Follow us on social

Rafael Groosi , Abbas Araghchi , badr Abdelatty

Are Iran and Egypt relations on the cusp of a 'seismic shift'?

The two Middle East powers, in the throes of crises, are pulling together — which won't make certain governments too happy

Analysis | Middle East

In the heart of old Cairo last month, one of the Middle East’s longest-running rifts was being publicly laid to rest.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, flanked by Egyptian officials, walked through Cairo’s historic Khan el-Khalili bazaar, prayed at the Al-Hussein Mosque, and dined with former Egyptian foreign ministers at the storied Naguib Mahfouz restaurant. Araghchi was unequivocal when he posted during his trip that Egyptian-Iranian relations had “entered a new phase.”

This visit was more than routine diplomacy, but a signal of a potentially seismic shift between two Middle Eastern powers, drawn together by the pull of shared crises.

The rupture began in 1979, when Iran’s revolutionary leaders severed diplomatic relations after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel — a betrayal in Tehran’s eyes. The schism deepened when Cairo granted asylum to the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was just overthrown by a popular revolution which birthed a new Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini. He died and was buried in Egypt in 1980.

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), Egypt’s material support for Saddam Hussein’s regime cemented Tehran’s view of Cairo as an antagonist. For decades thereafter, diplomatic relations remained frozen, with only intermittent and largely fruitless attempts at dialogue.

Against this backdrop of accumulated grievances, Tehran’s recent renaming of "Khalid al-Islambouli Street," is a particularly significant gesture. The street had honored the chief suspect in Sadat’s 1981 assassination, whom Iran hailed as a "martyr" after his court-mandated execution by firing squad. The new name, “Hassan Nasrallah Street” instead pays tribute to Hezbollah’s slain leader, killed by Israeli airstrikes in 2024, rectifying a decades-old insult to Egypt.

This renaming represents a strategic concession, resolving what Araghchi called the “final hurdle” to normalization weeks earlier. Cairo’s swift public embrace of the move, with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ambassador Tamim Khallaf calling it a "positive step" that "helps put matters back on the right track," demonstrated Egypt’s willingness to turn the page.

During marathon meetings with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty in June, Araghchi asserted that "trust between Cairo and Tehran has never been this high." The tangible outcome of the meetings was an agreement to establish regular political consultations at the sub-ministerial level — a structured channel absent since 1979.

Crucially, Abdelatty carefully framed the visit as a pragmatic necessity, not as unconditional alignment. "There is a mutual desire to develop our relations, taking into account the concerns and perspectives of each side," Egypt’s chief diplomat said.

This nascent détente is less about newfound affection than cold-eyed calculation amid emerging and converging crises. First, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, launched in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza but enabled by Iranian arms and training, struck Egypt’s economic jugular. Billions of dollars in Suez Canal revenues evaporated as shipping rerouted around Africa.

While Araghchi publicly downplayed direct control over the Houthis, insisting that Yemen "makes its own decisions," Cairo desperately needs Tehran’s leverage to restore maritime security. Abdelatty’s blunt emphasis on "protecting freedom of navigation in the Red Sea" during a March phone call with Araghchi underscores this vital priority.

While Yemen’s Houthis maintain operational independence from Tehran, Iranian support for the group is well-documented, and statements from Egyptian leadership calculate that Iran could exert significant influence on the Houthis.

For Iran, reeling from last month’s Israeli and U.S. strikes on its nuclear and military infrastructure, normalization with Egypt — the Arab world’s cultural heart and an important U.S. ally — helps establish its regional legitimacy and expands its diplomatic options. This outreach is all the more urgent now that its traditional "Axis of Resistance" is faltering, with Hezbollah battered in Lebanon, Hamas under siege in Gaza, and Bashar Al-Assad ousted in Syria.

Larger regional dynamics are increasingly conducive to Iranian-Egyptian normalization. China’s 2023 brokering of Saudi-Iranian rapprochement removed a critical veto. With Riyadh restoring ties with Tehran, Cairo gained freedom to engage Iran without fear of alienating its vital Gulf financiers.

This new diplomatic freedom is being accelerated by the brutal reality of Sudan’s civil war. The conflict has pushed the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) to revive a dormant alliance with Iran in a desperate search for military support. Since Egypt is also a key backer of the SAF, Cairo and Tehran now share a mutual ally in a war raging on Egypt's southern doorstep, creating an unexpected arena of common interest.

These regional realignments, coupled with shared economic pain — Egypt’s debt crisis and Iran’s crippling sanctions — make tangible cooperation on trade, and religious tourism (primarily for Iranians to visit Shiite sites in Egypt) suddenly viable.

Additionally, Israel's 12-day assault on Iran further intensified cooperation between Cairo and Tehran.

The offensive created parallel crises for both: for Iran, Israeli strikes — conducted with U.S. assistance — against its defense and nuclear infrastructure deepened its isolation, violated its territory, and derailed nuclear diplomacy. Concurrently, Egypt suffered collateral damage to its energy security when Israeli-operated gas fields, supplying 15-20% of its needs, were shuttered. This forced emergency measures and sparked blackout fears, revealing a shared vulnerability exploited by the conflict.

