Egypt & Israel: Cold Peace or Enduring Understanding?

On March 26, 1979, under the sponsorship of then US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty (AFP)
On March 26, 1979, under the sponsorship of then US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty (AFP)
TT
20

Egypt & Israel: Cold Peace or Enduring Understanding?

On March 26, 1979, under the sponsorship of then US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty (AFP)
On March 26, 1979, under the sponsorship of then US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty (AFP)

When Egyptian soldiers crossed the Suez Canal, and their Syrian counterparts stormed the Golan Heights on the afternoon of October 6, 1973, perhaps they did not foresee the intricate calculations and unprecedented transformations that would follow the military clashes.

Nevertheless, to varying degrees, these events shaped the course of politics and diplomacy, ushering the region into a new era known as the “post-October” period, where Arab destinies intersected with the strategies of major powers.

Around half a century has passed since the “last of the battles” between Egypt and Israel, during which nearly 45 years of peace have prevailed between the two countries.

Some describe this peace as “cold” since it remains limited to official relations without extending to popular normalization.

The “psychological barrier” towards Israel persists, untouched by the years of peace, yet others view the resilience of the Cairo-Tel Aviv peace amid internal transformations and regional storms as a success in its own right.

On March 26, 1979, under the sponsorship of then US President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace treaty.

However, bilateral relations between Egypt and Israel continue to remain confined to official aspects, whether in diplomacy or security, while economic relations have taken an upward trajectory over the past two decades.

The US has sought to encourage both countries to enhance cooperation beyond the political stalemate and Egyptian popular resistance to normalization.

This was achieved through the 2004 Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) agreement in Egypt, allowing duty-free access to the US market for goods produced with at least 10.5% Israeli inputs.

Despite some business leaders attempting to break the “silence barrier” in relations between the two countries, the volume of trade between them has remained limited, totaling $270 million annually in the past year.

Israel exports goods worth $150 million to Egypt, while importing $115 million, according to official Israeli statistics from the Ministries of Industry and Trade, and Economics.

Updated Egyptian data on this matter remains unavailable.

In addition to “limited” economic cooperation, relations between the two nations have managed to overcome a series of crises, some of which were related to security incidents, such as border skirmishes.

The most recent incident was in June last year and resulted in the deaths of 3 Israeli soldiers and one Egyptian security personnel.

A statement from the Egyptian army stated that they were “pursuing smugglers on the border with Israel.”

This incident was not the first of its kind. In October 1985, the “Ras Burqa” operation occurred, executed by the Egyptian soldier Suleiman Khater, resulting in the deaths of seven Israelis in a border area between the two countries.

In November 2004, Egypt protested the killing of three Egyptian Central Security Forces personnel after an Israeli tank fired a shell across the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

In August 2011, an Israeli airstrike along the Egyptian border south of Rafah led to the deaths of five Egyptian border guards, for which Israel later issued a formal apology.

Relations between the two countries have also endured regional conflicts, including the wars in Lebanon (1982 and 2006), the Palestinian uprisings (1987 and 2000), and repeated Israeli aggressions on the Gaza Strip.

Egypt has managed to utilize its communication with Tel Aviv to halt these aggressions on several occasions, marking Egyptian success on both regional and international fronts.

Despite changes in Egypt’s government system and shifts in Israel’s leadership, relations between the two nations have maintained a degree of stability.

However, this has not succeeded in altering the popular stance in Egypt, which remains opposed to normalization with Israel.

This sentiment reached its peak following the events of January 25, 2011, when enraged protesters entered an annexed apartment of the Israeli embassy, removed the Israeli flag from the top of the building.

Additionally, Egypt terminated a long-term agreement through which it supplied natural gas to Israel after the pipeline crossing the border was subjected to frequent acts of sabotage.

Ahmed Youssef Ahmed, a professor of political science and former dean of the “Arab Research Institute,” attributes the resilience of the peace relationship between Egypt and Israel to the former’s commitment to its international obligations.

He also highlights what he refers to as “political realism,” considering regional and international circumstances.

In statements to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ahmed points out that the relationship between the two parties indeed appears to be a “cold peace.”

According to Ahmed, this peace has remained confined to official frameworks, with the minimum necessary for security and diplomatic arrangements being upheld.

However, it has never transitioned into a “warm peace,” at least not at the popular level.

On the other hand, Ahmed believes that Egyptian popular rejection of normalization with Israel “remains strong” and describes it as a “remarkable stance.”

This reflects the commitment of the Arab regime not to normalize relations until the Palestinian issue is resolved.

Ahmed points out that Egyptian authorities have “never attempted at any stage since signing the peace agreement with Israel to pressure unions and parties to change their positions or attempt to brainwash their citizens into accepting normalization with Israel.”



A Week Into the Fragile Israel-Iran Peace Agreement, Here's What We Still Don't Know

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
TT
20

A Week Into the Fragile Israel-Iran Peace Agreement, Here's What We Still Don't Know

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

It's been a week since the United States pressed Israel and Iran into a truce, ending a bloody, 12-day conflict that had set the Middle East and globe on edge.

The fragile peace, brokered by the US the day after it dropped 30,000-pound "bunker-busting" bombs on three of Iran's key nuclear sites, is holding. But much remains unsettled, The Associated Press reported.

How badly Iran’s nuclear program was set back remains murky. The prospects of renewed US-Iran peace talks are up in the air. And whether US President Donald Trump can leverage the moment to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's government and Hamas focused on a ceasefire and hostage deal that brings about an end to the 20-month war in Gaza remains an open question.

Here is a look at what we still don't know:

How far Iran's nuclear program has been set back Trump says three targets hit by American strikes were “obliterated.” His defense secretary said they were “destroyed.”

A preliminary report issued by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, meanwhile, said the strikes did significant damage to the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan sites, but did not totally destroy the facilities.

Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the three Iranian sites with “capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree.” But, he added, “some is still standing” and that because capabilities remain, “if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.” He said assessing the full damage comes down to Iran allowing inspectors access.

What future US-Iran relations might look like

After the ceasefire deal came together, Trump spoke of potentially easing decades of biting sanctions on Tehran and predicted that Iran could become a “great trading nation” if it pulled back once-and-for-all from its nuclear program.

The talk of harmony didn't last long.

Ali Khamenei, in his first public appearance after the ceasefire was announced, claimed Tehran had delivered a “slap to America’s face." Trump responded by suggesting the supreme leader own up to the fact Iran “got beat to hell. The president also said he was backing off reviewing any immediate sanction relief, because of Khamenei's heated comments.

White House officials say the US and Iran are already in early discussions about resuming negotiations that had ended after Israel began launching strikes. But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says there's no agreement in place to restart talks.

It's unclear if Iran's leadership is ready to come to the table so soon after the fighting has ended — especially if Trump holds to the position that Iran must give up nuclear enrichment for even civilian use. And Trump has offered conflicting statements about his commitment to talks. “We may sign an agreement,” he said Wednesday at a NATO summit press conference. He added, “I don’t think it’s that necessary.”

What role Iran's supreme leader will play

Khamenei's age and recent diminished appearance have raised questions about the scope of his involvement in US-Iran relations and Iran's response to both American and Israeli strikes. But despite having spent the last few weeks in a bunker as threats to his life escalated, there is little indication that Khamenei does not still reign supreme over the country's massive military and governmental operations.

Khamenei has ruled three times longer than his predecessor, the late Ruhollah Khomeini, and has shaped life for the country's more than 90 million people perhaps even more dramatically.

He entrenched the system of rule by the “mullahs,” or Shiite Muslim clerics. That secured his place in the eyes of hard-liners as the unquestionable authority, below only that of God. At the same time, Khamenei built the paramilitary Revolutionary Guard into the dominant force in Iran’s military and internal politics.

How Iran might strike back Iran's retaliatory missile attacks on a US base in Qatar following the American bombardment were sloughed off by the White House as a half-hearted, face-saving measure. The US was forewarned and the salvos were easily fended off.

Yet Iran remains a persistent threat, particularly via cyberwarfare. Hackers backing Tehran have already targeted US banks, defense contractors and oil industry companies — but so far have not caused widespread disruptions to critical infrastructure or the economy.

The US Department of Homeland Security last week issued a public bulletin warning of increased Iranian cyber threats. And the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is urging organizations that operate critical infrastructure like water systems, pipelines or power plants to stay vigilant.

Whether the Israel-Iran ceasefire will hold It remains a fragile peace.

Immediately following the US strikes, Trump got on the phone with Netanyahu and told the Israeli leader not to expect further US offensive military action, according to a senior White House official who was not authorized to comment publicly about the sensitive diplomatic talks.

But even as he agreed to deal, Netanyahu made clear that Israel will strike again “if anyone in Iran tries to revive this project.”

The ceasefire deal came without any agreement from Tehran on dismantling its nuclear program. Khamenei claims the attacks “did nothing significant” to Iran's nuclear facilities.

Trump expressed confidence that Iran, at the moment, has no interest in getting its nuclear program back up. “The last thing they’re thinking about right now is enriched uranium,” Trump said.

Still, Trump says he expects Iran to open itself to international inspection to verify that it doesn’t restart its nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, or some other organization "that we respect, including ourselves.”

Whether Trump can now press Netanyahu on Gaza

The president took a big gamble with his decision to order strikes on Iran's nuclear fortress.

As a candidate, he promised to quickly end Russia's brutal war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza, but has failed to find a resolution to either. He also vowed to keep the US military out of foreign conflicts.

But after helping Israel with US strikes on Iran, Trump — in conversations with Netanyahu and other world leaders in recent days — has made clear he wants a deal completed soon, according to two people familiar with the private discussions and were not authorized to comment publicly.

On Friday, Trump told reporters, “We think within the next week we’re going to get a ceasefire.”

Trump didn't offer any further explanation for his optimism. But Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer is expected to be in Washington this week for talks on a Gaza ceasefire, Iran and other matters, according to an official familiar with the matter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.