عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

How Will the Conflict in Sudan Impact Egypt's Stance over GERD?

A view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). (Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy)
A view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). (Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy)
    Cairo - Osama al-Saeed
TT
20
TT

How Will the Conflict in Sudan Impact Egypt's Stance over GERD?

A view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). (Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy)
A view of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). (Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy)

The fighting between the Sudanese military and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has raised concerns that it may affect the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) file as Ethiopia prepares for its fourth filling of the dam on the Nile River.

Observers and experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that the fighting will have a "direct impact" on a number of regional files, including the GERD crisis.

The fighting will "weaken Sudan's reservations" on the filling of the fourth reservoir that is set to begin in summer.

The weakened Sudanese position will only create a greater burden on Egypt and its international efforts to tackle the crisis, added the observers.

A spokesman for the Ethiopian foreign ministry declared last week that his country was determined to complete the construction of GERD.

Addis Ababa does not need anyone's permission to kick off the fourth filling of the dam, he added, stressing that the move will not harm Egypt and Sudan.

Ethiopia had completed the second filling in July 2021 and the third in August 2022. Just days ago, it announced that it had completed 90 percent of the dam.

The developments have deepened the dispute between Ethiopia with Egypt and Sudan that oppose the filling the dam and who have accused Addis Ababa of acting unilaterally.

Former Egyptian Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation Dr. Nasreddine Allam said the fighting in Sudan was unfortunate.

Sudan's stability is in Egypt and the region's strategic interest, he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Any unrest in Sudan will have deep repercussions on vital strategic files, including water security, he remarked.

He added that the united Sudanese and Egyptian positions were a "real guarantee" that ensures the historic and legal rights of the Nile basin countries.

Cairo and Khartoum fear that the GERD will impact their share of the Nile waters. They have been demanding that Ethiopia join them in signing a binding legal agreement that manages the filling and operation of the dam.

Negotiations over the issue have stalled since January 2021.

Deputy Director of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies Ayman Abdulwahhab told Asharq Al-Awsat that the unrest in Sudan will directly impact several regional files, including the GERD dispute.

As Ethiopia nears the fourth filling, Sudan will unlikely make any protests or express any reservations amid its internal turmoil, he noted, throwing an added burden on Egypt to handle this vital file.

He urged regional powers, starting with Egypt, to act to put a stop to the internal fighting in Sudan to "avoid a repeat of painful experiences in history", such as those seen in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, where internal conflicts flared out to have regional consequences.

Most Viewed

 
Features

Report: Trump Opposed Planned Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites

In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
TT
20
TT

Report: Trump Opposed Planned Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites

In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)
In this photo provided by the Israeli army, armed Israeli Air Force planes depart from an unknown location to attack Iran on Oct. 26, 2024. (Israeli Army via AP, File)

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions, reported the New York Times.

Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.

Almost all of the plans would have required US help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.

For now, Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. In his first term, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But in his second term, eager to avoid being sucked into another war in the Middle East, he has opened negotiations with Tehran, giving it a deadline of just a few months to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program.

Earlier this month, Trump informed Israel of his decision that the United States would not support an attack. He discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Netanyahu visited Washington last week, using an Oval Office meeting to announce that the United States was beginning talks with Iran.

In a statement delivered in Hebrew after the meeting, Netanyahu said that an agreement with Iran would only work if it allowed the signatories to “go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision with American execution.”

The New York Times based its report on conversations with multiple officials briefed on Israel’s secret miliary plans and confidential discussions inside the Trump administration. Most of the people interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military planning.

Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, rehearsing bombing runs and calculating how much damage it could do with or without American help.

But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a string of setbacks last year.

In attacks on Israel in April, most of Iran’s ballistic missiles were unable to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally, was decimated by an Israeli military campaign last year. The subsequent fall of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria eliminated a Hezbollah and Tehran ally and cut off a prime route of weapons smuggling from Iran.

Air defense systems in Iran and Syria were also destroyed, along with the facilities that Iran uses to make missile fuel, crippling the country’s ability to produce new missiles for some time.

Initially, at the behest of Netanyahu, senior Israeli officials updated their American counterparts on a plan that would have combined an Israeli commando raid on underground nuclear sites with a bombing campaign, an effort that the Israelis hoped would involve American aircraft, reported the New York Times.

But Israeli military officials said the commando operation would not be ready until October. Netanyahu wanted it carried out more quickly. Israeli officials began shifting to a proposal for an extended bombing campaign that would have also required American assistance, according to officials briefed on the plan.

Some American officials were at least initially more open to considering the Israeli plans. Gen. Michael E. Kurilla, the head of US Central Command, and Michael Waltz, the national security adviser, both discussed how the United States could potentially support an Israeli attack, if Trump backed the plan, according to officials briefed on the discussions.

With the United States intensifying its war against the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, Kurilla, with the blessing of the White House, began moving military equipment to the Middle East. A second aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, is now in the Middle East, joining the carrier Harry S. Truman in the Red Sea.

The United States also moved two Patriot missile batteries and a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, known as a THAAD, to the Middle East.

Around a half-dozen B-2 bombers capable of carrying 30,000-pound bombs essential to destroying Iran’s underground nuclear program were dispatched to Diego Garcia, an island base in the Indian Ocean.

Even if the United States decided not to authorize the aircraft to take part in a strike on Iran, Israel would know that the American fighters were available to defend against attacks by an Iranian ally.