Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2005374158-scaled

Egypt and Iran's path to rapprochement

Détente between the two most populous Mideast states follows a regional pattern of renewed diplomacy.

Analysis | Middle East

On October 6, 1981, Egyptians were celebrating the eighth anniversary of Operation Badr, which marked the start of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, with a victory parade in Cairo.

As troops marched past the reviewing stand, a cell in the military led by Lieutenant Khalid Islambouli attacked and assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in a murderous protest of the 1978 Camp David Accords. Making peace with the Jewish state, as Sadat did three years before, was a controversial move that essentially removed Egypt from the Arab-Israeli conflict and enraged large segments of the country’s population and the wider Arab and Islamic worlds.

A firing squad executed Islambouli the following year. At the time, Iran’s new revolutionary government, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared Islambouli a martyr, and named a street in Tehran after him. Sadat’s close relationship with the Shah of Iran (whom he welcomed to Egypt after his ouster in 1979), as well as Cairo’s support for Baghdad in the Iran-Iraq War and Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, gave the Islamic Republic’s leadership reason to glorify Islambouli. Ever since Sadat’s assassination, the relationship between Cairo and Tehran has been troubled albeit with occasional periods of détente.

Today, however, Egypt and Iran appear to be entering a new chapter in their relations. Last month, news broke about Cairo and Tehran’s purported plans to exchange ambassadors later this year along with arranging a meeting between their presidents. Although distrust and suspicion will probably continue shaping bilateral relations, regional dynamics, along with their own national interests, suggest that a Cairo-Tehran rapprochement could be around the corner.

“There have been many efforts in the past to normalize relations between Cairo and Tehran, but they have all failed for a variety of reasons,” according to Trita Parsi, the Quincy Institute’s executive vice president and an expert on Iranian diplomacy. “This time around, however, because of the geopolitical shifts in the region, the cost of maintaining a state of non-normalization is much higher for both sides, while the benefits are greater.”

Reduced friction between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on one side and Iran on the other makes an Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement more probable. “Egypt is obviously aligned with [Saudi Arabia and the UAE] to a large extent. The fact that the Gulf states are engaging Iran makes it easier for [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah] el-Sisi to go in that same direction,” explained Kenneth Katzman, a Senior Fellow at the Soufan Center, in an interview with Responsible Statecraft.

The Saudi-Iran détente has “reverberated across the region and created an atmosphere of optimism for de-escalating the conflicts in the region never seen in the past decade,” affirmed Khalil Alanani, a Senior Fellow at the Arab Center Washington. If Riyadh can normalize relations with Tehran, there is no reason for other Arab nations, including Egypt, to follow suit. “The normalization between Saudi Arabia and Iran removes any ‘Gulf’ veto, if there’s such [a] thing, on Sisi’s regime to normalize ties with Tehran. Or at least, Sisi can use it as a pretext to justify normalizing relations with Tehran.”

The potential détente has also been fueled by other geopolitical factors, such as the war in Ukraine, as well as Moscow and Beijing’s growing influence in the Middle East. “[Egypt and Iran] have strong relations with Russia and China, and the prospects of achieving political, economic, and geostrategic gains are massive,” added Alanani. 

Oman’s Diplomatic Energy

Oman, the Gulf Cooperation Council’s most geopolitically balanced member, has joined Iraq in diplomatic efforts to facilitate an Egyptian-Iranian rapprochement. In fact, this is not the first time in which the Omanis have been playing this bridging role between Egypt and Iran. Muscat previously did so in 1991

“Oman does have consistent relations with Tehran. That certainly gives them weight with Cairo to bring Tehran into an agreement with Cairo,” said Katzman.

The historical context is important. In the final quarter of the 20th century, Oman served as a reliable friend to both Egypt and Iran when much of the Arab world shunned both countries.

After Egypt and Israel made peace in 1978, Oman, Somalia, and Sudan were the only Arab League members that didn’t sever relations with Sadat’s government. Oman also declined to participate in the 1978 Baghdad rejectionist summit, and in May 1982, Sultan Qaboos became the first Arab leader to visit Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, since the Camp David Accords were signed. 

Similarly, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Sultan Qaboos took steps to ensure that his country’s close relations with Tehran that characterized relations under the Shah would be sustained. While the other GCC states supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, Oman maintained its neutrality and hosted secret ceasefire talks between Baghdad and Tehran to wind down that conflict. Sharing ownership of the narrow Strait of Hormuz with Iran, Sultan Qaboos understood that cordial relations with his far more powerful neighbor served his  country’s security interests.

Last month’s visits by Sultan Haitham to both Egypt and Iran highlighted the importance the Omani leadership attaches to rapprochement between the two countries. During the Sultan’s visit to Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying that he would welcome restored diplomatic ties with Egypt. Throughout 2023, Oman has been busy serving as a diplomatic bridge between different state and non-state actors in the region. Muscat has made significant progress in terms of helping Saudi Arabia move closer to peace with Yemen’s Houthi insurgency; it contributed to the Saudi-Iranian diplomatic agreement; and it has also been active in mediation efforts between long-time adversaries Bahrain and Iran.

Egypt and Iran’s National Interests

By normalizing relations, Egypt hopes that Iran will act as a moderating influence over Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza. After all, these days Egypt and Qatar do the diplomatic heavy lifting to put ceasefires into place when tensions between Hamas and/or PIJ, both of which Tehran backs, and Israel escalate into conflict. “Each time Israel and the Gaza militants clash, the potential for escalation grows,” Katzman said. “That would be the main thrust of Egypt’s motivation for this potential rapprochement [with Iran].”

Iran, for its part, wants to improve its relationships with more countries in the Middle East. Better relations with Cairo could help Iran further reduce its relative isolation in the region, particularly in light of its rapprochements with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Friendlier ties with Egypt could help the Iranians counter U.S. and Israeli efforts to rally Arab nations against the Islamic Republic while also making it easier for Tehran to argue that it should not be treated like a “rogue” actor.

“Ever since the Middle Eastern states fully realized that the U.S. was no longer in a position to maintain its military hegemony over the region, we have seen a flourishing of intra-regional diplomacy since sustaining conflicts became too costly while resolving tensions through diplomacy emerged as the optimal policy for most states,” explained Parsi. “The region is experiencing a new-found sense of confidence as it rediscovers its own agency. A new balance for the region may be settled in the coming months, and both Egypt and Iran benefit from maximizing their maneuverability by being on talking terms.”

Image: helloRuby via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine risks losing the war — and the peace

QiOSK

This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.

“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”

keep readingShow less
Can the US and Iraq move beyond military ties?

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani attends an event marking the Iraqi Police Day at the Police Faculty in Baghdad, Iraq, January 9, 2024. Murtadha Al-Sudani/Anadolu Agency/Pool via REUTERS / U.S. President Joe Biden arrives for the meeting of European Union (EU) leaders in Brussels, Belgium, March 24, 2022. Alexandros Michailidis via Shutterstock.com

Can the US and Iraq move beyond military ties?

Middle East

Twenty-one years ago, the U.S. and its allies invaded Iraq in the erroneous belief that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction and was allied with al-Qaida, the terror group responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The U.S. created an occupation authority, but failed to restore order and helped spawn the insurgency that bedeviled it by dismissing the entire Iraqi military and the most experienced civil servants. Coalition troops fought a losing battle, regained their footing with the 2007 troop surge, and finally departed in 2011. U.S. troops returned in 2014 to fight the Islamic State and they remain there to this day, though ISIS was largely eliminated by 2019.

keep readingShow less
South Korean president faces setback in elections

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol casts his early vote for 22nd parliamentary election, in Busan, South Korea, April 5, 2024. Yonhap via REUTERS

South Korean president faces setback in elections

QiOSK

Today, South Korea held its quadrennial parliamentary election, which ended in the opposition liberal party’s landslide victory. The liberal camp, combining the main opposition liberal party and its two sister parties, won enough seats (180 or more) to unilaterally fast-track bills and end filibusters. The ruling conservative party’s defeat comes as no surprise since many South Koreans entered the election highly dissatisfied with the Yoon Suk-yeol administration and determined to keep the government in check.

What does this mean for South Korea’s foreign policy for the remaining three years of the Yoon administration? Traditionally, parliamentary elections have tended to have little effect on the incumbent government’s foreign policy. However, today’s election may create legitimate domestic constraints on the Yoon administration’s foreign policy primarily by shrinking Yoon’s political capital and legitimacy to implement his foreign policy agenda.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest