Middle East
The formula of Türkiye-Egypt relation: “The past should remain in the past”
The foreign policy priorities of Turkey, after the presidential elections, can be divided into two categories: to find a position in new Asian initiatives while lowering tensions with the West. The primary factors promoting Turkey’s normalization with its neighbors and Middle Eastern nations are the economic challenges that require this foreign policy direction.
In the normalization train of the Arab states, who assessed the damage after the Arab Spring, Turkey believes there is a wagon set out for it. Following the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, a final settlement in Syria will take up a sizable portion of Ankara’s post-election foreign policy agenda.
On the other side, relations with Egypt have a greater impact, the contacts between Ankara and Cairo are extensive, encompassing Turkey’s contacts with the West in the context of the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya. In this context, we interviewed Dalia Ziada, Director of the Center for Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean Studies regarding how Egyptians considered about the Turkish election process.
- Egyptian President congratulated President Erdogan. What can that say about a new era which has begun between the two countries?
The Egyptian and Turkish presidents’ phone call in the wake of the elections is an important indication of the sincere intentions of the top policymakers in both countries to start a new page in their relationship. Honestly speaking, there are some giant differences between the perception of each of the two presidents on crucial regional and domestic policies. That includes for example the situation in Libya, the complex maritime conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Islamists’ right for political participation. However, we are seeing an unprecedented determination by both sides to get over these differences and focus on the common ground of economic and geopolitical cooperation.
Ironically, many observers had expressed their pessimism about the potential of the rapprochement process between Turkey and Egypt to succeed as long as the two heads of state, El-Sisi and Erdogan, remained in power. Yet, in December 2022, the two heads of state met in Doha, warmly saluted each other, and then spent 45 minutes talking about the next steps they should take to overcome the obstacles that kept their countries separated for too long. The friendly encounter between the Turkish and the Egyptian presidents cannot be seen as a standard act of courtesy that happened out of sheer coincidence. It was the climax of a year of backstage arrangements by dedicated diplomatic missions and concerned civil society organizations in both countries.
Since then, the Turkish and Egyptian foreign ministers have been exchanging visits and making public promises about implementing the reconciliation process as soon as the general elections in Turkey are completed. As the election in Turkey has been completed successfully, this week, the two countries need to continue working on completing the reconciliation process for their mutual benefit and the entire region’s benefit.
Mending broken ties between Turkey and Egypt is not only beneficial for the political well-being of the two states. It is equally important for the personal image enhancement of each of the two presidents before their peoples and also before observers from the international community. Egypt is having a presidential election in less than a year. Improving his relationship with President Erdogan will dramatically increase President El-Sisi’s support among the huge Islamist-biased voter base.
- How the Turkish elections resonated in Egypt. What are the prominent evaluations in the Egyptian press?
In general, the Egyptian people are so impressed and inspired by the democratic process in Turkey and the political maturity of the Turkish people who massively participated in the voting at the parliamentary elections and the two rounds of the presidential elections. We wish – we dream – to see a similar democratic process in the coming presidential election which is expected to happen in mid-2024. In other words, the successful democratic practice in Turkey has set the bar high for election processes in Middle East countries, in general, in countries where people are yearning for democratization, such as Egypt and most North Africa countries, in particular.
On another level, the street reaction to President Erdogan’s victory varies greatly from one citizen group to the other. The majority of the Egyptian grassroots citizens, who are mainly characterized by their religious piety, are so excited. They are celebrating President Erdogan’s victory, as they perceive it as a victory of a Muslim idol over the opposition party leaders who exhibited hatred towards Muslims and Arabs.
Meanwhile, the Egyptian intellectual elite, who are mostly secular, are expectedly not so happy with President Erdogan’s victory. Some of them warned that he will encourage the political Islamist groups – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – to seek political competition in Egypt once again and renew the state of political instability in the country. But, in my opinion, that is a little too exaggerated, especially in light of improved ties between the Egyptian and Turkish presidents in the past few months.
On the political stage, most members of the government, political parties, and media agree that it is time for Egypt to reconcile with Turkey and with its elected president. “The past should remain in the past;” they say. That is a healthy attitude, I think, because it will pave the way for a lot of mutual benefits for Egypt and Turkey in the future, and will also be beneficial to the regions of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.
- How do you consider the normalization process between the two countries to proceed after the election? Which steps could be taken initially?
In their first phone call after the successful completion of the Turkish presidential elections, presidents Erdogan and El-Sisi agreed to immediately proceed with their reconciliation process by elevating their diplomatic ties to the ambassadorial level. That is a very significant first step for two reasons:
First, it fixes the rift that had been broken between the two states in 2013 and had kept the two countries estranged for ten years. The ambassadors were the first scapegoats to be slaughtered during the dramatic breakup between Egypt and Turkey, then. Each of the two countries immediately declared their mutual ambassadors as persona non grata. Therefore, the return of the ambassadors today is like an official declaration of the end of the decade-long conflict and the beginning of the negotiations phase.
Second, upgrading the diplomatic missions to ambassadorial levels is so crucial to accelerate and facilitate the discussions on critical bilateral and regional issues that represent a conflict of interest between the two states. Right now, the mutual diplomatic missions in both countries are limited in size and scope to the level of chargés d’affaires. Therefore, most negotiations between the two countries had to happen through security channels and intelligence bureaus more often than they happened between diplomatic missions. This caused the reconciliation process to go very slowly in 2021.
The rapprochement process only started to leap when the Turkish ambassador, Salih Mutlu Şen, got hired as charges d’affaires in Cairo, in the second half of 2022. He exerted a tremendous effort to wake the embassy from the dead by directly engaging with ordinary citizens in the Egyptian streets and reaching out to media personnel, civil society organizations, and political groups. That paved the way for a successful meeting between the two presidents, El-Sisi and Erdogan, in November 2022 in Doha. After the presidential meeting, the reconciliation process took a whole new turn.
Therefore, I believe that raising the diplomatic representation to the ambassadorial level will allow diplomatic channels to take the lead in the negotiation process, thus accelerating the rapprochement process and improving the quality of the outcomes of future negotiations.
However, that is not enough. There must be direct and personal talks between presidents Erdogan and El-Sisi, at the nearest time possible. It is not a secret that the two leaders adopt divergent – if not contradicting – political ideologies. For example, El-Sisi’s political image is mostly built upon his role in removing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in 2013. In contrast, Erdogan’s legacy is entirely based on his image as a successful Muslim leader, coming from a political Islamist party, in a secular democratic system of governance. How the two presidents are going to compromise their ideological differences is so important for the success of the reconciliation process between Egypt and Turkey and for ensuring its sustainability in the long term. Such a compromise can only happen through direct face-to-face and heart-to-heart conversations between the two presidents over the coming weeks or months.
In parallel to that, the senior policymakers and government officials from Egypt and Turkey should engage in lengthy discussions about enhancing their areas of cooperation and limiting their areas of conflict. For example, Egypt and Turkey already have a successful record of economic cooperation that can be further improved. In the meantime, there are a lot of areas of potential cooperation between our two militaries, building upon the history of cooperation in the defense industry sector between the two countries. They will also need to discuss their conflicting foreign policies in the Levant region, and the Eastern Mediterranean region, keeping into consideration the concerns and the interests of other key players in these regions, such as Libya, Syria, Greece, and Israel.
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
AfD’s Siegmund links German rearmament to remigration plans
Chinese carmakers expand European share as Stellantis loses ground
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Analysts warn new surge in Chinese exports threatens global markets
Anthropic uncovers Claude use by Iranian, Houthi, and Russian units
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Europe2 weeks agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
