
Sudan Nashra: Weeklong RSF drone war devastates Port Sudan, reaches across Sudan Port Sudan severs ties with UAE
In a major shift in Sudan's ongoing war, the conflict has now reached Port Sudan and Kassala — marking the first time fighting has extended to eastern Sudan.
Starting Sunday, waves of drone attacks hit key locations in Port Sudan, the de facto administrative capital where Transitional Sovereignty Council (TSC) Chair and Sudanese Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan has been based since Khartoum fell to the Rapid Support Forces over two years ago. According to a senior military source at the General Staff, over 50 drones struck the city between Sunday and Thursday, engulfing the skies in smoke.
The strikes come after Burhan vowed to neutralize RSF drone capabilities just a week earlier, saying, 'Soon, you will not hear of these drones.'
Around 6,000 people fled Port Sudan, returning to their home states in the wake of the drone attacks, a source from the interstate bus terminal in the city told Mada Masr, noting that the number is expected to rise.
The drone strikes — which the European Union said were 'supported by international backers' — shattered the relative calm of one of Sudan's most vital logistical and administrative hubs. The city hosts United Nations humanitarian operations and foreign diplomatic missions and has served as the interim seat of government.
While the RSF has maintained official silence on the attacks, the military-led government held the United Arab Emirates responsible and announced it was severing diplomatic ties with Abu Dhabi.
A security source in the General Intelligence Service said their analysis suggested the drones entered the country from the northwest, smuggled through land supply routes to RSF bases in Nyala, South Darfur, and then on to strategic locations now under RSF control.
Egypt and several Gulf states — including Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia — along with the African Union, swiftly condemned the attacks on critical infrastructure in Port Sudan and Kassala, warning that such strikes pose a serious threat to both Arab and African regional stability.
Port Sudan descended into chaos in the early hours of Sunday. Fires lit up the sky near the Port Sudan International Airport and vital oil depots.
Later that day, military spokesperson Nabil Abdallah issued a statement confirming that the RSF had launched suicide drone attacks targeting the Osman Digna airbase and civilian infrastructure in Port Sudan.
***
Weeklong attacks on Port Sudan leave de facto administrative capital in chaos
The RSF operation began with drone strikes on the Port Sudan International Airport, partially destroying airport infrastructure and grounding air traffic. Civil aviation authorities suspended all incoming and outgoing flights until Sunday evening.
Five drones hit the airport's cargo depot, then another four struck the adjacent Osman Digna airbase, setting an ammunition warehouse on fire, a source at the Civil Aviation Authority told Mada Masr. Meanwhile, four more drones targeted the Flamingo military base, 15 km north of the city, causing partial damage, military sources at the base told Mada Masr. Though sources did not disclose the full extent of the damage, they described it as 'significant.'
The strategic fuel depot near the Bashayer petroleum terminal was also struck, setting off a fire that burned for three consecutive days, a source in the Civil Defense Forces told Mada Masr, adding that more than 45 personnel were involved in efforts to extinguish it.
A source at the Industry Ministry and another from the office of TSC member Ibrahim Gaber estimated the damage from the first day of attacks alone at around US$120 million.
On Monday morning, the strikes resumed, this time hitting the southern port in Port Sudan as well as oil depots, triggering massive fires.
In a statement on Monday, the Energy and Petroleum Ministry said the strikes were aimed at the complete destruction of the largest fuel depots in the Red Sea State. Energy and Petroleum Minister Mohie Eddin Naim, who visited the affected sites, condemned the attacks as acts of terrorism. According to the statement, he accused the perpetrators of intentionally targeting civilian and service infrastructure, with the clear goal of paralyzing the country's essential operations.
The ministry later assured citizens that fuel supplies remain stable despite the damage.
The drone attacks resumed for a third day on Tuesday. Targets included Burhan's residence, fuel depots in the Transit area, Port Sudan's southern port, and once again, the Flamingo base, a government official in the Red Sea State told Mada Masr. Civil aviation authorities were forced to suspend all flights to and from Port Sudan International Airport for the second time.
One of the drone strikes also hit the Marina Hotel, a luxury establishment believed to house diplomats located near several government buildings, according to eyewitnesses who spoke to Mada Masr. There were no reports of casualties.
The attacks on the Flamingo base — the military's most critical supply and operations hub on the Red Sea, second only to the Wadi Sidna base in Omdurman — destroyed several buildings, military vessels and an ammunition depot, and caused injuries among military personnel, a military source at the base told Mada Masr.
Ali Taleb, a public transportation driver working the southern route to Port Sudan's main market, told Mada Masr that he saw explosions around 4:30 am shortly before hearing anti-aircraft fire near the international airport. He also heard what he described as multiple drones approaching from the south and heading northwest, toward the Flamingo naval base. 'At first I thought they might be satellites, but the sounds were far too close,' he said.
Another drone strike targeted fuel depots at Port Sudan's electricity plant on the same day. The strike sparked massive fires and violent explosions, according to an engineer at the city's power conversion station. The attacks severely disrupted supply lines, effectively taking the city off the power grid, the engineer told Mada Masr.
Government spokesperson Khaled al-Eaisar visited the oil depots, which had been burning for the third consecutive day, directly holding the UAE responsible for the attacks.
All the while, the RSF and its allies maintained official silence.
At this point, the threat appeared to have reached a critical point for the military-led government. On Tuesday evening, in an emergency meeting chaired by Burhan, the Security and Defense Council issued a statement, read by Defense Minister Yassin Ibrahim Yassin, officially holding the UAE responsible for the drone attacks on Port Sudan and other civilian facilities across the country, including the Kassala Airport in the east. The government announced its decision to sever diplomatic ties with the UAE and designate it a hostile state, reserving the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN charter and threatening retaliation.
