Sameh Shoukry in Exclusive Interview: Palestine at the Core, Iran Escalation Raises Fears of Regional Chaos

In an era of unprecedented regional volatility, the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East stands on the brink of profound transformation. To unpack these shifting dynamics, we sat down with former Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs and current Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, Sameh Shoukry. Drawing from decades of diplomatic expertise, Shoukry provides a sharp, realism-driven vision of the region’s most volatile dossiers. From the existential stakes of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the shifting threat dynamics in the Red Sea, to the dangerous rhetoric of regional expansionism and the looming shadow of a broader US–Israeli conflict with Iran, Shoukry maps out Egypt’s non-negotiable “red lines” and evaluates the collective power of Arab deterrence.   How do you assess the situation in the Middle East under the dominance of the rule of force? The region is going through a critical period filled with conflicts, and the “Israeli-American war” on Iran adds further risks to the region and the world. This war constitutes the greatest challenge; however, the exposure of Gulf states to attacks targeting their oil facilities is unacceptable and condemned due to its impact on Arab national security and the possibility of expanding the scope of the conflict, with potentially serious political and economic repercussions. Regional conflicts are warning of a slide into chaos and instability, starting from the tragic events in Gaza, the continued exposure of the Palestinian people to a scorched-earth policy pursued by Israel, the comprehensive destruction of infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, and the continuation of forced displacement policies and attempts to empty Palestinian land in the West Bank, opening the door to further land seizure.   Are we witnessing in our region a reconfiguration in which Israel seeks to America’s role, especially with talk of a “Greater Israel”? Discussions of “Greater Israel,” echoed by Israeli politicians and political circles previously described as moderate, is shocking and signals an attempt to entrench this expansionist and aggressive concept and begin working toward its implementation. This expansionist vision constitutes a violation of the sovereignty of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. It cannot be accepted because it lays the groundwork for the seizure of Arab lands and warns of an extended conflict that is incompatible with claims of peace based on the two-state solution. As for Israel playing an imperial role, this is an exaggeration, as it does not possess the political, economic, cultural, or demographic components that qualify it to dominate the Middle East –  this is an attempt to diminish the status of Arab states.   Egypt has called for an “Arab NATO.” Why has this proposal not succeeded, and what are the main obstacles? This is a long-standing aspiration since the establishment of the Arab League, and a constant desire rooted in the conscience of Arab peoples, who share unity of destiny and culture. The Arab people aspire solidarity and unity, but political will has not yet crystallized to implement this vision. I believe current developments require revisiting the idea of a joint Arab force and activating it.   What about unconditional normalization? Do you believe there are those in our region seeking short-term gains at the expense of Arab national security? A unity of stance is necessary. I do not believe there is any Arab state that does not recognize the importance of joint Arab action and the importance of achieving peace through the implementation of the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, so that normalization can yield positive outcomes for all equally.   What if Israel continues its expansionist moves? Is it seeking dominance or the implementation of its “Greater Israel” doctrine? We should not exaggerate the issue of “Greater Israel,” as part of it is domestic political rhetoric within Israel. Arab states possess the capabilities and resources necessary to deter such ideas, but we must confront them so that no one believes there is an opportunity to implement them.   There are voices calling for relocating the Arab League from Egypt, and talk of withdrawal from the Gulf Cooperation Council. Is the Arab scene becoming confused? The presence of the Arab League in Cairo is a historically established matter that is not subject to discussion and reflects Arab consensus, given Egypt’s status as a central pillar in its Arab environment. Debate over the effectiveness of the League is not limited to it but extends to various international and regional organizations. However, its effectiveness depends on the commitment of member states to their charters and their readiness to provide the necessary support to achieve common goals. When genuine political will exists, the League becomes effective.   Are discussions of withdrawal from the Arab League, whether official or otherwise, a response to be countered by strengthening joint Arab action? I am not aware of any official calls for withdrawal from the Arab League, nor do I believe that any member state would take a position inconsistent with the consensus among Arab peoples and their sense of a shared bond.   What is the most dangerous scenario facing the future of the region? The most dangerous challenge is preserving the nation-state, especially in light of what we have witnessed over the past decade in terms of the dismantling, weakening, and fragmentation of state institutions. The priority must be stability and keeping pace with developments, particularly in technology, which has become a key component of future power. Whoever depends on others becomes subject to their dictates.   