In moments of tension, some voices tend to oversimplify matters to the point of distortion. Complex relationships turn into ready-made accusations, and the positions of states are reduced to words like “betrayal,” “gloating,” or “abandonment.”
At that point, the discussion is no longer a difference of opinion, but a confusion—sometimes intentional—between emotion and anger.
First: Egypt Is Not Governed by Emotions
Egypt, with its history and weight, does not base its decisions on reactions, nor does it enter conflicts to satisfy emotions—whatever they may be.
It is neither wise nor responsible to demand that a country the size of Egypt declare open confrontation with a major regional power like Iran, while the entire region lives on the edge of a delicate balance.
Wars are not statements, nor are they managed by the logic of “proving positions.” They are governed by national security calculations—paid for in blood, not words.
Second: There Are Questions That Must Be Honestly Asked Before Casting Accusations
- Have the countries now calling for hardline positions responded to Egypt’s repeated calls to establish a joint Arab military force?
- Has there been real work toward building an independent Arab defense system, or has reliance remained on external security arrangements?
- Can the presence of foreign military bases in the region—and their role in complicating the situation—be ignored, while others are asked to bear the consequences of these complexities?
These are not accusations—they are realities that must be placed within the context of any serious discussion.
Third: Independence Is Not Selective
It is illogical to demand that Egypt take military action while security decisions in some countries are tied—at varying degrees—to international arrangements with major powers, arrangements in which Egypt is not a party.
Strategic independence cannot be selective: either decisions of war and peace originate internally, or the equation remains far more complex than portrayed in the media.
Fourth: Calling for Open Confrontation with Iran Is Not Necessarily a Sign of Strength
In some cases, it may be a dangerous oversimplification of the situation.
Even the countries in whose name confrontation slogans are raised do not close all doors, nor do they approach the future with a mindset of absolute rupture. Here, Egypt’s role appears differently—not as a party to conflict, but as a country that, by virtue of its position and history, can act as a bridge or mediator at a moment when the region needs a balancing mind, not a louder voice.
Fifth: Brotherhood Does Not Mean Subordination
The relationship between Egypt and the Gulf states is one of genuine historical brotherhood, tested before—when wealth was absent and Egypt was the supporter, and later when Egypt needed support after 2011, and the Gulf stood by it.
But brotherhood does not mean that one country moves according to the dictates of another, nor that it engages in battles it does not see as strategically justified.
Differences in assessment do not mean hostility, nor do they justify rhetoric that exceeds the bounds of decency or logic.
In Conclusion
It is not wise to call for war, then hold others accountable for not waging it.
Nor is it fair to ignore the complexities of reality and reduce positions to emotional accusations.
Egypt does not grandstand, nor does it drift.
It calculates its steps, understanding that true strength lies not in the speed of engagement, but in the accuracy of timing.
I believe that Egypt, through its political leadership, is acting wisely in this tense environment. The president’s swift visits to Gulf countries contribute to defusing unnecessary escalation—perhaps even deliberately provoked.
In a region filled with tension, the wisest role may not be to ignite the fire… but to prevent it from spreading.
The real test is not only in stopping ballistic missiles targeting American bases in the Gulf, but also in neutralizing the “missiles” launched by some from within—those that threaten the foundations of trust between Egypt and its brothers.