While he chaired the meeting, Burhan also chose a different way to express his defiance to the threats that reached his residence.
Standing on a main street in Port Sudan as traffic moved normally around him and flames from burning oil depots and the port rose in the background, Burhan stated, 'Sudan will win.' He vowed that the Sudanese people would not be intimidated by such acts and asserted that the military and all allied forces stand united to repel the aggression.
'We are committed to defeating the RSF militia and its backers,' Burhan added. 'To everyone who assaulted the Sudanese people: your moment of reckoning will come.' He stopped short of naming Abu Dhabi directly.
Two years of escalating accusations between the UAE and Sudan have now culminated in a complete diplomatic rupture, and the RSF and its allies moved to respond on Abu Dhabi's behalf.
The RSF-led Tasees coalition — made up of armed and political groups who signed the RSF's political charter in Nairobi in February — preemptively issued a response on Tuesday night to Sudan's decision to sever diplomatic relations with the UAE. The statement called the move 'desperate' and rejected the Sudanese government's legitimacy — language that was later used by the UAE's official statement on Wednesday, which declared that it did not recognize the 'Port Sudan authority' as a legitimate government and dismissed the Sudanese decision.
In response to the Emirati Foreign Ministry's dismissal, Sudan's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Thursday, describing the UAE's remarks as 'pathetic and ludicrous.'
'The statement shows a bizarre disregard for international laws and diplomatic norms,' the ministry said, accusing Abu Dhabi of displaying 'hollow impertinence toward the Sudanese people.'
The statement went on to condemn 'the frenzied depths to which Abu Dhabi's regime has sunk in its crude attempts to interfere in Sudanese affairs,' describing the Emirati statement as 'an act of entrenched duplicity from a government that calls for virtues it has never practiced.'
The Sudanese ministry stated that the world was now witnessing a sharp escalation in state terrorism by the Abu Dhabi regime against the Sudanese people, accusing the UAE of targeting civilians, infrastructure and vital facilities using various types of drones and lethal weaponry.
This escalation, the statement added, came after the failure of what it described as a 'proxy war waged through hired terrorist militias.' It criticized the UAE for boasting of its aid to Sudan while simultaneously inflicting far greater losses — not only through destruction and looting, but also through 'the loss of tens of thousands of innocent lives, acts of rape, displacement and the destruction of the means of survival.'
The ministry also reminded the UAE of Sudan's early support during the Emirates' founding days, referring to the country at the time as merely 'a project.'
Against the backdrop of this diplomatic crisis, the drone attacks continued.
On Wednesday and Thursday, drone strikes once again hit Port Sudan and Kassala, with the city of Kosti in the White Nile State also targeted — specifically its oil depots. However, these latest attacks appeared less damaging than the initial waves in Port Sudan, as the military's ability to intercept drones seemed to be improving.
On Thursday, a strategic drone strike targeted the Air Force College in Port Sudan's Matar neighborhood, near the international airport. The military intercepted and destroyed around seven drones that day, a senior military source told Mada Masr.
Abdel Rahman Hamad, a vegetable vendor in Port Sudan's central market, said he heard explosions around the Matar area, along with the sound of anti-aircraft fire from military defenses. According to him, the attack lasted around 45 minutes, with most of the drones falling near the Air Force College and along the coastal strip adjacent to the Red Sea.
The escalation in eastern Sudan has triggered a wave of regional and international condemnation, especially over the attacks on critical infrastructure in Port Sudan.
The European Union issued a pointed statement, attributing the drone strikes, which it said was 'reportedly carried out by the RSF,' to external supporters. It warned that the attacks not only endanger Sudanese civilians but also pose a broader threat to regional security.
The Netherlands Embassy in Sudan echoed the EU's stance, calling the targeting of civilian infrastructure a 'dangerous escalation that endangers displaced Sudanese civilians and international staff.' The embassy also said the attacks were 'backed by external supporters,' adding that the strikes violate international humanitarian law and undermine peace and stability efforts in Sudan.
'States supplying arms or funds to the conflict must cease support now and stand for peace,' the statement read.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development likewise condemned the attacks on civilian infrastructure.
***
RSF sources claim responsibility for strikes in eastern Sudan, military official: We're prepared
Three field sources in the RSF told Mada Masr that the group was responsible for the drone attacks on the cities of Port Sudan, Kassala and Kosti.
A field logistics officer for the RSF in North Kordofan confirmed that the paramilitary's drones were behind the attacks on Port Sudan, describing the operation as the fulfillment of RSF Deputy Commander Abdel Rahim Dagalo's earlier pledge to bring the war to Port Sudan and northern Sudan.
Another RSF source, stationed in West Kordofan, said the strikes on Port Sudan gave the group a major commercial advantage. While the port is disrupted and government exports are halted, the RSF, the source said, has consolidated control over West Kordofan's Nuhud — the largest hub for exporting gum arabic and oilseeds from the Kordofan region. This control, the source argued, would significantly boost the group's economic capacity.
A third RSF military source framed the strikes on Port Sudan, Kosti and Obeid as a strategic move aimed at pressuring the government into acknowledging what they described as the 'reality of its weakness.' The source claimed the attacks would cripple any economic capacity the government might leverage to develop its military capabilities.
According to this source, the RSF plans to systematically paralyze the military's operations across eastern and northern Sudan as well as in the Blue Nile region. They further threatened that the group would soon move to storm Fasher and begin a campaign to take full control of Kordofan — a move the source described as the prelude to a renewed push to retake Khartoum.
However, a senior official in the General Staff told Mada Masr that the military is prepared for any further moves by the RSF, despite being so clearly caught off guard by the recent wave of attacks. The military's leadership, along with its command and control center and operations administration, convened on Thursday to assess the situation. According to the source, all relevant departments submitted reports and investigative findings to senior operations and military commanders during the meeting.
The military has also deployed specialized units equipped with counter-drone technology at different sites targeted in the recent attacks, according to the source.
The military's 19th Division shot down seven drones targeting Northern State's Merowe on Thursday — including two strategic drones that targeted Merowe Dam, the city's military airport and the division's camp in Ghazaly, a source in the division told Mada Masr.
While the military intercepted drones targeting Merowe, it failed to repel the attacks on Um Rawaba and Tandalti in the While Nile State, where drones struck fuel depots and Tanadalti's military command center, the source said.
Eyewitnesses in Merowe told Mada Masr that the weapons the military used to shoot down the drones were different compared to earlier operations. They could see the rounds being fired but said they were silent, unlike the anti-aircraft fire used before, which could be heard from kilometers away.
At Port Sudan's Flamingo naval base, which was struck twice during the attacks, the military's specialized units deployed there were able to down all drones launched on Thursday, eyewitnesses told Mada Masr. Military sources also confirmed that three drones targeting the key naval base on Friday in the sixth attack this week were intercepted. A military source stationed at the base told Mada Masr that the military has carefully repositioned its air defense systems to better respond to threats as the base's command and control room is anticipating further attacks, raising the alert level to its highest state.
Military and strategic expert Moatassem Abdel Qader told Mada Masr that repeated RSF drone attacks would not derail the military's plans to advance and secure territory in Kordofan and Darfur. The operation to lift the siege on Fasher and reclaim western Sudan is moving forward according to a detailed strategy, which includes mobilizing troops and ensuring logistical support at every stage, he said.
Abdel Qader stressed that just as the military managed to decisively resolve the battles in central Sudan and Khartoum State over the past two years — which involved more complex urban warfare — it is equally capable of winning the battles in western Sudan, which are less militarily challenging. He added that the military is now more prepared and experienced than before.
He also noted that the military has worked in recent weeks to cut off the RSF's supply routes by targeting the Nyala International Airport, as well as border areas with Libya and Chad and other key RSF logistics corridors.
This week's attacks came on the heels of a military strike on the Nyala airport in South Darfur — the RSF's largest operational and logistics hub in Sudan equipped with advanced military technologies — in a bid to disrupt the group's supply lines and coordination center with the UAE. According to the Sixth Infantry Division, the strike on May 3 targeted a Boeing aircraft loaded with military supplies, weapons, and both suicide and strategic drones. The operation resulted in the destruction of the plane and the killing and wounding of several foreign nationals, according to the statement. The division also said that it foiled plans to send an RSF unit to the UAE for training, killing 150 fighters.
Backed logistically by the UAE, the RSF has been developing a military airbase and strategic cargo facilities at the Nyala airport since early this year, a senior source from the military's General Staff told Mada Masr in February
Abdel Qader stressed the importance of Sudan designating the UAE as a hostile state and reserving the right to retaliate at any time, arguing that this kind of pressure could deter further aggression. While the UAE has denied involvement in the attacks, he said flight tracking data and intercepted materials strongly indicate Emirati involvement in arming and supporting the RSF.
On whether Sudan might seek emergency defense agreements with Russia or other allies to protect strategic sites from drone attacks, Abdel Qader said that Sudan already maintains both public and covert alliances. He noted that the military has recently acquired advanced weapons and ammunition, though some partnerships may require discretion and secrecy.
***
Drone strikes, civilian casualties persist across Sudan
While much of the attention this week centered on the assault on Port Sudan, drone strikes targeted other areas in Khartoum, White Nile and Kordofan, with limited attacks from both sides in Darfur and new military gains in Omdurman.
Eyewitnesses told Mada Masr that large explosions were heard and plumes of smoke were seen rising from the southern part of Kosti in the White Nile State on Thursday evening after drone strikes targeted fuel depots in the city. A field source said the attack was carried out by three suicide drones, adding that simultaneous strikes hit military positions in Tandalti, west of Kosti, killing and injuring several soldiers.
In North Kordofan's Um Rawaba, RSF drones struck a military checkpoint at the city's entrance and attempted to hit power transformers and other military sites but ground defenses managed to repel the attack, a local source told Mada Masr.
Drone strikes also reached Omdurman in western Khartoum. According to the Sudanese Doctors Network, three children were killed and four others injured when a drone hit a residential home in Hara 16 west of the city. In a statement issued Thursday, the network blamed the RSF for the attack and called on the international community to pressure the paramilitary group to halt violations against civilians, allow safe humanitarian corridors into besieged areas in Kordofan and Darfur and stop targeting civilian infrastructure.
In its operation to eliminate the remaining RSF pockets in Omdurman and the capital, the military advanced on Thursday to the outskirts of the Kassarat area in Salha, and cleared several blocks of the Real Estate Bank neighborhood in southern Omdurman the previous day, a field source told Mada Masr.
Meanwhile, in Fasher, North Darfur, the city witnessed a relative calm this week. A field source told Mada Masr that direct clashes between the military and allied forces on one side, and the RSF and its allied tribal militias on the other, had decreased. Fighting was largely limited to artillery exchanges and drone strikes.
A military drone targeted RSF-held sites in Gaggo Gaggo, east of Fasher, on Wednesday evening, aiming at jamming stations and drone launch platforms, according to the source.
The RSF, on the other hand, resumed its artillery shelling, targeting several areas in the city's north on Wednesday. According to the military's
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily News Egypt
2 hours ago
- Daily News Egypt
CBE governor represents Egypt at Afreximbank's 2025 annual meetings in Nigeria
On behalf of President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) Governor Hassan Abdalla participated in the official opening of the African Export-Import Bank's (Afreximbank) 32nd Annual Meetings, held recently in Abuja, Nigeria. The 2025 meetings were convened under the theme 'Owning Our Destiny: Economic Prosperity on the Platform of Resilience,' and brought together African heads of state, central bank governors, senior officials, financial leaders, and investors from across the continent. In his remarks, Abdalla affirmed Egypt's commitment to supporting Africa's comprehensive development agenda and strengthening the role of regional institutions in addressing economic challenges. He underscored the pivotal role Afreximbank plays in advancing trade and economic integration across the continent, and reiterated Egypt's ongoing efforts to deepen cooperation with regional and international financial bodies to promote sustainable development and economic cohesion. On the sidelines of the event, Abdalla held bilateral talks with Gabonese President Brice Oligui Nguema and George Elombi, recently elected as the new president of Afreximbank, succeeding Benedict Oramah. Abdalla congratulated Elombi on his appointment and extended appreciation to Oramah for his leadership and contributions during his decade-long tenure, which concludes in September. Abdalla also paid an official visit to the Central Bank of Nigeria, where he was received by Governor Olayemi Cardoso. The two officials discussed avenues for enhancing institutional collaboration in areas such as financial stability, digital innovation, fintech development, and cross-border financial initiatives. The Afreximbank meetings addressed a broad spectrum of issues relevant to African economies, including economic transformation, institutional resilience, healthcare investment, and innovative financing models. The sessions also explored strengthening ties between Africa and the Caribbean, and reviewed the bank's performance in the 2024 fiscal year. Discussions highlighted Afreximbank's expanding role in supporting the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), fostering stronger partnerships among African governments, financial institutions, and investors, and introducing new mechanisms to enhance intra-African trade and economic integration. Notably, the Central Bank of Egypt remains the largest shareholder in Afreximbank, which was established in 1993 and is headquartered in Cairo. The bank's mission is to boost intra-African trade and increase Africa's share in global commerce by financing trade, supporting industrial development, and promoting exports across the continent.


See - Sada Elbalad
4 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
CBE Governor: Egypt Commits to Supporting Comprehensive Development in Africa
Taarek Refaat On behalf of the Egyptian President, Hassan Abdullah, Governor of the Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) officially inaugurated the 32nd Annual Meeting of the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) held recently in Abuja, Nigeria. The event convened under the theme 'Building the Future on Decades of Resilience', attracting numerous African heads of state, senior government officials, central bank governors, financial institution leaders, and investors from across the continent. During the opening, Governor Abdullah emphasized Egypt's unwavering commitment to supporting Africa's comprehensive development efforts. He highlighted the vital role played by regional institutions like Afreximbank in overcoming economic challenges and fostering economic and trade integration among African nations. 'Egypt remains dedicated to strengthening regional and international cooperation with African financial and developmental institutions to support sustainable development and solidify the foundations of economic integration across Africa,' Abdullah affirmed. Strategic Engagements and Regional Cooperation On the sidelines of the meetings, Abdullah met with Brice Oligui Nguema, President of Gabon, and held discussions with George Elombi, recently elected as the new President of Afreximbank, succeeding Benedict Oramah. Expressing his congratulations to Elombi, Abdullah praised the outgoing President Oramah for his decade-long outstanding leadership and contributions, which culminate in September. Further cementing regional ties, Abdullah visited the Central Bank of Nigeria at the invitation of his counterpart Oluyemi Cardoso. The two officials explored avenues for deeper collaboration on financial stability, fintech innovation, digital transformation, and cross-border cooperation. Key Topics and Future Outlook During the meetings, participants discussed a wide range of pressing issues facing African countries. Key among these was the need to accelerate Africa's economic transformation through focused policies and enhanced cooperation. Emphasis was also placed on strengthening institutional resilience, which was highlighted as a crucial foundation for sustainable development across the continent. Additionally, innovative financing solutions aimed at increasing investment in the healthcare sector were explored, recognizing the importance of improving health outcomes for African populations. The discussions further included fostering strategic partnerships between Africa and the Caribbean region to boost economic collaboration and mutual growth. The meetings also reviewed Afreximbank's performance for fiscal year 2024, spotlighting its growing role in facilitating the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement. Discussions included strengthening frameworks for cooperation between African governments, financial institutions, and investors, as well as new mechanisms for financing and economic integration. Egypt's Leading Role in Afreximbank Egypt holds the distinction of being the largest shareholder in Afreximbank, which was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Cairo. The bank aims to boost intra-African trade and increase Africa's share in global commerce by financing inter-African trade and supporting the continent's industrial capacity and export growth. Governor Abdullah reaffirmed Egypt's commitment to empowering African countries by enhancing their industrial capabilities and export competitiveness, thereby contributing to the continent's overall economic advancement. read more CBE: Deposits in Local Currency Hit EGP 5.25 Trillion Morocco Plans to Spend $1 Billion to Mitigate Drought Effect Gov't Approves Final Version of State Ownership Policy Document Egypt's Economy Expected to Grow 5% by the end of 2022/23- Minister Qatar Agrees to Supply Germany with LNG for 15 Years Business Oil Prices Descend amid Anticipation of Additional US Strategic Petroleum Reserves Business Suez Canal Records $704 Million, Historically Highest Monthly Revenue Business Egypt's Stock Exchange Earns EGP 4.9 Billion on Tuesday Business Wheat delivery season commences on April 15 News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies News Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks Videos & Features Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream News Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan Technology 50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean


Egypt Independent
7 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Former Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Oraby in exclusive interview discusses Iran/Israel war and path to peace
Amid a world in upheaval — politically, economically, and regionally — the Middle East stands at a crossroads. More than a year has passed since the genocidal war in Gaza erupted, with no conceivable end in sight. The conflict has spread: to southern Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and even Iran. In our 'Future of the Middle East' series, we convene dialogues with leading current and former politicians, thinkers, and diplomats from across the region and beyond. Their insights, shaped by past experiences and the urgency of today, help us envision tomorrow. From the origins of the Arab–Israeli conflict, through regional interventions, the rise of non‑state actors, and the deepening complexity of the Arab world, we seek informed discussion. We're drawing historical lessons to chart a visionary, stabilizing path that empowers Arab nations to rekindle regional ties, achieve economic integration, and serve their interests. Our discussion framework consists of two parts: First, seven key questions formulated in response to reader demand, centered around the region's outlook. Second, customized questions tailored to each guest's background, offering deeper perspective on how the region might pursue an independent trajectory, free from external agendas. In this exclusive interview, we sat down with Egypt's Former Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Oraby. He discussed how the recent war between Israel and Iran is a dangerous escalation, with the only way out being the formation of a strong unified Arab front, utilizing an economic integration project that can later foster political consensus. Interview: ■ The term 'Middle East' is a colonial geographic designation — it hasn't worked for people here, beyond being a convenient label for policymakers. What's the region's reality, and how has history shaped it? – I won't dwell on the name, as it emerged during colonial times, yet it continues to be used in political discourse. Alternative terms like 'Near East' are used within European ministries, including Turkey, Iran, even Afghanistan. Terms aside, the real issue is the centuries-long instability. The region's geography and resources inevitably draw external interference, not only from global powers but also from local states driven by political ambitions. Israel's establishment in 1948 further intensified these tensions. Colonial powers left us artificial borders and tensions — look at Gulf states or between Egypt, Sudan, and Libya — deliberately sowing discord to justify future intervention or their covert influence. ■ The phrase 'Great Middle East' dates back to Alfred Thayer Mahan (1902), later echoed by Condoleezza Rice amid the Israeli–Iran war. How do you view this vision under Trump? – A populist like Trump has influenced the world, not just our region. He floated ideas like annexing Canada, seizing the Suez Canal, or creating a 'Riviera' in Gaza. He speaks as a global leader, not merely a US president—pushing the 'law of force' over the 'force of law.' The 'Greater Middle East' plan was devised long ago as a power play, possibly involving Islamist proxies — but it falters here. Iran's resiliency proves external blueprints often fail. Netanyahu's 'New Middle East' is merely image-making for Israel; it collapsed at the UN and has no basis in reality – Israel's actions in Iran will backfire. ■ What roles can regional powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia play amid these strategic blueprints? – Each has its sphere. Strategic integration between Egypt and Saudi Arabia is essential — they are the wings of the Arab world. Their daily coordination on issues like displacement and re-calibrating ties with Iran is vital. While they may not always move in lockstep, they share an outlook, as shown by a recent joint statement opposing regional military escalation against Iran. ■ Why is there no unified Arab project in response to these regional schemes, especially with overt Israeli threats? Where is the Arab alternative? – Sadly, there is no true pan-Arab project. Regional powers like Iran, Turkey, and Israel have clear agendas, while we lack institutional unity. Yes, we share a language and culture, but there is no effective Arab Parliament or political mechanism. The Arab League has lost influence because it depends on the sovereignty of its member states. Yet history shows unity is possible — the unified Arab stance in 1973 and the GCC's success prove this. An economic integration project is essential. Each country has comparative advantage — AI, agriculture, energy, education — and Egypt already hosts thousands of Arab students. Economic integration should be the first step, followed naturally by political unity. ■ How should the Arab world navigate between global power rivals and assert itself without being dominated by a single power that has repeatedly undermined and drained the region? — I agree that ending dependence on Washington is necessary. It's premature to declare a fully multi polar world: perhaps we're entering its early stages, which may last two to 30 years. Russia is currently depleted by its war in Ukraine, while China is ascendant. But we shouldn't underestimate America and the West's resilience. ■ Egypt has historically played central roles in the region — can it continue amid mounting strategic pressures and constant targeting? — For the first time in its history, Egypt is simultaneously squeezed from four strategic directions, none of which it can ignore. Managing this balance is far more complex than what most countries face. Egypt navigates this through a strong military and a diverse, if not powerful, economy — but it's one capable of swift adaptation. ■ If you were to sketch out future scenarios given current challenges and conflicts, what would they look like? — First, the Palestinian people must be empowered politically. Second, Israel must be brought back to its natural size — a state that can coexist without regional dominance. Third, nuclear disarmament is complex now, and regional stability relies on a Palestinian resolution. We must revive the Arab economic summit (2009/2011/2013), which proved more effective than political summits. ■ Let's move to the current scene—the Iran-Israel war. What is the significance of Iran's response by striking US bases following the American attacks on the three Iranian nuclear reactors? Has the Trump administration adopted Nixon's 'Madman Theory,' or was it Tehran that dictated the 'rules of engagement'? – The 'Madman Theory' is a very accurate term when it comes to Tehran and Washington, but the situation differs when discuss Tehran and Tel Aviv. What we saw at the end of this round of conflict indicates that both the US and Iran chose to engage in the Madman Theory. Both sides adopted it, which is reminiscent of the 'rules of engagement' that Hezbollah formulated back in the 1980s. The Iranian and American sides carried out reciprocal strikes, seeking to save face. There are even indications of prior coordination. Trump himself stated that the Iranians informed him of their intention to respond—as if asking for his understanding. This theory still stands, so long as both parties agree on a tit-for-tat formula of equally powerful strikes that bring the conflict back to square one. It's possible both sides reached a point of mutual exhaustion and thus decided that neither a complete defeat nor a complete victory would be in anyone's interest in this 12-day war. This strategy was essentially endorsed by the US, as escalation is not in its favor. As for Israel, Iran is not capable of carrying out precision strikes there, and Israel is likewise unable to paralyze Iran or bring down its regime, despite what it has claimed. There is, however, a clear security breach inside Iran—assassinations of senior figures based on precise intelligence, sometimes said to be through phone tracking or via AI technology. Even though the physical destruction was relatively limited, the psychological impact on the Israeli public is massive—100 percent confirmed. I've lived there and understand the Israeli psyche closely. This scale of destruction will be a heavy burden on Netanyahu when it comes time for accountability. ■ Do you believe that Iran emerging from this round without regime collapse—despite the threats from Netanyahu and Trump—constitutes a victory? Are we witnessing a shift in the region's deterrence rules? – Indeed, Iran surviving this round without a regime collapse is a victory: the streets of Iran are euphoric. Iran has helped redefine the region's deterrence parameters—some of which it imposed. I believe Netanyahu will walk back his talk about 'changing the Middle East,' because the region now has new deterrence equations, and Iran has contributed to that with a degree of political realism. Israel's behavior in the region will undoubtedly change in the next phase. ■ There is Israeli propaganda claiming victory, while Tehran is celebrating in its own streets. From a political perspective, how do you interpret this? Can anyone be considered a true winner in this conflict? – There's no need to dwell too much on propaganda. No one can truthfully claim full victory in this war. Precise calculations will emerge later. Just as Iran suffered leadership losses, Israel also sustained significant damage. The political consequences of this conflict will negatively impact Netanyahu's government in due course. ■ So, we are in a state of open-ended conflict. Will this war bring future surprises? – Iran will not surrender. In modern warfare, there's no such thing as total victory or total defeat. This isn't like World War II, where surrender documents were signed. The situation will remain fluid, and not all confrontations will come through direct military operations. This war will certainly bring many surprises. It is essential to study how the US administration manages such crises, coordinates its steps with public opinion, and uses media as a tool in psychological warfare. ■ What lessons can be drawn from this war—first for the Arabs, and second for Iran in managing its relations with the Arab region? – I expect Iran will become more proactive in improving its relations with the Arab world. We will likely see a push in that direction once this round of fighting concludes. ■ Returning to the Arab side—why do some countries continue to host American bases despite public perception that they pose a threat rather than offering protection? – The main takeaway from this war is that Arabs need to unify around a shared strategic vision. They must rely on a collective internal strength to build a coherent strategy for dealing with both the region and the world. The hardships endured in the Gaza war and now the Iran-Israel conflict should serve as a catalyst for reevaluating our strategy and fostering greater Arab solidarity. As for public perception—yes, many believe US bases are a source of aggression rather than protection, and that sentiment is valid and understandable. But in reality, the US will not withdraw its bases; it may reduce troop numbers, as it did in Syria, but a full withdrawal is unlikely. I also don't see the Gulf states abandoning these bases—it's not that simple. Israel feels emboldened, and Iran feels it has stood its ground and dealt with both Israel and the US as an equal and with force. This new power equilibrium will reinforce the US's desire to remain in the Gulf, particularly since the attacks were coordinated and the US didn't suffer losses. ■ How do you interpret Qatar's response? Will this incident damage Qatari-Iranian relations, or was it coordinated and likely to be resolved? – The Qatari-Iranian relationship is strong. I believe prior coordination took place. Yes, Iran violated Qatari sovereignty, but it did so out of necessity—not as a full-scale breach, but as a face-saving maneuver. I believe Qatar's balanced stance was essential, because escalation is in no one's interest. We are indeed standing at the edge of the abyss—but the point is not to remain cornered, merely absorbing blows. We must allow Iran room to save face. ■ Was the US intent on recreating the Iraq scenario in Tehran in a different form, had it not been for Iran's deterrence balance? – Yes, but it was unable to do so because the tools of conflict have changed, and so have the regional dynamics. Our region has its own unique character that often surprises adversaries, consistently defies expectations, and yields unforeseen developments. ■ Some believe that Israeli threats will eventually extend to Egypt, while others are more reserved about that. What's your comment? – I don't believe Egypt's security is directly threatened—at least not in the foreseeable future. The state has handled the situation with wisdom and precision, managing to maintain its stability without draining its resources. Egypt today faces a volatile border reality, and yet it has successfully contained threats with professionalism. ■ But Israel and other regional actors are attempting to redraw spheres of influence in the Middle East through this war. What's your view? – Certainly. Every major conflict is followed by a reshuffling of influence. Things will not return to how they were. There will be changes on the ground, but for now—and in light of the evolving landscape—we cannot accurately predict the scope or nature of that change. ■ So, do you believe what we are witnessing in the region is part of the broader resistance to the emerging multi-polar world order? – I completely agree with you on this point. Our region is paying the price for the world's shift toward multi-polarity. It has become a theater for competition among the three major powers: the US, Russia, and China. Each is trying to exploit the vacuums created by the current war to serve its own interests—whether that means weakening Israel, weakening Iran, or the opposite. ■ Then how can we, as regional actors, fill these vacuums before other powers do? – Filling these vacuums that are currently being exploited by competing powers requires achieving two fundamental objectives: First, the establishment of a Palestinian state. Second, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the region, including, of course, those possessed by Israel. If these two conditions are met, they would open the door for Arabs to play an active role in filling those strategic voids. Unfortunately, current regional and international conditions make achieving those goals difficult for now. Nevertheless, we must revive the old Egyptian-Iranian initiative that called for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. This requires supportive conditions and genuine political will. ■ Do we need to revive the spirit of the Bandung Conferences and form a new Non-Aligned Movement to counter American and Western bias? – That's true. But if I said that outright, some might mock the idea as a relic of the 1950s. Still, despite changing global circumstances, we continue to need a revival of the concept of the 'Global South.' These countries need joint planning and mutual development. One could say that the BRICS bloc is partially moving in that direction, despite its flaws. What we need is a form of political, economic, and scientific integration among the nations of the South. This will pave the way for the future. Currently, our region is stuck in the present—floundering in it—and regresses each time it takes a step forward. We must start thinking forward. Just look at ASEAN: despite its nations' differing political systems, it has achieved remarkable economic breakthroughs. There's also the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, headquartered in Cairo, established after the 1957 Bandung Conference, which includes around 66 member states. We should activate this body and invest in it as a tool of soft power. ■ Does the West still consider itself the center of the world, treating other regions as subsidiaries and suppliers? And why all this Western arrogance toward the Iranian nuclear file, while ignoring Israel's nuclear arsenal? – The West certainly still sees itself as the center. That's clear. But today, we are also witnessing a form of Arab leadership in various fields—particularly energy and technology. There's noticeable progress in AI technology across countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Let's not forget that our region controls key global trade routes—through the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal. Geography remains a source of strength—and also a lure for major powers. What we lack is the strategic use of our strengths. We must also remember that, in 2015, we reached a nuclear agreement which Iran supported and the international community accepted. The first Trump administration withdrew from it, but it could have been reinstated or modified—had there been political will. ■ So you believe that dominance over our region cannot be achieved through force, as Trump and Netanyahu seem to believe—and that normalization with Israel isn't sustainable, since the people reject it? – Absolutely. The real solution lies in Israel returning to its natural size and halting its ambitions beyond its borders. These expansionist aspirations are precisely what bring Israel its crises and prevent its full acceptance in the region or the success of normalization efforts. It would be far better for Israel to scale back, return to its 1967 borders, and live within them. ■ But the United States continues to support Israel's expansionist ambitions, even if they are delusional. – Yes, the US has a distinct vision for Israel. It sees Israel as its forward base in the region and is committed to protecting it by all means. President Sadat said it himself when he remarked that he couldn't fight the US—a reference to its unwavering support for Israel. So, we must understand that Washington will not allow a shift in the balance of power that weakens Israel. However, it may still promote de-escalation by advocating for peace. But domination and control will never lead to peace or stability—nor to the prosperity that's often promised. ■ It pains me to say that Gaza has been overshadowed by the Iran-Israel war. Could this conflict be used to push forward Netanyahu's plan to forcibly displace Palestinians? – There are always those trying to exert pressure on our region from its peripheries. As for the idea of displacing Palestinians to Sinai—we must put an absolute end to even discussing it. Such a proposal is unacceptable. As Arabs and as Egyptians, we should not even entertain the thought. Merely speaking about it provides fuel to those promoting the idea, making it seem viable. There is no such thing as 'relocating Palestinians to Sinai.' ■ Our region is locked in sustained conflict, and peace remains elusive. Are we at a crossroads—either to survive the bottleneck or plunge into deeper conflict? – A very important question. Unfortunately, one of the defining traits of this region is the prolongation of crises. We cannot say that there are any imminent political solutions to the region's major conflicts—whether in Sudan, Yemen, or Syria. It seems our destiny is to remain embroiled in crises and energy-draining confrontations that undermine unity and our capacity for joint action. ■ Why don't we resort to a joint Arab defense mechanism and establish an 'Arab NATO'? – The term 'NATO' carries a controversial—if not negative—connotation in the Arab world. But we already have the Arab Joint Defense Agreement, and we've previously come close to establishing a unified Arab force. Egypt initiated this years ago, and we were on the verge of signing—but the project was shelved at the last minute. There are ready-made documents and executable proposals. What's missing is the political will. ■ Do we Arabs lack faith in our own power—trapped in the role of the acted-upon instead of becoming active agents? – It's not necessary for us to be 'active' in the imperial or expansionist sense. We're not advocates of interference in others' affairs. But we must be proactive within our Arab framework—and that's the priority right now. We are closer to collaboration with neighboring countries, especially in Africa, through various development programs. We have Arab funding institutions like the Kuwaiti Fund, the Saudi Fund, and the Egyptian Fund affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—not to mention