Israel is seeking US approval to extend the so-called “yellow line” in Gaza. What are its objectives? Will displacement remain a Zionist aspiration? The dangers of displacement are clear, and Egypt has firmly confronted them, which has led to a reduction in public discourse on the issue. However, Israel’s policies and practices indicate that displacement remains an existing objective, beginning with the destruction of Gaza and rendering it uninhabitable, continuing with shortcomings in addressing humanitarian challenges related to reconstruction and basic living conditions, which may push residents to leave Gaza. This is in addition to settler violence in the West Bank aimed at intimidating Palestinians and forcing them to leave their land so it can be seized.   To what extent can traditional diplomatic tools manage complex crises such as Gaza and Sudan? The challenges of the region must be addressed comprehensively. Traditional diplomacy seeks to create frameworks for dialogue, understanding, and reaching consensual points that respect international law and prevent reliance on the logic of force.   Do you see in President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s remarks about malicious plans to reshape the region a direct message or red lines? The nature of international relations indicates a tendency toward domination and imposing will on others to achieve gains at the expense of other states. It is clear that the President’s strategic vision and his monitoring of regional and international developments, as well as what Egypt and the region have faced in recent years, confirm the existence of such plans. The Egyptian state and its leadership are fully aware of the necessity of confronting them at both the domestic and regional levels to preserve the capabilities and future of peoples.   Does Egypt’s commitment to peace as a strategic choice prevent it from adhering to its red lines? As you indicated – and as the President has stated – despite Egypt’s commitment to peace as a strategic option due to its positive impact on the Egyptian people and the region, this does not mean a lack of awareness of risks, challenges, and ambitions. This requires the people to stand united behind their leadership and remain aware of plans targeting the state internally and externally. The President has repeatedly affirmed Egypt’s ability to confront these challenges. Egypt’s red lines are clear, foremost among them preserving state sovereignty, its institutions, and the resources of its people. Any infringement will be met with the full capabilities of the state, foremost among them the armed forces with their deeply rooted national doctrine of defending the homeland.   Egypt supported the institutional state in Sudan through its backing of the army. Are there constraints related to sensitive issues in the region? I do not believe there are constraints that limit Egypt’s effectiveness in dealing with the region’s challenges, including the situation in Sudan. Egypt adheres to consistent principles aligned with international law and aims to contain crises through political solutions while preserving state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence.   Egypt formulated its position at the beginning of the war on Iran in a delicate balance, but it was not spared criticism and was accused of abandoning some countries. Is Egypt’s role being targeted? I do not agree with the characterization that Egypt formulated its position in a “delicate balance.” Rather, it acted in line with its established principles, foremost among them rejecting any attack on the sovereignty of Arab states, and in this case the brotherly Gulf countries, and condemning any aggression against them, particularly as Egypt is not a direct party to the ongoing military conflict. Egypt’s position is firm in the necessity of preserving Arab national security as an indivisible whole; the security of Gulf states is part of Egyptian national security.   There are those who link Israel’s efforts to “swallow Gaza” and statements by some of its extremist ministers about what is called the “Ben Gurion Canal” as a potential alternative to the Suez Canal. What is your comment? Anyone who observes Israeli policies can see clear attempts at domination and expansion. These projects have no real economic viability and are raised as testing balloons aimed at diverting attention from the core issues of the region—foremost among them the Palestinian cause—towards secondary issues.   What are the objectives of Israeli moves in the Red Sea and its recognition of the so-called “Somaliland”? It is clear that Israel seeks to expand its sphere of influence and establish a presence in a highly sensitive and strategically important area such as the Bab al-Mandab Strait. This comes within an attempt to influence the Horn of Africa region and a key maritime route for the global economy, which could yield political and economic gains.   Is Israel seeking to establish a military base near Bab al-Mandab and militarize the Red Sea, as is being suggested? It may seek to do so, despite the risks involved. Such steps would increase tensions. The unilateral recognition of the independence of “Somaliland” contradicts the international consensus rejecting the fragmentation of Somalia, which raises further doubts and concerns.   What do you expect for the future of Sudan? Are we heading toward a new partition? The risk of partition remains present amid ongoing conflicts and the existence of forces using arms to achieve political objectives outside the framework of legitimate state institutions.   Have strategic mistakes by Arab states led to the partition of Somalia and Sudan? I do not believe Arab states have committed strategic mistakes in dealing with these issues. Rather, there have been internal dynamics and external influences that led developments to where they are today. Arab states do not necessarily have the capacity to contain internally driven crises on their own. Nevertheless, Arab countries—especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia—are making continuous efforts to contain the crisis, particularly to end the armed conflict and reach a Sudanese consensus on the future of the country.   Some argue that the US is holding the Middle East hostage while redistributing influence with Russia and China. What do you think? One should not exaggerate conspiratorial thinking, especially when it comes to major powers. The US has interests in the region, and Arab states maintain strong relations with major powers, including America. These relations can be managed in accordance with national interests.   In terms of interests, do you see the war on Iran as aimed at dismantling any power that could rival Israel or threaten it? Relations between Israel and Iran have been marked for decades by tension and mutual hostility, evolving into a military conflict as each side views the other as a threat. The US has intervened in relation to Iran’s nuclear program and in support of Israeli interests. The key point is that military solutions do not bring stability or peace; rather, political solutions that take into account the interests of all parties and achieve justice are required.   Accordingly, some believe that if the United States and Israel succeed in eliminating Iran, the next target will be other regionally influential states. What is your comment? Not necessarily. This scenario is tied to the nature of the adversarial relationship between the two sides. However, it does not negate the ongoing pursuit of regional interests, nor does it negate the existence of balances and capabilities within states such as Turkey, Egypt, and Gulf countries, which are capable of defending their interests and creating a balance that prevents any party from assuming it can undermine those capabilities.   Can Egypt form a pragmatic bloc with regional powers? I support Arab joint action, which is not aimed at excluding regional parties outside the Arab framework. Cooperation is necessary, while ensuring that the core remains Arab-Arab cooperation, based on shared history, culture, civilization, and language, which allows us to serve as a nucleus for broader coordination with regional and international actors.   The “yellow line” in southern Lebanon mentioned by Netanyahu threatens the evacuation of 55 villages. Can the logic of force pursued by Israel ensure its protection? Egypt rejects all forms of occupation of others’ land. The logic of force will not bring stability to Israel; rather, it will lead to a cycle of violence. Historical experience has shown that the use of force produces counterproductive outcomes and wastes resources.   What about the Renaissance Dam dispute, which some describe as a “ticking time bomb” threatening Egypt’s water security? This issue is not closed; it is existential for Egypt. The Nile is a natural resource that cannot be compromised in a way that harms Egyptian interests. Negotiations have reached a deadlock due to the absence of political will on the Ethiopian side to reach an agreement, which suggests an attempt to control Nile waters as a means of pressure on Egypt and Sudan. Egypt has presented fair solutions that take into account Ethiopia’s interests and allow it to benefit from its resources for development, but they have not been adopted. This points to underlying objectives that are inconsistent with international law or the principle of shared interests. This topic will remain open. Egypt continues to monitor it closely and tracks any unilateral actions that could harm the Egyptian people. Here, defending national interests becomes a legitimate right. There may be other objectives related to using water as a tool of pressure to extract illegitimate gains. The situation remains dangerous, but it has not yet reached the level of damage that would require a response.   What if harm does occur to Egypt? Would there be a response beyond diplomacy? Egypt will not accept harm to its people as a result of any reckless unilateral action by another state, whether related to water or other issues. Defending Egyptian national security is a sacred duty.   Israeli researcher Mordechai Kedar speaks of the need to beware of Egypt, describing it as Israel’s “first enemy.” Why does Hebrew media resort to such rhetoric against Egypt, despite its commitment to the peace treaty? This is rhetoric for domestic consumption, often produced by extremist right-wing circles, and I do not consider it to reflect official policy. There is a commitment to the peace treaty and an Israeli interest in maintaining balanced and peaceful relations with Egypt. Those who fuel tension and war rhetoric driven by extremist ideology must be confronted. All parties should demonstrate credibility by upholding peace agreements and recognizing their benefits.   But what if Israel assumes it can undermine Sinai through displacement? We do not engage in hypotheticals, especially since Egypt has always proven that it does not accept infringement on even a single inch of its territory. Every Egyptian is prepared to sacrifice for the defense of their homeland, and historical experience has demonstrated our ability to protect the entirety of national territory.   What are the features of the so-called “new Middle East” being proposed by Israel? What is being proposed regarding a Middle East dominated by Israel is an unrealistic and unverifiable illusion. The region cannot be stabilized through the logic of force. The use of force must be rejected in favor of political solutions.   In conclusion, how do you view the future of the region and its most dangerous threats? Threats and challenges have surrounded our region for 80 years due to tensions linked to the Palestinian cause and attempts at polarization. We must remain alert and confront this through solidarity and unity of vision. The post Sameh Shoukry in Exclusive Interview: Palestine at the Core, Iran Escalation Raises Fears of Regional Chaos appeared first on Egypt Independent.