The attacks also amplified Egypt’s mediating role while drawing Iran and Egypt closer. Sisi’s late-night call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, just hours before U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — in which Sisi condemned Israeli "escalation" — highlighted Cairo’s unique positioning. Egypt’s foreign minister has since embarked on a diplomatic blitz, coordinating with Oman, which has mediated U.S.-Iran talks, U.S. Special Envoy for Middle East Affairs Steve Witkoff, and Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in hopes of reviving nuclear negotiations.

Despite the momentum, full diplomatic trust remains constrained by structural divides. Egypt's pro-Western orientation — anchored in U.S. military aid and its 46-year-old treaty with Israel — clashes with Tehran’s revolutionary ethos. Hostility toward the U.S. (“the Great Satan” as the Islamic’s Republic’s founders called it) has remained a core, albeit flexible pillar of Iranian foreign policy.

For Cairo, its relationship with Israel is non-negotiable, for reasons both strategic and existential. Israel is not only a critical energy supplier, but also an indispensable counterpart in Gaza ceasefire talks aimed at ending the brutal war raging on Egypt’s Sinai border. Iran's anti-Western posture, meanwhile, has been hardened by a series of Israeli escalations: direct strikes killing senior military and scientific figures, and explicit threats to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Significantly, Iran's support for Hamas — the militant group Israel has been fighting in Gaza for nearly two years — isn't merely a complication; it's a structural barrier.

Egypt, in addition to being a key mediator in the Gaza conflict, is also a significant stakeholder with sensitive national security interests on the line. Its primary objectives are to secure a ceasefire, establish a governing authority in a post-war Gaza, and, crucially, prevent a mass influx of Palestinian refugees into the Sinai Peninsula.

However, Cairo’s goals clash head-on with Iran's public declarations in support of the militant group.For Egypt, Hamas is not a partner but a dangerous security threat. Cairo views the group as a hostile offshoot of its primary domestic arch-nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and has long accused it of fueling the brutal Islamist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula. This deep-seated animosity is irreconcilable with Tehran's position.

After Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi hailed the attacks as a "victorious operation" that "made the Islamic Ummah happy." In a recent interview with Fox News, Iran’s Foreign Minister called Hamas “freedom fighters...fighting for a just cause.”

This praise is not just political, it was backed by operational links managed by figures like the recently assassinated Revolutionary Guard commander Saeed Izadi, who reportedly oversaw military coordination with Hamas. While reports indicate Iran did not participate in the October 7th attack, its praise for Hamas is backed by decades of material support that built the group's military strength.

Iran’s support for Hamas, and its fundamental hostility towards Israel, which itself is a necessary albeit frustrating partner for Egypt, will continue to complicate the burgeoning relationship.

The Cairo-Tehran rapprochement therefore is not a grand strategic embrace but rather a marriage of convenience. Its trajectory leans toward deeper engagement because mutual necessity — securing waterways, averting an all-out regional war, surviving economically — now outweighs the costs of avoidance.

It looks probable that the two nations will soon upgrade their current low-level missions to full embassies, that economic ties will continue to grow, and that diplomatic channels will remain active on flashpoints like the Red Sea crisis and U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. However this relationship will remain inherently transactional, constrained by their competing national interests.



Top photo credit: Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi in Cairo, Egypt, June 2, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El Ghany
Analysis | Middle East
'Security guarantees' dominate talks but remain undefined
Top photo credit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Finland's President Alexander Stubb amid negotiations to end the Russian war in Ukraine, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 18, 2025. REUTERS/Al Drago

'Security guarantees' dominate talks but remain undefined

Europe

President Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a host of European leaders in the White House Monday to discuss a framework for a deal to end the war. The big takeaway: that all parties appear to agree that the U.S. and Europe would provide some sort of postwar security guarantees to deter another Russian invasion.

What that might look like is still undefined. Trump also suggested an agreement would require “possible exchanges of territory” and consider the “war lines” between Ukraine and Russia, though this issue did not appear to take center stage Monday. Furthermore, Trump said there could be a future “trilateral” meeting set for the leaders of the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia, and reportedly interrupted the afternoon meeting with the European leaders to speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the phone.

keep readingShow less
Zelensky White House Keith Kellogg
Top photo credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, speaks with U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Ukraine, Ret. General Keith Kellogg prior to their meeting, August 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Zelenskyy met with Kellogg before the planned meeting with President Donald Trump later in the day. Photo by Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via ABACAPRESS.COM

Zelensky White House meeting could spell end of the war

Europe

If Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cannot agree in principle with the contours of a peace deal mapped out by President Trump, then the war will continue into 2026. I’d encourage him to take the deal, even if it may cause him to lose power.

The stakes couldn’t be higher ahead of the showdown in the Oval Office today between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky, supported by EU leaders and the Secretary General of NATO.

keep readingShow less
Congo Rwanda peace
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Democratic Republic of the Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo

US companies rush into Congo before ink is dry on peace deal

Africa

On June 27, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington, brokered by the United States. About a month later, on August 1, they agreed to a Regional Economic Integration Framework — another U.S.-brokered initiative linking the peace process to cross-border economic cooperation.

All of this has been heralded as a “historic turning point” that could end years of conflict in eastern Congo between the M23 rebel movement, backed by Rwanda, and the Congolese state.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.