Egypt and Saudi Arabia: The pillars of a united Arab response to Iran’s regional ambitions

President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s position on the Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia marks a significant moment in an escalating regional crisis that extends far beyond Yemen. At its core, the confrontation reflects a longstanding struggle over sovereignty, regional influence and the right of Arab states to determine their own political and security priorities without external interference.

Egypt’s response should come as little surprise. As one of the Arab world’s most influential countries, Egypt has both strategic interests and historical responsibilities in defending regional stability. Alongside Saudi Arabia, it remains central to any serious effort to build a unified Arab position against threats to national sovereignty and the established regional order.

For years, Egypt has approached Iran’s expanding regional influence with considerable restraint, emphasizing diplomacy and seeking opportunities to prevent further confrontation. Cairo has appeared willing to give negotiations time to succeed, even as Tehran has been accused of supporting armed groups that challenge governments and alter political balances across the Middle East. Yet patience, however necessary, cannot be unlimited when the security of neighboring states is repeatedly threatened.

In a previous interview published by Asharq Al-Awsat, El-Sisi offered an illuminating explanation of Egypt’s strategic outlook. He argued that the forces targeting Egypt were also threatening the wider region, whether through extremist organizations or regional powers seeking to destabilize existing political arrangements.

He emphasized that Arab countries must cooperate to protect their national security, prevent fragmentation and resist attempts to undermine their economies and prospects for development. Expressing confidence in cooperation with Gulf states and other Arab nations, he maintained that collective action could counter those seeking to weaken the region.

El-Sisi also described Egypt’s relationship with Saudi Arabia as deep and strategic, linking the stability of the two countries directly to Arab national security. His central message was unmistakable: instability in Saudi Arabia would threaten Egypt, just as instability in Egypt would have serious consequences for the Kingdom.

Notably, the Egyptian president avoided naming Iran directly in his remarks, despite referring to regional forces that seek to overturn established political equations. That restraint may reflect Cairo’s determination to preserve diplomatic channels while signaling that its commitment to dialogue should not be mistaken for indifference to threats against Arab states.

Saudi Arabia has pursued a similar approach. Before and after the Beijing Agreement with Iran, Riyadh sought to maintain diplomatic engagement and reduce tensions. Nevertheless, Saudi policy has consistently emphasized respect for international law, national sovereignty and the principles of good neighborliness. Diplomatic normalization cannot be sustainable if one party continues to support activities that undermine the security of the other.

The convergence between Cairo and Riyadh extends beyond their bilateral relationship. Both countries have generally supported the restoration of legitimate state institutions and the protection of national sovereignty in countries including Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq. They have also backed Palestinian rights, while emphasizing the importance of functioning governments capable of exercising authority over their own territories.

Their strategic alignment has repeatedly emerged during major regional crises. Saudi Arabia’s response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 demonstrated the importance of collective Arab security. Later, during Egypt’s political upheaval following the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power, Saudi Arabia’s support for Cairo reflected its conviction that Egypt’s stability was essential to the security of the Gulf and the wider Arab world.

The underlying calculation remains relevant today. A weakened Egypt would have consequences far beyond its borders, while destabilizing Saudi Arabia could disrupt energy markets, threaten vital trade routes and undermine confidence across the international economy. The two countries therefore have compelling reasons to coordinate their responses to regional threats.

The principle at stake is straightforward: peaceful coexistence requires states to respect internationally recognized borders, engage with established governments and refrain from interfering in the sovereign decisions of their neighbors. A regional order built on these principles allows countries to pursue their interests without resorting to coercion or proxy warfare.

The Houthi movement’s conduct, as described by its critics, illustrates the dangers of abandoning these principles. Its seizure of power in Yemen undermined the country’s internationally recognized political order, while its conflict with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh ended in Saleh’s killing in 2017. Attacks threatening Saudi territory and maritime security have further heightened concerns about the movement’s regional ambitions.

Iran’s alleged role in supporting armed groups across the region adds another layer to the crisis. Tehran has been accused of providing weapons, training and political backing to militias that operate beyond the effective control of national governments. Such relationships raise fundamental questions about accountability: when an armed group attacks another country, can its actions be treated as entirely independent of the external power supporting it?

This is particularly important when the security of strategic waterways is involved. The Bab al-Mandab Strait connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and serves as a critical passage for international shipping. Any attempt to threaten navigation through this corridor could have consequences extending well beyond the Middle East. Escalation around the Strait of Hormuz would carry similarly serious risks for global energy supplies.

Against this backdrop, El-Sisi’s position can be interpreted as a warning that Egypt may be prepared to contribute more actively to defensive efforts aimed at containing regional destabilization. It also reinforces the case for coordinated action involving Arab states, Muslim-majority countries and international partners. Such cooperation would need to prioritize deterrence, maritime security and the protection of civilian populations while leaving diplomatic avenues open.

The danger, however, is that a crisis involving multiple actors could expand into a broader regional war. Israeli policy, uncertainty surrounding the future direction of American foreign policy and Iran’s continued confrontation with its rivals could all influence the trajectory of events. Escalation in the Strait of Hormuz would introduce an additional and potentially devastating dimension to an already volatile situation.

Diplomatic statements from Tehran have done little to resolve the central question of responsibility. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly said that Iran had tried to encourage both Saudi Arabia and the Houthis to halt the escalation, claiming that neither side had responded. He also maintained that the Houthis make their decisions independently.

For Arab policymakers, such assurances may be difficult to reconcile with allegations of Iranian support for the movement. If the Houthis act independently, Tehran must explain the nature and limits of its relationship with them. If Iran possesses meaningful influence, it must demonstrate that it is willing to use that influence to prevent attacks and reduce regional tensions.

Ultimately, the crisis presents Egypt and Saudi Arabia with a familiar but increasingly urgent challenge: how to defend their national interests without allowing confrontation to spiral into a wider war. Diplomacy remains indispensable, but it must be accompanied by credible deterrence and a clear commitment to sovereignty.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia cannot resolve every regional conflict on their own. Yet their combined political weight, strategic capabilities and diplomatic influence could help establish a broader framework for regional stability. The essential objective is not to replace one regional power struggle with another, but to restore respect for borders, governments and the principle that no country should be permitted to threaten its neighbors without consequence.

The future of the region may depend on whether that principle can be defended before the next escalation makes the cost of inaction far greater.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel