Eight Reasons Behind European 'Belated Recognition' of Iran’s Threat

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her opening speech at the Manama Dialogue on Nov. 18 (AFP)
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her opening speech at the Manama Dialogue on Nov. 18 (AFP)
TT

Eight Reasons Behind European 'Belated Recognition' of Iran’s Threat

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her opening speech at the Manama Dialogue on Nov. 18 (AFP)
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her opening speech at the Manama Dialogue on Nov. 18 (AFP)

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen chose the Manama Dialogue platform to reveal an acknowledgement that the Europeans took a long time to “understand a very simple fact that while we work to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we must also focus on other forms of weapons proliferation, from drones to ballistic missiles.”

This “recognition”, which came from the top European official, and on a Gulf platform, surprised those present at the public opening session of the Manama Dialogue, including dozens of senior military officials in the region and the world.

In fact, this statement was only an evidence to the position that Western countries have reached in the recent period, as participants noted in this edition of the Bahraini capital dialogue an escalating US and European rhetoric against Tehran and its policies in the region and the world, in conjunction with the successive Western sanctions on Iranian figures and entities.

But what are the reasons behind this sudden change in the European position?

According to analyses by Western officials in closed sessions, on the sidelines of the Manama Dialogue, we can talk about the accumulation of a series of reasons:

First, the nuclear negotiations. There is a belief that Western countries agreed to present a “fair and good offer” to the Iranian delegation in Vienna last March. But Tehran has not yet responded, nor has it retracted the steps it had taken on the nuclear front. Rather, it stepped up nuclear enrichment of uranium, and externally, moved its proxies in more than one arena in the region and the world. It is estimated that the threshold for nuclear weapons has decreased to “weeks” after it was “months.”

Second, the International Energy Agency. UN reports showed continued work on uranium enrichment in three facilities. Tehran refused to cooperate with the UN institution or reply to its requests, which led to a decision by the Agency’s Board of Governors with the support of 35 countries. It appears that Tehran responded by initiating 60 percent enrichment at the Fordow facility using IR-6 centrifuges.

Third, protests and cracks. The steadfastness and expansion of protests in Iran after the murder of the young Kurdish woman, Mahsa Amini, and the high degree of violence committed by the Iranian security services, highlighted “the fragility of the system.”

In remarks on the sidelines of the Manama Dialogue, Intelligence experts and diplomats said that they believe that the collapse of the regime was unlikely, but raised questions about the outcome of the protests, with regards to the successor of Ali Khamenei, the nuclear program or the structure of the regime.

Fourth, documents and agents. Western officials have monitored Iran’s manipulation of its proxies and militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and others. There has been talk of a Western interception of weapons sent to the Houthis in the Gulf and to Hezbollah in Syria, the bombing of Iraqi Kurdistan, and expansions in countries such as Albania.

Fifth, threats. Western countries, including Britain and Canada, monitored serious threats by Iranian agencies to opponents and journalists covering the Iranian file and the protests. This was met with diplomatic summons by London and Ottawa, and the adoption of security measures to protect sites and media and political figures in Britain and Canada.

Sixth, the Iranian drones in Ukraine. Perhaps the most important reason is Iran’s involvement, alongside Russia, in the Ukraine war. The Russian army’s use of Iranian “drones” to bomb areas in Ukraine has been confirmed. A number of Western officials spoke, in closed meetings, of evidence of the presence of Iranian military experts in Crimea, and indications of the imminent arrival of Iranian ballistic missiles to Ukraine. One of them asked: “How will the West feel when it wakes up to the news of the fall of an Iranian missile in Kyiv, a European capital?” While another asked: “What is the fate of betting on Russia’s support in Syria and others to curb Iran’s role?”

At this point, talks emerged about the Iranian-Russian thread, as British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said that the policies of Moscow and Tehran are “a threat to the region and the world.”

Seventh, the effect of energy. There is an additional reason for the “Western spinning” towards the Gulf, which is the renewed belief in the importance of gas, oil and sea lanes in that region of the world. In the face of Tehran’s behavior and the growing importance of the Gulf role, the statements of European and Western officials and their public visits came to recognize the new equation.

Eighth, neutrality. Participants also interpreted this new position as a Western desire to push Arab countries out of neutrality in the Ukraine war. Among the attendees, an Arab official whispered after Ursula von der Leyen’s statement: “Suddenly, they want us to support their positions... What about our issues?”

Another official pointed to Western attempts to “get us out of neutrality and support the Western position in Ukraine.”

It is clear that there is another Gulf - Arab position. Initially, caution was observed in statements and stances towards Iran during the Manama Dialogue, and some regional participants were happy about the late European revelations.

There was no Gulf coping with the Western rush and the European “urgency” for the partnership. While cautious positions were noted, a “diplomatic attack” came from the Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Nayef Al-Hajraf.

In the opening speech that included the campaign against Iran, Ursula von der Leyen criticized the “slowness” of the Gulf Cooperation Council to sign a collective joint agreement with the European Union, and warned of the possibility of resorting to bilateral agreements with each Gulf country if long-decade negotiations did not result in an agreement between the two blocs.

This criticism was met with a similar response from Al-Hajraf, who requested to make an immediate speech. Negotiations took place and a quick bilateral meeting was held to resolve the problem, and it was believed that the page had been turned. But the next day, Al-Hajraf returned to the matter, and before giving his speech on another subject, he insisted on responding to Ursula von der Leyen’s criticism, saying: “We are ready when you are.”

In the public sessions of the Manama Dialogue and during its private bilateral meetings and talks, there were additional signs of the features of the new equation, which was expressed by one of the participants who said: “It is possible to talk about the centrality of the Gulf and the growing Western and Chinese interest in the region... Riyadh’s hosting of the Gulf Cooperation Council summit, in addition to the Arab summit that will be attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping next month, after a similar summit with US President Joe Biden, is further evidence of this centrality.”



Egypt, Trump Reaffirm Strategic Alliance in 2025 amid Regional Turmoil

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi meets President Donald Trump ahead of a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. (Reuters)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi meets President Donald Trump ahead of a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

Egypt, Trump Reaffirm Strategic Alliance in 2025 amid Regional Turmoil

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi meets President Donald Trump ahead of a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. (Reuters)
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi meets President Donald Trump ahead of a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. (Reuters)

After months of speculation over the trajectory of Egyptian-US relations, fueled by persistent talk of strain and an impending rift, a high-level meeting between President Donald Trump and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Sharm el-Sheikh reaffirmed the resilience of the strategic alliance between Cairo and Washington, even as the region remains in turmoil.

The meeting followed a turbulent period marked by Trump’s adoption of a proposal to relocate Gaza’s population, an idea firmly rejected by Sisi and one that prompted warnings of a diplomatic crisis between the two longtime allies.

The subsequent signing of a Gaza peace agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh sent a clear signal that, despite sharp disagreements over policy, the foundations of the bilateral relationship remain intact.

Early in Trump’s second term, media reports said Sisi had scrapped plans to visit Washington. As the year draws to a close, speculation has said that the visit may happen. Trump has acknowledged Sisi as a friend and said he would be happy to meet him as well.

Trump’s election victory late last year raised Egyptian hopes of strengthening the strategic partnership. Sisi voiced that expectation in a congratulatory post on X, stating that he looked forward to working together with Trump to achieve peace, preserve regional peace and stability, and strengthen the strategic partnership.

Those hopes were tested when Trump floated a plan to “clean out Gaza” and relocate its residents to Egypt and Jordan. Cairo rejected the idea outright, mobilized international opposition, unveiled an alternative plan for Gaza’s reconstruction and hosted an emergency summit on the issue in March.

Limited public engagement

David Butter, a research fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, noted that the striking feature of Egypt-US ties over the past year has been their low public profile.

Aside from Trump’s appearance in Sharm el-Sheikh, there was not much happening in the open, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Amr Hamzawy, an Egyptian political scientist and director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the first year of Trump’s second term as difficult for bilateral relations.

He said it began with talk of displacement and a “Middle East Riviera” in Gaza, but Egyptian diplomacy succeeded in shifting the trajectory.

Trump’s peace plan, he said, ultimately signaled rejection of displacement and spoke of security and political tracks for Gaza and a broader political process for the Palestinian issue, though details remain unclear.

Hamzawy added that the year opened from a tough starting point that followed what he called President Joe Biden’s hesitant stance on Gaza, when displacement was first discussed.

After nearly a year of Egyptian political and diplomatic effort, he said, displacement dropped from Washington’s agenda, even if it remains a risk that cannot be ignored.

Historically, Egypt has been a pivotal state for US national security, given its geography, demographic weight and diplomatic role, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service.

Gaza, the main test

The Gaza war shaped Egyptian-US relations during Trump’s first year back in office. Washington backed Egyptian-Qatari mediation to halt the war. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio thanked Cairo after a truce was reached between Israel and Hamas in January.

When hostilities resumed, however, Egypt faced complex diplomatic choices with both Washington and Israel. It rejected Trump’s call to resettle Gaza’s population, while its reconstruction plan failed to gain US or Israeli acceptance.

Cairo also drew criticism from Trump for declining to join US strikes against Yemen’s Houthis, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed.

Butter noted that ties with the Trump administration were strained over Gaza after Sisi canceled a Washington visit early in the year, following Trump’s “Middle East Riviera” remarks, which left contacts at a minimum.

He said Trump’s Sharm el-Sheikh visit, the signing of the Gaza agreement and the celebration of his plan’s success offered a chance to reset relations. Egypt, he added, has become indispensable to Trump’s administration in Gaza.

Hamzawy said Gaza dominated the first year of Trump’s term, giving Egypt a chance to restore its standing with US and European decision-makers as a key mediator. Cairo put its vision on the table, he said, shifting US thinking toward parallel security and political tracks and from talk of disarmament to limiting weapons.

Throughout the year, Egypt publicly counted on Trump to end the Gaza war. In July, Sisi urged him in a televised address to press for a halt, saying Trump was capable of doing so.

Analysts Daniel Byman and Jon Alterman wrote in Foreign Policy that Egypt is indispensable to international responses to the Gaza war, even if it remains a difficult partner for Washington and Israel. The conflict, they said, restored diplomatic focus on Egypt and strengthened its leverage.

Sara Kira, director of the European North African Center for Research, said relations in Trump’s second term differ from his first. The earlier term saw broad alignment and personal warmth from Trump, particularly on counterterrorism, she said. The second term has been marked by divergence.

That surfaced in April when Trump called for free passage for US commercial and military vessels through the Suez Canal in exchange for US efforts to protect the waterway.

Positive signals despite differences

Despite disagreements over Gaza, there were positive signs elsewhere. Early in the year, the US State Department froze new funding for most aid programs worldwide, exempting humanitarian food programs and military aid to Israel and Egypt.

Washington did not include Egypt on a travel ban list issued in June. Trump said Egypt was a country with which the United States dealt closely and that things there were under control. Egypt was also spared higher US tariffs. Cairo has repeatedly stressed the depth and resilience of the strategic relationship.

Kira said Egypt exerted maximum pressure to achieve peace and stop the Gaza war, eventually convincing Washington of its approach and reaching a peace agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh. She said Egypt acted pragmatically and astutely, reading Trump’s personality and US interests.

As talks on the second phase of the Gaza agreement stall, Egypt continues to rely on the Trump administration to advance its plan. Cairo remains in contact with Washington and is working with it to prepare a donor conference for Gaza’s reconstruction, which has yet to receive sufficient momentum from the Trump administration.

The dialogue extends beyond Gaza to Libya, Sudan, Lebanon and Iran, as well as water security, led by Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), which Egypt fears could affect its Nile water share.

GERD

In mid-June, Trump stirred controversy in Egypt when he wrote on Truth Social that the United States had “stupidly” funded the dam Ethiopia built on the Blue Nile, triggering a severe diplomatic crisis with Egypt.

In August, the White House released a list of Trump’s foreign policy achievements, which included a purported agreement between Egypt and Ethiopia over the dam.

Trump has repeatedly spoken of his administration’s efforts to resolve the dispute, but those claims have yet to translate into concrete action.

Hamzawy said there is an opportunity for Washington to mediate and revive an agreement reached near the end of Trump’s first term.

Charles Dunne of the Arab Center Washington DC wrote recently that Trump’s stance may please Cairo but could also produce adverse outcomes if Washington does not assume a mediation role.

The United States hosted talks with the World Bank in 2020 during Trump’s first term, but they failed after Ethiopia refused to sign the draft agreement.

Military ties endure

Military cooperation continued largely as usual. Since 1946, the United States has provided Egypt with about $90 billion in aid, with a sharp increase after 1979, which successive administrations have framed as an investment in regional stability, according to the CRS.

For more than a decade, Congress has imposed human rights conditions on part of Egypt’s aid.

Between fiscal years 2020 and 2023, the Biden administration and Congress withheld approximately $750 million in military funding. Trump’s technical annex to the proposed fiscal 2026 budget seeks $1.3 billion in military assistance for Egypt without conditions, the CRS said.

Hamzawy said the administration is far from imposing conditionality, noting that relations rest on mutual interests between a major power and a positively influential middle power.

Since the Gaza war, the Biden and Trump administrations have accelerated US arms sales to Egypt. The State Department notified Congress of military sales totaling $7.3 billion. In July, the Pentagon announced that the State Department had approved the sale of an advanced air defense missile system to Egypt, valued at approximately $4.67 billion. Egypt also hosted the Bright Star military exercises in September.

Kira said ties with Washington are driven by interests and that Cairo has positioned itself as a core regional player.

Hamzawy said Egypt occupies a central place in US Middle East thinking, as Washington needs a spectrum of allies, with Egypt at the heart of that network.


Why Metal Prices are Soaring to Record Highs

A salesman displays gold chains at an Indian jewelry store in September. Idrees MOHAMMED / AFP
A salesman displays gold chains at an Indian jewelry store in September. Idrees MOHAMMED / AFP
TT

Why Metal Prices are Soaring to Record Highs

A salesman displays gold chains at an Indian jewelry store in September. Idrees MOHAMMED / AFP
A salesman displays gold chains at an Indian jewelry store in September. Idrees MOHAMMED / AFP

Precious and industrial metals are surging to record highs as the year ends, driven by economic and geopolitical uncertainty, robust industrial demand and, in some cases, tight supply.

Below AFP examines the reasons for the surge in demand.

- Safe havens -

Gold and silver are traditionally seen as safe-haven assets, and demand has soared amid mounting geopolitical tensions, from US President Donald Trump's tariffs onslaught to wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as recent pressure by Washington on Caracas.

Investors are also uneasy about rising public debt in major economies and the risk of a bubble in the artificial intelligence sector.

These uncertainties are driving up gold and silver, with other metals now starting to see the impact as investors seek to diversify their portfolios, explained John Plassard, an analyst at Cite Gestion Private Bank.

"Metal is once again becoming insurance rather than just a speculative asset," he told AFP.

- A weak dollar -

Traditional safe havens like the dollar and US Treasuries have become less attractive this year.

Uncertainty around Trump's presidency and the prospect of further Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, have weakened the dollar, reducing its appeal to investors.

As a result, many investors are turning to gold and silver.

Gold has climbed more than 70 percent this year and passed $4,500 an ounce for the first time on Wednesday, while silver reached a record high of $72 an ounce, with prices up about 2.5 times since January.

A weak dollar is also boosting industrial metals, since commodities priced in dollars become cheaper for buyers when the currency falls.

- Fresh demand -

Industrial demand has surged in recent months, driven by the rise of artificial intelligence and the energy transition.

Copper, used for solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries and data centers, has seen strong gains as a result.

Prices hit a record on Wednesday, topping $12,000 a ton, helped further by China, the world's largest copper consumer, announcing new measures to boost demand.

Aluminium, a cheaper alternative to copper, and silver are also benefiting from the AI boom and the shift to renewable energy.

Platinum and palladium, used in car catalytic converters, have also risen, reaching a record high and a three-year high respectively, after the European Union decided to allow sales of new internal combustion vehicles beyond 2035.

- Tight supply -

Copper prices have been lifted this year by fears of US tariffs, prompting companies to stockpile ahead of their introduction, with duties imposed on semi-finished products and potentially extending to refined copper.

Supply risks from disruptions at mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile and Indonesia have added to the price surge.

Physical markets for silver, platinum, and aluminium are also tight.

According to Ole Hansen, an analyst at Saxo Bank, thin holiday trading, which increases volatility, and investor fear of missing out have further amplified the rise at the end of the year.


How Trump’s Decisions Reshaped Syria

A photo of US President Donald Trump meeting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Washington on Nov. 10 (AFP)
A photo of US President Donald Trump meeting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Washington on Nov. 10 (AFP)
TT

How Trump’s Decisions Reshaped Syria

A photo of US President Donald Trump meeting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Washington on Nov. 10 (AFP)
A photo of US President Donald Trump meeting Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Washington on Nov. 10 (AFP)

In a crowded regional and international landscape shaped by overlapping security, strategic, economic, and political pressures, the administration of US President Donald Trump has moved since its return to the White House in January 2025 to recalibrate its approach to Syria.

After years of US policy marked by hesitation and competing agendas, particularly under the administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Washington is now pursuing a more direct and openly pragmatic course, one focused on achieving tangible results on the ground and managing delicate balances, rather than ideological commitments or long-term strategic gambles.

The shift reflects profound changes inside Syria itself, led by the collapse of the former regime and the emergence of a new government seeking to consolidate domestic legitimacy and secure international recognition.

These developments coincide with the persistent threat posed by ISIS, a retreat in Iranian influence, and the expanding regional roles of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Qatar.

Within this evolving landscape, Washington is repositioning its policy in line with what officials describe as Trump’s Middle East doctrine, centered on enforcing stability, limiting the costs of direct military involvement, and opening pathways for reconstruction, development, and investment.

Interests before ideology

Commenting on this shift, Firas Fahham, a researcher at the Abaad Studies Center, said President Trump’s policy toward Syria could be described as “decidedly pragmatic,” focusing primarily on international and economic interests while setting aside the ideological or intellectual background of Syria’s new government.

Fahham said the central pillar of the emerging convergence between Washington and Damascus was preventing the return of Iranian influence to Syria, a goal that sits at the top of the current US administration’s priorities.

He added that this approach could not be separated from the positions of Arab states allied with the United States, which have openly supported the new Syrian government, led by Saudi Arabia, followed by Türkiye and Qatar.

Fahham said the Trump administration had shown a willingness to respond to these positions, viewing them as a key foundation for rebuilding regional alliances.

Comparing the approach with previous administrations, Fahham said the policies of Obama and Biden had been closer to allowing Iran a free hand in the region and supporting minority influence, particularly through close cooperation with the Syrian Democratic Forces, known as the SDF.

He said this had complicated the landscape and weakened prospects for establishing a strong central state capable of maintaining security and preventing the return of extremist groups.

From Riyadh to Washington...turning points

Fahham traced key milestones in Trump’s new policy, saying the starting point came during meetings held in Riyadh in June, when the US president, at the request of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria.

He described the move as the first positive signal from Washington toward Damascus. This was followed by a trilateral meeting bringing together Trump, the Saudi Crown Prince, and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, during which the US president offered notable praise for his Syrian counterpart, reflecting Washington’s desire for political openness.

The most important moment, Fahham said, came at the Washington summit held in November, when Trump received President al-Sharaa at the White House in what he described as a pivotal turning point.

Following the meeting, the US administration began concrete efforts to pressure Congress to repeal the Caesar Act, while announcing Syria’s inclusion in the international coalition against ISIS.

This, Fahham said, shifted the relationship from limited coordination to something resembling an alliance.

The SDF and the future of eastern Syria

On the issue of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Fahham said the Trump administration was dealing with the matter from a strictly practical standpoint, balancing its interests with Syria’s new government, reflected in reduced support for the SDF compared with the Biden era, and its interests with its Turkish ally.

Washington, he said, now views Damascus as the most effective actor in the fight against ISIS.

This assessment, he said, was based on recommendations from US research centers. They concluded that previous reliance on the Kurdish component alone, and practices associated with it in eastern Syria, had created a sense of grievance that ISIS later exploited for recruitment.

As a result, the administration became convinced that cooperation with Damascus was more effective.

In a related context, Fahham said Washington viewed Israeli incursions in southern Syria with dissatisfaction, considering them destabilizing and contrary to Trump’s vision for regional development.

The United States, he added, fears that weakening the Syrian government could reopen the door to renewed Iranian influence and ISIS activity.

As for the southern province of Sweida, Fahham said the US administration supports integrating the province into the state, citing remarks by US envoy Tom Barrack, who stated that decentralization had failed in the Middle East, reflecting a preference for backing a unified Syria.

A parallel reading from the military establishment

From another angle, researcher on armed groups Raed al-Hamed offered a complementary reading of the US position.

He said that although Trump, during his first term, had moved toward withdrawing forces and ending the partnership with the SDF, warnings from senior military commanders about a possible ISIS resurgence after the battle of Baghouz in March 2019 prompted him to keep about 2,000 troops in Syria.

Al-Hamed noted that the partnership with the SDF dated back to the battle of Kobani in 2015, when Washington relied on the group as a ground force.

However, he said the new policy following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Syria’s entry into the international coalition was now based on refusing to recognize any independent entity east of the Euphrates and rejecting federal formulas similar to Iraq’s Kurdistan region.

Al-Hamed said the new policy offered no real US guarantees to the SDF in the face of Türkiye and coincided with pressure to integrate the group into Syria’s military and security institutions, in line with the vision of the Syrian government, which rejects any armed presence outside the framework of the state.

This, he said, is still rejected by the SDF as the deadline approaches for implementing the March agreement with the government in Damascus, scheduled for the end of this year.

Overall, the Syrian scene appears to have entered a pivotal phase that goes beyond traditional conflict equations, laying the groundwork for a new reality governed by the language of interests and reciprocal security arrangements.

While Washington and its regional allies, particularly Riyadh and Ankara, are betting on the ability of the new leadership in Damascus to impose stability and end years of chaos, observers say the success of this path will depend on developments on the ground in the coming months.

The ability of the “new republic” to balance the demands of internal reconciliation with the conditions of external alliances will be the decisive test in determining whether this turn truly marks the opening chapter of an end to years of US hesitation in the region.