Differences between Egypt and Saudi Arabia regarding Syria
Differences between Egypt and Saudi Arabia regarding Syria
Saudi Arabia was the first foreign destination for the new rulers of Syria, while Egypt believes that Syria falling under the control of Islamists with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous event that could turn Damascus into a base for Brotherhood activities in the region. The security and political vacuum in Syria is not like other Arab countries. The country’s location, positioned between the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey on one side, and between Iraq and Egypt on the other, and its border with occupied Palestine, made it a focal point for Arab officials from the early days of the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024.
However, what draws attention in the Syrian equation is the difference in positions between Saudi Arabia and Egypt regarding Syria and its new rulers, who until recently had extremist religious backgrounds. Saudi Arabia and Egypt openly disagree about Syria, which cannot simply be attributed to a strategic approach difference among decision-makers in the two countries. Rather, the geopolitical equation between Syria and Saudi Arabia is far more significant than the geopolitical equation between Syria and Egypt.
The geopolitical position of Syria is considered important and has a direct impact from the Saudi perspective because, firstly, Syria is geographically a natural extension of the Arabian Peninsula, and the historical roots of some Arab tribes in the Syrian Jazira region trace back to Saudi Arabia, and many Syrian tribes still maintain strong ties with Saudi Arabia. Secondly, Syria is a strategic player for any Arab or international presence in Lebanon, and Saudi presence in Syria will have a direct impact on its presence in Lebanon. This is a rare opportunity for Saudi Arabia to rebuild its presence in Lebanon, which had dwindled in recent years. Thirdly, Syria was a base for Iran’s extensive and powerful geographical presence in the region, enabling Tehran’s rulers to threaten Saudi Arabia from the north through Syria and from the south via the Houthis in Yemen.
Given this geopolitical position of Syria, Saudi Arabia’s strategic interests not only require Syria to have stability in security, politics, and economy, but also necessitate a strong presence in Damascus to alter the historical geographical equation against Iran on one hand and to prevent Turkey from dominating Syria on the other.
Among the political contradictions is that Qatar, as a country with a strategic alliance with Turkey, and both supporting Syria’s new rulers, seeks its interests in a strong Saudi presence in the Levant. The strategic interests in Syria between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more aligned than those between Qatar and Turkey, which also shares a view close to that of Qatar and Saudi Arabia regarding Syria, although these views are not necessarily identical.
Turkey’s serious interest lies in Syria remaining a weak country, always in need of Turkish presence, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia believe that a strong Syria, considering its new governance with religious extensions reaching the Gulf countries, is in their favor, especially since the political views of these two countries closely align with those of Ahmed al-Sharaa and his government.
Saudi Arabia will not allow the vacuum created in Syria to be filled without its presence, and the new rulers of Syria will not be able to build their country without Saudi help and cooperation. This explains why Riyadh was chosen as the first destination for the new Syrian rulers’ foreign trips and the frequent visits of Saudi officials to Damascus, including the Foreign Minister.
The convergence between Saudi Arabia and Syria cannot be justified only by geopolitical factors; the governing approach of the two countries also aligns in this direction. Syria needs Saudi political and economic support because Riyadh is a significant power among Arab countries and can facilitate Damascus’s relations with the West. For Saudi Arabia, Syria is now considered a strategic blank slate, and it is in Riyadh’s interest for the future Syria to align with Saudi political approaches in the region and for its rulers not to be too distant from Saudi Arabia’s political ideology.
However, Egypt’s approach towards Syria differs from that of Saudi Arabia, not merely due to geopolitical differences but because of the political approach of the Egyptian government and its strong sensitivity to any Islamist government, regardless of its nature and approach. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government, since 2013, is based on the belief that political Islam, due to the exclusionary political behavior of Islamists and their belief in the use of weapons, is a direct threat to Arab countries.
El-Sisi, his government, and Egyptian media have consistently warned the Egyptian people over the past fourteen years about what has happened in Syria, emphasizing that they must choose between the chaos in Syria and the stability in Egypt under el-Sisi’s rule. From this internal perspective, one can understand Egypt’s fear of the success of Syria’s new rulers, as their success would shake Egypt’s official narrative and could become a threat to el-Sisi’s government.
From this viewpoint, Egypt’s stance aligns with that of the UAE. Egypt described the new government in Syria as a reality, while the UAE, during a meeting between its Foreign Minister and his Syrian counterpart, Asaad al-Shaibani, did not raise the Syrian flag. This action sends a clear political message that Abu Dhabi does not recognize the new Syrian government.
Egypt believes that Syria falling under the control of Islamists with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous event that could turn Damascus into a base for Brotherhood activities in the region, while the leaders of Syria’s new government have tried in their official statements and actions to reassure regional countries in this regard.
