, in his view, be merely for show. All actors, including Cairo, and with the exception of Israel, are trying to buy time and avoid the irreversible. "Yet," the diplomat adds, "the thread is so thin that it might snap at any moment.”
Short link: