Opinion | Egypt’s Strategic Dilemma: Sovereignty, Diversification, and the $7.5bn Offer
The recent offer from the United States—$7.5bn in military modernization aid in exchange for guaranteed free passage through the Suez Canal—has placed Egypt at a crossroads. This proposal comes amid rising tensions over US aid conditions, congressional scrutiny of Egypt’s human rights record, and Cairo’s deliberate strategy to diversify its military partnerships with China and Russia. As an Egyptian politician, I recognise the gravity of this decision: balancing national sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and the undeniable financial allure of Washington’s offer.
The Suez Canal: A Sovereign Asset beyond Price
The Suez Canal is not merely a waterway; it is a symbol of Egyptian sovereignty and a pillar of our economy. The Canal generates over $9bn annually—more when geopolitical conflicts to the south are resolved—and is governed exclusively by Egyptian law and international treaties, such as the 1888 Constantinople Convention, which guarantees free navigation without compromising Egypt’s right to regulate transit fees and security.
The US demand for “free passage” in exchange for aid risks undermining this sovereignty, echoing President Trump’s earlier controversial remarks that dismissed Egypt’s control over the Canal. Accepting such terms could set a dangerous precedent, inviting further external pressure on our strategic assets.
The $7.5bn Temptation and Its Strings
The US offer is undeniably significant. It could modernise Egypt’s ageing F-16 fleet, replenish missile stockpiles, and strengthen border security—all critical needs. However, history shows that US military aid is rarely unconditional. Congress has repeatedly withheld portions of Egypt’s $1.3bn annual assistance over alleged human rights concerns, and the Biden administration has waived requirements only when aligned with US geopolitical interests—such as in Gaza ceasefire negotiations.
Worse still, the proposed deal coincides with threats to cut aid if Egypt refuses to accept displaced Gazans—an absolute red line for Cairo. Can we trust that this $7.5bn won’t come with hidden political costs?
Diversification vs. Dependency: Egypt’s Strategic Calculus
Egypt’s recent pivot toward Chinese and Russian arms—such as the HQ-9B air defence system and potential J-10C fighter jet deals—reflects a calculated strategy to reduce dependence on Western suppliers. The US has long restricted access to critical technologies (e.g., AIM-120 missiles for F-16s) to placate Israel, while China offers advanced systems with fewer political strings attached.
Yet US law explicitly penalises countries that engage in “significant transactions” with Russia or China’s defence sectors, potentially jeopardising future aid. This puts Egypt in a bind: forfeit diversification—and with it, strategic flexibility—or risk losing US support.
The Path Forward: Sovereignty and Pragmatism
Egypt must negotiate from a position of strength. The Suez Canal’s value to global trade grants us leverage; the US needs the Canal more than we need their aid. Any agreement must:
- Explicitly respect Egyptian sovereignty over Canal management and fee regulation.
- Avoid linkage to unrelated issues, such as Gaza displacement or human rights benchmarks.
- Permit continued military diversification, ensuring US aid complements—rather than replaces—partnerships with China or Russia.
- Be subject to time limits that correspond to the value and duration of the aid provided.
The $7.5bn is tempting, but Egypt’s long-term security cannot be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Our military partnerships must serve our interests—not the agendas of external powers. As the Arab world’s and Africa’s leading military power, Egypt has earned the right to chart its own course—one that balances pragmatism with unyielding sovereignty.
The choice is difficult, but one thing is certain: we will explore all options, but never submit.
Dr. Mohamed El-Seidy: EgyptAir pilot, education and sustainable mobility entrepreneur, and member of CPYP
