Amidst the acute regional escalation currently gripping the Middle East, Egypt finds itself facing a complex equation that demands a delicate balance: one between the principles of international law and the interests of Arab national security, and between the imperatives of solidarity with the Arab Gulf states and a refusal to slide into the logic of open warfare.
By virtue of its geopolitical position and diplomatic history, Cairo cannot stand idly by, acting merely as a bystander, in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against the Gulf nations. Yet, simultaneously, it cannot accept the US-Israeli war against Iran as a legitimate option, given that the conflict entails a clear violation of international law and poses a direct threat to the stability of the entire region.
Egypt’s stance regarding the Iranian aggression against the Gulf states stems from deeply entrenched principles centred on respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as a rejection of any external interference in their internal affairs. The Gulf states are not merely political or economic partners to Egypt, but they also constitute an integral part of the Arab national security framework, a system that Cairo views as sacrosanct, such that any infringement upon it constitutes a direct assault on the stability of the region as a whole.
Consequently, Egypt’s condemnation of these acts of aggression is not merely an expression of political solidarity but also reflects a profound realisation that the persistence of such hostile Iranian policies will undermine the foundations of regional coexistence and fuel an atmosphere of conflict and instability.
In its official statements, Egypt has consistently affirmed that the security of the Gulf constitutes a “red line” and a threshold beyond which any threat would necessitate a unified Arab response. This stance is inextricably linked to a long historical experience through which Cairo has come to understand that leaving regional disputes unchecked and uncontained inevitably leads to their exacerbation, transforming them into protracted crises that become difficult to control.
Consequently, Egypt’s rejection of the Iranian aggression also stems from a broader effort to prevent a recurrence of the security breakdowns that have previously plagued the region, situations in which expansionist policies and military interventions have led to the collapse of states and the fragmentation of societies.
Conversely, Egypt does not view the US-Israeli war against Iran as a legitimate or acceptable solution to these complex issues; rather, it regards it as merely an extension of a “power-first” approach that has repeatedly proven incapable of achieving stability. Cairo recognises that the use of military force outside the framework of international legitimacy serves only to exacerbate crises. It further asserts that the war, much like the Iranian acts of aggression, stands in direct opposition to the principles of international law, which are predicated on the prohibition of the use of force and respect for state sovereignty.
From this standpoint, Egypt rejects the double standards that condone violence in one instance while condemning it in another, emphasising that international legitimacy is indivisible.
Furthermore, Egypt views the war as an additional destabilising factor in the Middle East, as it opens the door to further escalation and a widening of the scope of confrontation, potentially drawing in other regional actors and transforming the conflict into an all-out war. This scenario carries grave risks, not only for the states directly involved but also for the peoples of the entire region. This includes the Iranian people, who would pay a heavy price for the continuation of military operations, as well as the peoples of the Gulf, who would remain vulnerable to threats and attacks.
Thus, the Egyptian position is a clear call to reject the logic of war on all sides, whether manifested as Iranian aggression against the Gulf states or the US-Israeli military operations against Iran. Cairo maintains that both paths undermine opportunities for political solutions and serve only to prolong the conflict, rather than containing and resolving it. This stance reflects an Egyptian vision premised on the belief that regional security cannot be achieved through military superiority or the imposition of a fait accompli but rather comes through political and security arrangements grounded in mutual understanding and respect.
In this context, Egypt seeks to assume the role of a mediator working to bridge divergent viewpoints and open channels for dialogue among the various parties involved. This role is not new to Egyptian diplomacy, which has accumulated extensive experience in managing regional and international conflicts, but instead represents an extension of a historical approach that places negotiated solutions at the forefront of its priorities. Cairo recognises that the alternative to dialogue is a perpetuation of the cycle of violence, and that any sustainable settlement must take into account the concerns of all parties while providing genuine guarantees for their security.
Within this framework, Egyptian efforts centre on striking a delicate balance between protecting the Gulf states from Iranian threats and ensuring that Iran itself is not subjected to total destruction, an outcome that would undermine its internal stability and plunge the region into further chaos. Egypt maintains that the weakening or collapse of states does not serve regional security; on the contrary, it creates vacuums that are exploited by non-state actors, thereby further complicating the regional landscape. Consequently, preserving Iran’s stability, alongside curbing its aggressive policies, constitutes an integral part of a broader equation aimed at restoring equilibrium to the region.
Furthermore, Cairo is endeavouring to leverage its balanced relationships with the various parties to advance negotiating tracks focused on de-escalation and confidence-building. These tracks entail exploring regional security arrangements that guarantee non-aggression and respect for sovereignty, as well as addressing contentious issues through diplomatic and legal mechanisms. In this context, Egypt can play a pivotal role in formulating regional initiatives grounded in the principles of international law and ones that garner acceptance from the various parties involved.
This role is inextricably linked to a clear Egyptian stance regarding Israeli policies in the region. Cairo maintains that Israel’s continued adherence to an approach based on the use of force and the expansion of its military operations exacerbates instability and undermines prospects for peace. Consequently, Egypt’s diplomatic efforts are not limited merely to containing the conflict between Iran and the Gulf states, or between Iran, the United States, and Israel, but also extend to efforts aimed at curbing Israeli policies that contribute to fuelling regional tensions.
Egypt’s comprehensive vision posits that achieving stability in the Middle East necessitates a fundamental, root-cause approach to addressing sources of tension, rather than merely relying on the temporary management of crises. From this perspective, Cairo is adopting a multi-dimensional approach that encompasses political, security, and economic aspects, while striving to construct a regional order founded on cooperation rather than conflict. Within this framework, bolstering Arab solidarity, particularly with the Gulf states, constitutes a fundamental pillar of any endeavour aimed at restoring equilibrium to the region.
Ultimately, it can be argued that Egypt’s role at this critical juncture reflects an earnest effort to avert a slide into catastrophic scenarios that threaten the future of the Middle East. By rejecting Iranian aggression and standing in full solidarity with the Gulf states, while simultaneously opposing the US-Israeli war against Iran, Cairo offers a model of a balanced stance rooted in the principles of international law and one that prioritises the interests of peoples over power politics.
Through its pursuit of mediation and its push for negotiated solutions, Egypt seeks to open a window of hope amidst an increasingly complex regional landscape, affirming that the alternative to war is invariably dialogue, and that stability can only be achieved through inclusive political pathways that guarantee security and dignity for all the peoples of the region.
The writer is a political scientist and former MP. He is currently director of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 2 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: