Egypt's Strategic Dilemma: Sovereignty, Diversification, and the $7.5bn Offer
The Suez Canal: A Sovereign Asset beyond Price
The Suez Canal is not merely a waterway; it is a symbol of Egyptian sovereignty and a pillar of our economy. The Canal generates over $9bn annually—more when geopolitical conflicts to the south are resolved—and is governed exclusively by Egyptian law and international treaties, such as the 1888 Constantinople Convention, which guarantees free navigation without compromising Egypt's right to regulate transit fees and security.
The US demand for 'free passage' in exchange for aid risks undermining this sovereignty, echoing President Trump's earlier controversial remarks that dismissed Egypt's control over the Canal. Accepting such terms could set a dangerous precedent, inviting further external pressure on our strategic assets.
The $7.5bn Temptation and Its Strings
The US offer is undeniably significant. It could modernise Egypt's ageing F-16 fleet, replenish missile stockpiles, and strengthen border security—all critical needs. However, history shows that US military aid is rarely unconditional. Congress has repeatedly withheld portions of Egypt's $1.3bn annual assistance over alleged human rights concerns, and the Biden administration has waived requirements only when aligned with US geopolitical interests—such as in Gaza ceasefire negotiations.
Worse still, the proposed deal coincides with threats to cut aid if Egypt refuses to accept displaced Gazans—an absolute red line for Cairo. Can we trust that this $7.5bn won't come with hidden political costs?
Diversification vs. Dependency: Egypt's Strategic Calculus
Egypt's recent pivot toward Chinese and Russian arms—such as the HQ-9B air defence system and potential J-10C fighter jet deals—reflects a calculated strategy to reduce dependence on Western suppliers. The US has long restricted access to critical technologies (e.g., AIM-120 missiles for F-16s) to placate Israel, while China offers advanced systems with fewer political strings attached.
Yet US law explicitly penalises countries that engage in 'significant transactions' with Russia or China's defence sectors, potentially jeopardising future aid. This puts Egypt in a bind: forfeit diversification—and with it, strategic flexibility—or risk losing US support.
The Path Forward: Sovereignty and Pragmatism
Egypt must negotiate from a position of strength. The Suez Canal's value to global trade grants us leverage; the US needs the Canal more than we need their aid. Any agreement must:
Explicitly respect Egyptian sovereignty over Canal management and fee regulation. Avoid linkage to unrelated issues, such as Gaza displacement or human rights benchmarks. Permit continued military diversification, ensuring US aid complements—rather than replaces—partnerships with China or Russia. Be subject to time limits that correspond to the value and duration of the aid provided.
The $7.5bn is tempting, but Egypt's long-term security cannot be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Our military partnerships must serve our interests—not the agendas of external powers. As the Arab world's and Africa's leading military power, Egypt has earned the right to chart its own course—one that balances pragmatism with unyielding sovereignty.
The choice is difficult, but one thing is certain: we will explore all options, but never submit.
Dr. Mohamed El-Seidy: EgyptAir pilot, education and sustainable mobility entrepreneur, and member of CPYP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily News Egypt
37 minutes ago
- Daily News Egypt
Egypt's Al-Sisi meets Rosatom chief as new Dabaa plant deals are signed
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi met with the head of Russia's state atomic energy corporation Rosatom on Tuesday in the city of New Alamein to discuss developments on the Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant project, the presidency said. The meeting with Rosatom Director General Alexey Likhachev came as the two countries signed supplementary agreements aimed at accelerating the construction of the plant. Also present at the meeting were the president of Rosatom's engineering division Atomstroyexport, Andrey Petrov, the Russian Ambassador to Cairo, Georgy Borisenko, as well as Egypt's Minister of Electricity and the head of its Nuclear Power Plants Authority (NPPA). Separately on Tuesday, Egyptian and Russian officials held a signing ceremony for the new agreements at the electricity ministry's headquarters in Alamein. Minister of Electricity and Renewable Energy, Mahmoud Essmat, and Rosatom's Likhachev signed a supplementary protocol to the intergovernmental deal on the plant's construction and its physical protection systems. The two officials then witnessed the signing of a related supplementary contract covering the plant's design, procurement, and construction, which was signed by the head of the NPPA, Sherif Helmy Mahmoud, and Atomstroyexport's Andrey Petrov. A statement from the electricity ministry said the agreements were signed as part of both sides' keenness to speed up the project's implementation according to the set timetables. It added that the project is part of Egypt's strategy to rely on clean energy and achieve its updated national energy strategy goals for 2040. 'The cooperation and partnership between Egypt and Russia embody the strong political will of the two friendly countries,' Essmat said in the statement. 'Today's signing… represents an important step towards completing the Dabaa nuclear plant project in its various stages and reflects the fruitful cooperation between Egypt and Russia.' Likhachev affirmed Russia's firm commitment to supporting Egypt's efforts in building its first nuclear power plant. 'We are proud of our strategic partnership with Egypt and look forward to continuing joint cooperation to implement this ambitious project, which will contribute to enhancing energy security in Egypt and achieving sustainable development goals,' he said.
Daily News Egypt
37 minutes ago
- Daily News Egypt
From Harvard to Berkeley: The Federal War on American Universities
The past year has laid bare a growing and dangerous campaign against American universities — one that threatens to undermine academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the right to dissent. What began with pro-Palestinian demonstrations in late 2023 has escalated into a calculated effort by the Trump administration to police campus discourse, punish ideological nonconformity, and suppress political protest. Behind the rhetoric of combating antisemitism lies a far more ambitious project: transforming America's independent centres of scholarship into compliant instruments of state power. The first major flashpoint came at Harvard, where over thirty student groups issued a statement in October 2023 holding Israel responsible for escalating violence in Gaza. The backlash was swift. Prominent donors, conservative commentators, and federal officials demanded punitive action. Though Harvard's administration initially distanced itself from the protests, its response was neither swift nor severe enough to appease critics. By early 2024, the Trump administration had frozen $2.3bn in federal research grants to Harvard, accusing the university of tolerating antisemitic expression — despite the absence of formal findings to that effect. The message was unmistakable: universities that fail to suppress pro-Palestinian activism will face financial ruin. This retaliation set a precedent. At Yale University, a student group protesting an Israeli official's lecture in late 2024 was branded antisemitic, prompting the university to revoke the group's recognition and sparking campus unrest. Yet even that concession was not enough to prevent federal reprisal. In April 2025, the administration threatened Yale's accreditation, signalling that institutions would now be punished not only for what they say, but for what they allow others to say. The University of California, Berkeley faced its own reckoning in May 2025, when it rejected federal demands to monitor international students' social media accounts for alleged 'anti-American' or 'antisemitic' content. The response was immediate: Berkeley lost $100m in federal research funding. A faculty-led strike followed, with professors warning that such intrusions violated the most basic principles of academic freedom and would devastate American research. Berkeley's defiance made clear that this was not an isolated clash over campus culture, but part of a systematic campaign to bring universities to heel. The consequences are dire. Harvard's Alan Garber noted that the frozen grants threaten vital research on gene editing and GLP-1 drugs — work central to treating genetic disorders and obesity. Steven Pinker warned that the US risks ceding its scientific leadership to nations like China, where research may face ideological limits but not this kind of self-inflicted sabotage. This campaign is not only about silencing dissent; it is about disabling the innovation that has long defined American higher education. Equally alarming is the erosion of academic freedom. Through ideological audits, pressure to dismantle DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, and threats to accreditation, the administration has created an environment in which both faculty and students are discouraged from engaging with politically sensitive topics. The chilling effect is unmistakable. Universities that once prided themselves on fearless inquiry now weigh the cost of financial or political backlash for permitting protest or controversial scholarship. This climate of coercion has fuelled unrest across already polarised campuses. Yale's suppression of student groups and Columbia's heightened policing of protests have sparked further demonstrations. The risk of a nationwide student movement, reminiscent of the Vietnam War era, grows. Yet unlike past waves of protest, today's confrontations stem not from universities defying authority, but from institutions struggling to survive under relentless external attack. Perhaps most insidious is the threat to institutional autonomy. By wielding funding freezes, accreditation threats, and tax status reviews, the administration bypasses due process and replaces independent governance with political fiat. It transforms universities from self-governing scholarly communities into state-dependent contractors — a tactic common in authoritarian regimes, but newly and openly deployed in the American context. The damage also reverberates globally. Visa restrictions and demands for surveillance of international students have already deterred global talent, undermining the diversity and international collaboration that fuel scientific and cultural progress. If the US ceases to be a destination for the world's brightest minds, it will forfeit the intellectual prestige it has long enjoyed. Though comparisons to Hungary's Viktor Orbán or China's Xi Jinping are often made, the Trump administration's tactics are more brazen. Freezing billions in funding without legislative oversight and demanding student surveillance are not the slow, bureaucratic tools of autocracies — they are ideological purges executed with speed and force, bypassing both law and tradition. To be clear, universities must protect all students and ensure civil, inclusive discourse. Antisemitism must be confronted wherever it exists. But using that imperative to justify the suppression of political protest is dishonest and deeply damaging. Harvard's legal challenge to its funding freeze — backed by a coalition of 400 college presidents — is a crucial first step. Yet only sustained resistance by faculty, students, alumni, and the broader public can defend higher education's essential role in a free society. The Trump administration's vendetta against American universities, sparked by pro-Palestinian protests, threatens to dismantle the very principles that have made US higher education a global model. The assault on dissent, the coercion of scholars, and the policing of speech must be recognised for what they are: an attack not only on universities, but on democracy itself. The survival of both now rests on whether those under siege choose silence — or resistance. Dr. Marwa El-Shinawy – Academic and Writer
Daily News Egypt
37 minutes ago
- Daily News Egypt
The B-2 Gamble: How Israel is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics
The Middle East has long been a region where contradictions fuel conflict. It is a place where terrorism morphs into political authority with both regional and international consent. It is a battlefield for nuclear brinkmanship, where occupying powers and others pursue dangerous ambitions for weapons they may never dare to use. It holds nearly 40% of the world's energy reserves, while wealthy nations depend on superpower protection to ensure their survival. This volatile mix provides endless justification for intervention, for redrawing borders, and for reinventing regional power structures under shifting global agendas. The latest chapter of this evolving story began on October 7, 2023, and has intensified with the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran. At the centre of this accelerating transformation stands a blunt truth: Israel is being prepared not merely as a stakeholder, but as the region's official security enforcer and power broker. What distinguishes this moment is not that the United States is grooming a proxy to police the region — Washington did so in the 1950s with the Shah of Iran after the ousting of nationalist leader Mohammad Mosaddegh. The difference now is that this is not a US design imposed on Israel — it is Israel's own blueprint, carried out with Washington's endorsement. The evidence is no longer subtle. Just weeks ago, Admiral James Kilby, acting US Chief of Naval Operations, told Congress that America's military operations in the Arabian Sea were rapidly depleting its arsenal at an unsustainable rate. Over a billion dollars' worth of missiles had been launched against Houthi rebels, with three Super Hornet jets lost in three months — one due to friendly fire. Kilby's message was calculated and unambiguous: while US interests in the Gulf and Middle East remain vital, the costs have become prohibitive. Perhaps it is time for a regional actor to shoulder that burden. That actor is, unmistakably, Israel. US lawmakers are already moving in that direction. Following recent American strikes on Iranian assets, Congress proposed new legislation granting President Donald Trump authority to transfer advanced strategic weaponry to Tel Aviv — including the formidable B-2 stealth bomber and GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, capable of destroying targets buried sixty metres underground. This is not routine arms support. It is about enabling Israel with autonomous deterrent capabilities, easing Washington's political load regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. The so-called 'Bunker Buster Act,' backed by Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Republican Mike Lawler, seeks to give the president sweeping powers to ensure Israel's readiness for any scenario should Iran advance its nuclear programme. If enacted, it would transform the Middle East's military landscape. For Israel, the implications would be historic. Acquiring B-2 strategic bombers would allow Tel Aviv to enforce its long-held doctrine of 'open skies' — ensuring uncontested air dominance from Lebanon to Iran via Syria and Iraq. This would not only disrupt supply lines to Hezbollah and Hamas but would also grant Israel a definitive military veto over any regional force aspiring to strategic parity. Trump and Netanyahu are perfectly aligned in this vision. Their recent summit — the third in just six months — marked a turning point in US-Israeli relations. Trump saw in Israel's role during the strikes on Iranian assets confirmation of Tel Aviv's enduring strategic value. Notably, no global power — not even China or Russia — condemned the attacks. This silence was telling, reinforcing deterrence and giving Trump a window to advance a Middle East order grounded in preemption and militarised regional policing. At the core of the Trump-Netanyahu dialogue was a pragmatic and unapologetic vision for the region: to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through a binding deal that curbs its regional influence; to stabilise Syria under pro-Western — or at least anti-Iranian — leadership; to integrate defence systems and economic corridors under an expanded Abraham Accords framework; to marginalise Chinese influence through deeper military ties with Gulf states; and to preserve Israel's absolute military and technological edge. For Israel, the immediate challenge is not competing with Gulf states for investments or high-level visits. Its real dilemma lies in defining its role within this emerging order while avoiding premature confrontations. Historically, Israel has operated as Washington's indispensable regional asset, equipped with one of the world's most advanced military machines, backed by extensive Western intelligence networks. In contrast, even the wealthiest Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — remain militarily vulnerable, a condition unlikely to change despite multi-billion-dollar arms purchases. Within this emerging structure, Israel is positioned to become the frontline executor of US interests — at least until tensions ease and Iran's nuclear file is closed. To solidify this role, Israel must progress along three tracks: maintaining its independent military superiority, now bolstered by the proposed B-2 transfer; pursuing pragmatic relations with regional powers like Turkey to prevent destabilising flare-ups; and embedding itself within new regional economic frameworks by leveraging its unmatched technological base. Yet none of this is inevitable. History consistently reminds us that no geopolitical vision, however heavily armed, is immune to resistance. The region's future will hinge on whether its nations possess the resolve, strategic cohesion, and unity to challenge this vision — before Israel secures uncontested authority over the Middle East's airspace, politics, and resources. The clock, however, is ticking. Dr. Hatem Sadek, Professor at Helwan University
