OPINION: American foreign policy toward Egypt
Dr. James E. Sulton Jr.
JA International Correspondent
Is Egypt in Africa or the Middle East? The answer is yes. That is not a trick question. The real answer depends upon the period being considered.
Cheikh Anta Diop (as quoted by Anthony Browder) told us: “The history of black Africa will remain suspended in air until African historians dare to connect it with the history of Egypt.” However, Egypt today is generally considered part of both Africa and the Middle East.
Current geopolitical reality demands we acknowledge Egypt as one of the most important countries in Africa. At the same time, American foreign policy toward Egypt is a pragmatic strategic partnership: the U.S. backs Egypt as a key Middle East partner for regional stability.
The U.S. has long wanted Egypt to improve its human rights, political openness, and economic reform. The main goals of American foreign policy in Egypt are: to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East, especially by supporting Egypt’s role in regional diplomacy and its peace with Israel; to maintain security cooperation, including counterterrorism and military coordination; and to support a stable Egyptian economy, and long-term economic development through assistance and investment.
The American-Egyptian relationship has been strong for decades and U.S. aid has been a central part of that, especially military assistance. In practice, this often means the U.S. prioritizes cooperation and stability over confrontation, even when it raises concerns about authoritarianism or human rights. That is why critics often describe U.S. policy toward Egypt as a balancing act between strategic interest and democratic values.
The biggest recurring tension between the two countries is over human rights. U.S. officials periodically express concern about political repression in Egypt, but often stop short of major confrontation because Egypt is seen as too important strategically. So, the American policy is not purely pro-Egypt. It is more accurately pro stability; pro security; and selectively reform minded. That is why the relationship is often described as close, but not friction-free. U.S. foreign policy toward Egypt is mainly about keeping a strategic alliance with American regional goals, while applying limited pressures for reform.
Among the main priorities for the Egypt-Israel peace framework since the late 1970s has been to respect Egypt’s role in regional diplomacy, which remains highly important to the U.S.. The U.S. has also treated Egypt as a major security partner, especially on counterterrorism, border security, and maintaining stability in the region. Economic and military aid have been key tools of influence, with the U.S. providing large-scale assistance in both areas over the course of decades.
U.S. policy has often been critiqued for expressing support for democracy and human rights on the one hand while simultaneously continuing close cooperation with Egypt’s government. That tension is especially visible when the U.S. raises concerns about repression or persecution but still prioritizes security and regional stability. The most notable example of this hypocrisy was recorded when U.S. President Trump referred to Egyptian President el-Sisi as “my favorite dictator” at a G7 summit in 2017.
In practice, U.S. policy has usually been pragmatic rather than transformative. Its aims have been to preserve the strategic relationship, keep military and diplomatic channels open, and push for reforms only selectively. In most recent years, American officials have seldom mentioned human rights, and actual foreign policy changes in that area have been limited at best. American foreign policy toward Egypt has been best understood as a security-first partnership tempered by periodic but limited pressure over democracy and human rights.
In the context of the ongoing war between the U.S. and Iran, Egypt’s main role has been as a mediator and de-escalation channel, not as a combatant. It has worked quietly with other nations to pass messages between Washington and Tehran, help narrow differences, and reduce the risk of a wider war.
Examples of the role Egypt has fulfilled during the war include helping to open back-channel communications between the U.S. and Iran when direct communications seemed next to impossible. Egypt also relayed concerns and warnings from each side, highlighting red lines about escalation and retaliation. Egypt has collaborated with countries including Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia in broader cease-fire and de-escalation efforts. Finally, its role has been to publicly back restraint, condemn Iranian strikes on Gulf states, and try to avoid being pulled directly into the conflict.
Egypt has strong incentives to prevent the war from widening because regional instability threatens its economy, tourism, energy supply, and financial stability. It seeks to preserve its regional relevance by acting as a crisis broker rather than letting other nations dominate the diplomacy. Egypt has attempted to maintain good relations with the U.S. and its Arab partners while also engaging Iran enough to stay useful as a mediator. It aims toward damage control more than direct intervention.
