Egypt has long been practicing a compelling balancing act in the Middle East and beyond, juggling ideological commitments and national interests with a combination of pragmatism, survival instinct, and regional ambition. From its early position on Palestine and its peace agreement with Israel to its realist stance on the Kashmir dispute and its diplomatic approach to Palestinian refugees, Egypt’s foreign policy is a lesson in pragmatic diplomacy. This analysis delves into Egypt’s own style of geopolitics and examines the reasons that drive its geopolitical decisions and finds commonalities across diverse historical and modern-day contexts.
Balancing Ideology and National Interests: The Egyptian Doctrine
Egypt has the technique of keeping one foot in ideology and the other in realpolitik down pat. It is proud to be a voice of Arab nationalism and the Muslim world while, at the same time, furthering its own interests, even if they seem contradictory to its stated position. Consider, for example, Egypt’s long-time adherence to the Palestinian cause. In theory, Egypt is Palestine’s best supporter on paper, yet in practice its policies are driven by security needs, diplomatic politics, and stability in the region. Egypt became the first Arab state to make peace with Israel in 1979 at the cost of breaking its own ideology for regaining Sinai and material rewards. While this move outraged much of the Arab world at the time, it proved to be a strategic masterstroke, positioning Egypt as a key mediator in Middle Eastern affairs.
Similarly, Egypt’s approach to India and Pakistan has been one of calculated neutrality. Despite India’s support for Egypt during the Suez Crisis in 1956, Cairo chose to stay neutral on the Kashmir issue, much to New Delhi’s disappointment. Why? Because it was in Egypt’s overall interest to maintain a relationship with Pakistan, another major Muslim country. The same reasoning holds for Egypt’s present stance on Palestine—supporting its Arab brothers in words but not allowing its own national security to be undermined by a flood of refugees or direct military involvement.
Egypt and Israel: Peace with Benefits
Egypt’s 1979 decision to normalize ties with Israel by President Anwar Sadat changed the game for the region. Though most Arab countries considered it a betrayal, Sadat had his reasons: Egypt had battled several wars against Israel and found that fighting in a straight line was a lost cause. Rather than endless enmity, Egypt chose to solve the issue diplomatically and reclaim Sinai, secure billions of dollars in American aid, and place Cairo as Washington’s favourite mediator in the Middle East.
Hurry forward to the present, and Egypt still straddles the tightrope between standing with Palestine and its peace with Israel. It often facilitates truces between Hamas and Israel, acting as an ‘honest broker’ in local disputes. Yet, when it comes to practical policies, Egypt has been firm. Despite its vocal support for Palestinian rights, it has refused to open its borders to large numbers of Palestinian refugees, fearing an influx that could destabilize the already volatile Sinai Peninsula.
This position is analogous to its 1970s conundrum—Egypt desires to preserve its Arab and Muslim leadership while ensuring its own interests are protected first. Opening the borders would pose security threats, heighten economic pressure, and even bring militant elements into Egyptian borders. Thus, while Egypt vocally denounces Israeli aggression and endorses Palestinian statehood, it does not go as far as policies that would undermine its internal security.
Egypt’s Strategy towards South Asia: The Kashmir Issue
The India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir is another interesting case of Egypt’s pragmatic foreign policy. While India stood firmly with Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis, it did not come out in the open in support of New Delhi on the Kashmir issue. Instead, Egypt preferred to be on good terms with both India and Pakistan.
This neutrality was not a rebuff to India but a deliberate action to maintain its diplomatic flexibility. Egypt has traditionally identified with the wider Muslim world, and to alienate Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir would have been self-defeating. It also cherished its relationship with India, a non-aligned nation and a rising economic power. Instead of taking sides, Egypt chose to be diplomatically flexible, taking the stance of a country that could deal with both powers without becoming involved in their conflict.
Palestinian Refugees: The Border Egypt Won’t Open
One of the most revealing features of Egyptian foreign policy is its approach to Palestinian refugees. Although Cairo has been a strong supporter of Palestinian statehood, it has consistently declined to welcome refugees from Israeli attacks, especially from Gaza, into its borders. This is counterintuitive—why would a country that believes in Palestinian rights deny them asylum?
The reason is Egypt’s calculations regarding internal security and regional stability. The Sinai Peninsula, bordering Gaza, has been a haven for militant activity, including ISIS-affiliated groups. A flood of Palestinian refugees, some of whom may have connections to Hamas, could accelerate security risks and further destabilize the region. In addition, Egypt is concerned that opening its borders would result in a long-term refugee crisis, like Jordan experienced after several Arab-Israeli wars. By maintaining Gaza’s border strictly under control, Egypt makes sure that its internal security is not jeopardized, even if it provokes criticism from Arab allies.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: Pragmatism or Hypocrisy?
Egypt’s reaction to Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project is a classic textbook case of pragmatic diplomacy—and hypocrisy. While Egypt asserts its right to regulate the flow of the Nile, it has traditionally resisted other countries making similar claims over shared resources.
On the one hand, Egypt claims that the dam by Ethiopia poses a threat to its water security, which is an existential issue. It has utilized all diplomatic means at its disposal—lobbying global institutions, cutting deals with Sudan, and even threatening war—to push back against Ethiopia’s dominance of the Blue Nile. However, Egypt’s absolute position regarding GERD is unscrupulous from a wide perspective. Cairo itself has entered into endeavours which compromised water security at the regional level, such as past domination over the water resources of Sudan. Moreover, Egypt also makes no issue utilizing water politics at its discretion in accordance with the interests, e.g., on supporting Somalia in its disagreements against Ethiopia.
The GERD problem mirrors Egypt’s general policy: it asserts sovereignty when convenient, but demands collective consent when threatened. This hypocritical cherry-picking of international norms is a persistent trend in Egypt’s foreign policy playbook.
Other Instances of Pragmatic-Hypocritical Diplomacy
Yemen War: Egypt has always been vocal in its opposition to foreign intervention in the Arab world, advocating for the principle that regional conflicts must be solved internally. Yet, its actions in Yemen are quite different. Egypt was an active member of the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis, joining Riyadh’s strategic interests. This action was not strictly ideological—it was a pragmatic exercise of choosing to keep good relations with Saudi Arabia, a crucial political and economic partner. Contrary to condemning interventionist actions elsewhere, Egypt’s intervention in Yemen demonstrated its ability to be more pragmatic and sacrifice ideological purity in favour of economic and military alignments.
Libyan Civil War: Egypt has vocally resisted Turkish intervention in Libya, labelling it as illegitimate foreign intervention. But Egypt itself has been intensely engaged in the war in Libya, supporting the forces of General Khalifa Haftar against the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). Cairo considered Haftar to be a stabilizing element who could moderate Islamist movements and provide a Libya that would be congruent with Egypt’s national security interests. As Egypt condemned Turkey for interfering in Libyan politics, Egypt’s own intervention—through military support, strategic partnerships, and outright military intervention—clearly indicates a double standard. It believes in sovereignty and non-interference when it is convenient but has no qualms about intervening when its interests are involved.
Syria: Egypt has diplomatic relations with Bashar al-Assad’s regime while officially calling for political reforms in Syria. This is a typical example of its diplomatic balancing act. Whereas most Arab nations disengaged from Assad after the Syrian Civil War, Egypt was more circumspect, neither strongly supporting Assad nor openly against him. Cairo’s policy was to avoid antagonizing influential actors in the region while ensuring that it retained leverage in post-war Syria. This duplicity enabled Egypt to pursue Syrian diplomacy without confronting directly global powers engaged in the war.
Relations with the U.S.: Egypt has consistently denounced Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, presenting itself as a champion of Arab independence. At the same time, however, it is one of the biggest recipients of U.S. military aid. Washington gives Egypt billions of dollars in military aid, assisting in the modernization of its military and the preservation of internal security. While Egyptian officials frequently denounce U.S. policy in the region, they still accept American military and financial aid. This paradox illustrates Egypt’s skill at walking between rhetoric and reality—publicly opposing Western influence while secretly enjoying its strategic alliance with the U.S.
Conclusion: The Pragmatism of a Powerhouse
Egypt’s foreign policy is a study in the art of balancing ideology and realpolitik. Whether it is preserving peace with Israel while promoting Palestinian rights, being neutral on Kashmir in spite of its close association with India, not opening its borders to refugees while promoting their cause, or handling the Nile conflict with Ethiopia, Egypt has always put its national interests ahead without entirely forgoing its ideological principles.