institutions under the Arab League. All we need is to activate these mechanisms and maintain regular coordination to produce a unified vision. I believe we used to perform better under pressure—as we did in 1956, 1973, and even after the 1967 defeat. This continuous violence in the region is inevitable—unless a major political or military blunder is committed. I don't believe we've reached that point yet, which makes this a different situation. Do you remember Iraq? American generals used to claim, 'The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers at the tips of our guns.' But Iran is entirely different from Iraq. ■ Israel has publicly declared that it aims to topple the Khamenei regime. Will that remain its objective—or is Iran not Syria or Iraq? – That's no longer realistic—not now, and not in the near future. I believe Iran will remain intact. The people themselves have already sent clear messages in this regard. So yes, toppling Iran is merely a fantasy in Netanyahu's imagination. Of course, there is a degree of internal opposition—evident in the security breaches—but we should not indulge in science-fiction scenarios where the entire population rises up against Khamenei at Netanyahu's prompting. The current phase does not include the possibility of a regime-altering event. ■ Do you believe there is a kind of Western arrogance at play here? – Absolutely. The whole world has fallen victim to this Western arrogance, especially after the Trump administration annulled the agreement reached under Obama. ■ In the first move of its kind since the outbreak of the war between Israel and Iran, Israel launched thermal balloons—allegedly equipped with surveillance devices—over Syria's Daraa province. How do you interpret this use of Syrian airspace to monitor Iran? – This is a clear step toward tightening control and monitoring Iran's regional proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. The objectives are twofold: to contain these arms and then pivot toward direct pressure on Iran. ■ Some argue that Iran seeks only to expand its influence to protect its national security, while others see it as a regional threat. Where do you think the truth lies? – The 1979 Iranian Revolution and its accompanying sectarian overtones have long been divisive. I don't believe Iran possesses a chemical or nuclear weapons program. There is an international bias against it. Its influence operates primarily through proxies—non-state actors. ■ And what about the ever-expanding Zionist project? – The settler-colonial Zionist project is the real danger. It holds both military power and a strategic intent to expand. Naturally, the deeper and more immediate threat comes from Tel Aviv. ■ During Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's second visit to Egypt, he met with the three most senior Egyptian foreign ministers. Was that a veiled message? And how do you interpret the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar tweeting in Persian to condemn the Israeli assault on Tehran? – Al-Azhar has long studied and recognized Shiism. Politics, however, is not built on sectarian dogmas, and Egypt does not recognize or act upon such sectarian divides. The Egyptian identity is diverse and open. As for the trilateral meeting I attended alongside Amr Moussa and Nabil Fahmy, it certainly conveyed a friendly message: that Egypt welcomes rapprochement. ■ There were claims circulating on social media that Cairo and Tehran exchanged significant intelligence during that meeting. Is that accurate? – That is inaccurate. It likely stems from popular interpretations and from the public's schadenfreude toward Israel: which is understandable given the ongoing genocide. But no, we did not exchange intelligence in a public restaurant. The meeting was a gesture of goodwill and diplomatic warmth. ■ Regarding Iran and Turkey's regional roles, how do they differ? And what are the risks of this slipping into a full-scale war? – Iran and Turkey have pursued very different strategies: Iran has engaged in direct conflict via its regional arms, while Turkey has adopted a 'soft infiltration' approach—through culture, tourism, and media. But both imperial ambitions stalled once they realized that returning to such grand visions wasn't viable. The more significant danger now stems from Tel Aviv. Everything else can be corrected and contained. ■ Do you believe there is an opportunity for this region to reach a minimum consensus to safeguard its security—especially given the missile threats against military bases? – Yes, I believe the opportunity is there. But we must correct imbalances and acknowledge mistakes, because even a single miscalculation could trigger catastrophic escalation. ■ Around the world—from East to West to the Global South—people are increasingly critical of Israel's self-portrayal as a perpetual victim. Why doesn't the US seem concerned about this popular momentum or the shift in global public opinion against both itself and Israel? – I think this is well understood in the West, but perhaps not as sharply as we imagine. There are, of course, furious protests in the West against both Israel and Hamas. Yet ultimately, what determines policy is money and political pressure. Weapons manufacturers wield significant influence. Massive defense budgets are largely the result of this lobby's pressure—not to mention the role of AIPAC. We are now seeing many countries—Germany, Australia, Japan—reassessing their defense budgets and facing ammunition shortages. The whole world is moving toward militarization, because America has enshrined the idea of the 'law of force' over the 'force of law.' That is a dangerous development. Now the world faces a serious ethical question: will it be governed by the rule of law, or by the law of force? Of course, the rule of law is better—but unilateral American legal frameworks have dominated for far too long. ■ How do you interpret Egypt's messages to the Iranian president? Isn't that effectively a stance against US and Israeli policies? – Egypt is not neutral. It rejected the use of force and stood firmly against such policies, while offering political support to Iran—without compromising its principles. This stance was a direct response to aggression and the use of military force. Egypt's role is not based on aligning with any side but on promoting peace, stability, and development. It seeks to rally international support for causes grounded in legitimacy and law. ■ Recently, there were widespread allegations that Egypt was part of a campaign against Israel, and even preparing to attack. How do you interpret these claims? – These are simply unfounded accusations aimed at sowing confusion and casting doubt on Egypt's position. The reality is that Egypt cannot be dragged into war against its will. ■ The Arab public has lost faith in peace with Israel. What is your take? – The prevailing sentiment across the region reflects fatigue from endless wars and violence. The solution lies in a regional security framework that guarantees the existence of a Palestinian state—and a safe, secure future for all.