Egypt’s and Eritrea’s new maritime transport agreement is not a routine economic gesture. It is a political marker—and a sign that the Red Sea is entering a new phase of strategic competition. The agreement, which launches a shipping line and opens the door to Egyptian expertise in ports, rail, and logistics, is the visible expression of a deeper convergence between Cairo and Asmera at a moment when the region’s balance of power is shifting.
The partnership carries a historical echo. In the 19th century, Egypt under Khedive Ismail modernized the port of Massawa, transforming it into one of the Red Sea’s most important harbors. Today, Eritrea is again looking outward for maritime expertise—and Egypt is again presenting itself, this time as a partner rather than an imperial aspirant. But the question remains: is Egypt the best-positioned actor to deliver the technical and financial depth Eritrea needs?
The Gulf states—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar—possess far more capital, more modern port-development experience, and a proven record of executing large-scale maritime projects. Egypt’s offer is therefore less about technical superiority and more about political alignment.
The Doctrine Behind the Alignment
That alignment rests on a shared doctrine: that Red Sea security is the exclusive responsibility of littoral states. Egypt has articulated this principle for decades; Eritrea has lived it. Both reject the internationalization of the Red Sea and view sovereignty—not multinational naval coalitions—as the organizing principle of the waterway.
This is not a case of politics making strange bedfellows. It has been building for years, and one could argue it was inevitable. The calculus makes sense.
But the doctrine is not universally accepted. Among the eight Red Sea Basin states, Israel is the only one that rejects the littoral‑states‑only principle. Its security posture depends on U.S. naval protection, multinational task forces, and the freedom to act unilaterally. Every other littoral state—Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan, Yemen, and Djibouti—supports the principle in practice or through the Saudi-led Red Sea Council.
Israel stands apart, and that divergence shapes how it interprets the emerging Egypt–Eritrea alignment.
Djibouti—The Hyper-Penetrated State
Djibouti’s population sympathized deeply with the Eritrean liberation struggle, but post‑independence relations soured after the Ras Doumeira border clash in 2008. Today, Djibouti hosts an extraordinary concentration of foreign military bases—American, Chinese, French, Japanese, Italian, and others—making it one of the most militarized pieces of real estate on earth.
This density of external actors gives Djibouti an outsized role in Red Sea security, but it also makes its sovereignty unusually permeable. And with so many foreign military camps on its soil, Djibouti’s actions speak louder than its rhetoric. It has become, in effect, the modern equivalent of ancient Egypt—the “maiden that every conquering or expanding empire must lie with” before projecting power into the Red Sea and the Horn.
Egypt’s Lost Primacy — and Sisi’s Attempt to Reclaim It
To understand why Egypt is suddenly active in the Red Sea, one must understand how far Egypt fell after the Nasser era—and why President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is trying to resurrect Cairo’s regional stature.
Under Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt was the Arab world’s political center of gravity. It shaped Arab nationalism, confronted Israel, and intervened decisively in Yemen’s civil war, deploying nearly 70,000 troops. Nasser’s Egypt projected power across the Red Sea and the Horn with confidence and ideological ambition.
The decades that followed brought contraction and decline. Sadat’s pivot to Washington and his peace with Israel alienated much of the Arab world, narrowing Egypt’s regional influence. Mubarak, famously photographed in a $15,000 custom‑made suit, presided over a cautious, inward‑looking state more concerned with regime stability than national development. The 2011 revolution and its turbulent aftermath further eroded Egypt’s capacity to project power. Meanwhile, the Gulf monarchies—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar—emerged as the Arab world’s new financial and political engines, reshaping a regional balance Egypt once dominated.
By the time Sisi came to power, Egypt was no longer the region’s natural leader. It was a large state with a diminished voice.
Sisi’s foreign policy is an attempt to reverse that decline. He emphasizes sovereignty, state authority, and regional stabilization. The Red Sea—long peripheral to Cairo’s diplomacy—has reemerged as a strategic priority. The Egypt–Eritrea agreement is part of this broader project: a signal that Egypt intends to reclaim narrative leadership in a crowded geopolitical space.
Historical Alignments: Who Supported Eritrea — and Who Stands with Eritrea Today
Sudan—The Crucial Rear Base
Sudan was the indispensable rear base of Eritrea’s liberation. It hosted refugees, political offices, and supply routes for both the ELF and EPLF. Port Sudan became the gateway for arms, medicine, and humanitarian support. But Sudan’s Islamist turn in the 1990s attempted to export political Islam into Eritrea, deepening Asmera’s suspicion of Khartoum.
Although the overwhelming majority of Sudanese people and intellectuals supported the Eritrean cause, successive governments swung like a pendulum—their stance toward Eritrea often shifting with their rapprochement or tension with Ethiopia, especially over South Sudan.
Today, relations are pragmatic but cautious. Eritrea has aligned itself with the SAF, while Ethiopia backs the Rapid Support Forces—a split that adds new volatility to an already fragile border. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Eritrea stand with the SAF under al-Burhan, while the UAE supports Ethiopia and the RSF led by Hemeti—a geopolitical divide that sharpens the stakes of Sudan’s civil war.
Israel, for its part, has lacked a consistent policy: the Foreign Ministry maintained ties with states aligned with the Abraham Accords, including Burhan’s Sudan, while the Mossad cultivated longstanding links with Hemeti and the RSF through mercenary deployments in Yemen and UAE-mediated channels.
Egypt—Symbolic Origins, Strategic Distance, Renewed Convergence
From the 1950s through the 1980s, many founding fathers of the Eritrean struggle lived, died, or passed through Cairo, making the city an early crossroads of Eritrean nationalism. But Egypt never became a decisive supporter; its priority was always Ethiopia and the Nile. Even earlier, the Khedivate under Ismail Pasha launched the 1875–76 campaigns from Eritrean territory in an effort to conquer the Horn and the Nile Valley—a reminder that Eritrea has long been the conduit through which external powers sought to project force into Ethiopia.
Today, Egypt and Eritrea have rediscovered each other through shared sovereignty doctrines and a shared suspicion of Ethiopia’s regional ambitions. Egypt is strong enough to make Ethiopia think twice about its veiled and open expansionist threats, yet not dominant enough for the Eritrean regime to fear playing second fiddle. But this alignment carries risks: it could reignite another regional war. Ethiopia—despite its long record of wrongheaded policies toward Eritrea—remains Eritrea’s most important neighbor, and that reality must anchor any sustainable regional balance.
Saudi Arabia—Distant Then, Central Now
Saudi Arabia kept its distance during the liberation struggle, and when it did engage, it was rarely neutral. Its involvement was shaped by ideological priorities: exporting its religious worldview, countering Nasserism and communism, and favoring one Eritrean organization over another.
Today, Saudi Arabia is the central architect of Red Sea security. Its approach is structural, not ideological—stabilizing the Bab al‑Mandeb, securing maritime trade, and building a littoral‑states framework that reflects its rise as the Arab world’s political and financial center of gravity. With the advent of MBS, Saudi Arabia is undergoing one of the most significant cultural and economic transformations in the region, a shift that should invite deeper collaboration with Eritrea and its neighbors.
Yemen — Early Sympathy, Later Rivalry
Yemen’s relationship with Eritrea was never linear. There was early popular sympathy for Eritrea’s anti‑colonial struggle, especially among coastal communities with deep ties to Massawa and Assab. But at the state level, Yemen’s position shifted well before independence. South Yemen (PDRY)—and elements within North Yemen—aligned ideologically with the Derg, viewing the EPLF and ELF through a Cold War lens.
After independence, relations deteriorated further, culminating in the Hanish Islands conflict (1995–1998)—a brief but consequential war that left lasting mistrust despite later arbitration. Yemen was also one of the three founders of the Sana’a Forum, alongside Ethiopia and Sudan, with the explicit aim of containing Eritrea.
Today, Yemen is fragmented, and Eritrea’s dealings with Yemeni actors are transactional, shaped by the Saudi–Houthi conflict and the militarization of the Red Sea islands.
Jordan—Symbolic Support, Limited Engagement
Jordan offered diplomatic sympathy but no material support. Yet it has long demonstrated an ability to navigate regional politics with steadiness and restraint, supported by one of the most educated populations in the Arab world. Like Oman, Jordan offers Eritrea a model of measured, principled foreign policy—balancing sovereignty, pragmatism, and regional engagement without overextension.
Israel—Strategic Divergence Then and Now
Israel’s relationship with Eritrea during the liberation struggle was shaped by its alliance with Emperor Haile Selassie. Israel viewed Ethiopia as a critical partner in the Red Sea and the Horn—a buffer against Arab nationalism and a foothold in a region vital to its maritime access. Israeli advisers trained Ethiopia’s counterinsurgency and commando units, including forces deployed specifically to suppress Eritrean rebellions.
Today, Israel is the only Red Sea littoral state that rejects the littoral‑states‑only doctrine, relying instead on U.S. naval protection and multinational maritime frameworks.
The Immediate and Long-Term Benefits—for the Regime and the People
Immediate Benefits for the Regime
- Political Legitimacy: Engagement with Egypt breaks the perception of isolation.
- Strategic Shielding: Egypt provides a buffer against Ethiopia’s Red Sea ambitions.
- Narrative Reinforcement: The littoral‑states doctrine aligns with the regime’s suspicion of external actors.
- Regional Balancing: Aligning with Egypt and Saudi Arabia diversifies external support.
Immediate Benefits for the Eritrean People
- Potential Economic Activity: A functioning shipping line could reduce costs and create jobs.
- Reduced Isolation: Any opening eases Eritrea’s suffocating isolation.
- A More Predictable Region: Egyptian involvement may stabilize the Red Sea corridor.
Long-Term Benefits for the Regime
- External Partnerships Without Reform: Egypt and Saudi Arabia do not demand governance reforms.
- Strategic Depth: External ties reduce vulnerability to internal dissent.
- Continued Balancing: Eritrea’s ruling elite has maintained a passable record of playing regional actors against one another—Egypt vs. Ethiopia, Gulf states vs. Western powers. But this seesaw strategy is fragile. It can only be sustained if Eritrea moves beyond hypercentralized rule and builds real institutional capacity: think tanks capable of long-term planning and a competent diplomatic corps attuned to regional and global developments. Without such structures, Eritrea’s ability to maneuver will erode, leaving the country exposed rather than empowered.
Long‑Term Benefits for the Eritrean People
- Economic Normalization: Real port development could reconnect Eritrea to regional trade.
- A Crack in the Wall of Isolation: Engagement, not isolation, creates conditions for internal change.
- A More Stable Red Sea Order: Stability reduces conflict spillover and economic shocks. Predictability—both regionally and domestically—is a prerequisite for meaningful reform. Eritreans, regardless of political persuasion, have a strategic interest in supporting engagements that open the country and weaken the logic of siege that has justified repression for three decades.
Isolation entrenches the regime. Engagement strengthens it in the short term but also weakens the ideological foundations of authoritarianism.
A Region in Motion
The Egypt–Eritrea maritime agreement is not an isolated event. It is the latest chapter in a long story of alignments, rivalries, and rediscovered partnerships across the Red Sea. Whether the new shipping line becomes a meaningful artery or a symbolic gesture will reveal much about the evolving balance of power in one of the world’s most strategic waterways.
As the Chinese saying goes, we are living in interesting times—and one can only hope we rise to meet the challenges and opportunities they present.
To contact the author: weriz@yahoo.com
Comments