CAIRO: The sole candidate running against Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi has had two showcase campaign rallies in downtown Cairo. The first was a disaster. No one showed up except a few campaign workers.
The second, on March 11, was a slight improvement: 30 people attended. They held banners and chanted slogans, though the chants weren’t exactly resounding victory cries for their candidate, an almost unknown politician named Moussa Mustafa Moussa.
“Whether Moussa wins or el-Sisi wins, either is our president!” they shouted.
There is no question the general-turned-president el-Sisi will win a second four-year term. But the March 26-28 election will likely be remembered as the event that signaled Egypt’s break with the little pretense it had left of democratic rule, seven years after a popular uprising toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak in the name of democracy.
The election was preceded by a purge of would-be opposing candidates that was unprecedented even in comparison to Mubarak’s nearly 30-year rule. Authorities also clamped down on the media, even egging the public to report to the police anyone they feel is depicting the country in a bad light.
The question raised by many observers is why such extreme measures were taken to ensure a vote that el-Sisi would probably win anyway. El-Sisi seems convinced that a genuinely contested election could destabilize the country, allow his Islamist foes a back door into politics or interfere with his high-octane, single-handed drive to revive the battered economy.
El-Sisi was first elected in a 2014 landslide, riding on popularity after, as army chief, he led the military’s ouster of Islamist President Muhammad Mursi. He kept much of that popularity while ferociously cracking down on Islamists and secular dissenters.
He has insisted stability must take priority over freedoms as he carried out multiple, large-scale infrastructure projects and implemented painful austerity reforms. With those reforms, el-Sisi has succeeded in bringing some life back to the economy, though at the cost of inflation that has badly hurt many in the impoverished population. El-Sisi has also made a name for himself on the international stage as a champion against Islamic militancy.
After the election, el-Sisi and his supporters will very likely try to get rid of the constitution’s two term limit on the presidency, said Paul Salem, a senior Middle East expert from the Washington-based Middle East Institute.
“It might be the view of el-Sisi and his administration that this is needed for stability for economic and security reasons,” Salem told The Associated Press.
“My own personal view is that this buys stability for the short term but makes any transfer of power which has to happen sooner or later much more difficult,” Salem added.
Moussa, an ardent el-Sisi supporter, entered the race at the last minute to prevent the embarrassment of a one-candidate election. An extremely polite contestant, he has avoided sounding eager to win, never criticizes el-Sisi and in fact often praises him.
El-Sisi hasn’t bothered to campaign in person. Instead, the streets of Cairo and other cities have been swamped in a tidal wave of billboards, banners and posters with his image declaring: “He is the hope.”
A decent turnout is the one thing left to give the vote a measure of respectability. El-Sisi’s supporters have organized rallies urging the public to vote. Pro-government media proclaim that voting is a religious duty and failing to do so is “high treason.” Moussa’s supporters chanted at his rally that would-be boycotters are traitors and cowards.
In a speech Monday, el-Sisi urged everyone to vote, “whatever your political choices and opinions.” Laughing, he told the crowd, “I love you, go out and vote.”
Imad Hussein, the pro-el-Sisi editor of Al-Shorouk newspaper, criticized the handling of the election, not because the field of candidates was engineered but because it wasn’t done smoothly.
“We, of course, hoped to have a genuinely contested election,” he wrote last month. “But since we don’t have that, the government was supposed to at least prepare the stage to make it look democratic.”
The methodical elimination of opponents suggested el-Sisi felt a vulnerability — particularly to a candidate rooted in the military who could exploit possible cracks in his popularity, whether over pain from economic reforms, resentment over crackdowns or frustration over continued militant violence.
Several candidates dropped out, citing intimidation and harassment. But the harshest treatment was dealt out to two former generals: former military chief of staff Maj. Gen. Sami Annan and former air force general Ahmed Shafiq.
The candidacy of Annan “would have created a conflict that would impact on the ‘holy’ unity of the armed forces and push into the open files that can only remain secret,” analyst Abdel-Azeem Hamad wrote in a Feb. 22 column. Annan was the second-highest figure in the military’s supreme council that ruled Egypt for more than a year after Mubarak’s fall.
The 70-year-old Annan was an unquestioned member of the “deep state,” ensuring the military, police and other key institutions would not oppose his presidency, one of his top campaign aides, Hisham Genena, said in an interview last month.
“This blend of civilians and military men caused the regime to panic,” he said, alluding to Annan’s choice of him and a left-wing university professor as his top aides.
Annan struck a progressive tone in his short-lived candidacy. In a January video announcing his run, he lamented encroachments on freedoms and Egyptians’ suffering under el-Sisi’s economic reforms, and he called on the military to remain neutral in the voting.
Over the next three days, top military brass — including Egypt’s former military ruler, Field Marshal Mohammed Tantawi — tried to dissuade Annan from running, Genena said.
Annan brushed them off. Finally, authorities moved: on Jan. 23, he was grabbed from his car by masked men on a Cairo highway.
He has been detained ever since at a military prison, facing charges of incitement against the military, forgery and failing to secure clearance from the military to run for president.
Senior security officials said Annan had been under surveillance for months and was directly advised not to run, to maintain the military’s image as united without rival loyalties.
“He was fully aware of the consequences that awaited him ... The warnings were crystal clear,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media.
As he went to file an appeal against Annan’s arrest, Genena was beaten up by thugs his lawyers contend were sent by the police. Genena was later arrested after he claimed in a TV interview that Annan had documents incriminating Egypt’s leadership.
Annan is now under pressure to accept house arrest and silence in exchange for the dropping of all charges, according to a person with first-hand knowledge of the case. So far he has refused, but “they are bringing up all sorts of allegations” to push him into it, said the person, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity for the same reason as the security officials.
In the case of Shafiq, authorities were likely worried not just by his military credentials. Mubarak’s last prime minister, Shafiq ran in the 2012 presidential elections, seen as Egypt’s freest vote, finishing a close second to Mursi.
Shafiq lived in the United Arab Emirates since that election.
He announced his intention to run again in a Nov. 29 video. The Emiratis, close allies of el-Sisi, promptly arrested him and deported him to Egypt. At Cairo’s airport, he was whisked away by security agents, interrogated and confined under guard at a hotel, his phone confiscated, the security officials said.
Over the next days, senior security officials pressed him to drop out of the race, according to the officials. Pro-government media launched a high-intensity campaign to discredit him, threatening that past corruption cases against him would be revived and hinting at exposure of alleged sexual indiscretions.
Shafiq buckled, announcing his withdrawal on Jan. 7. He has not been seen since — effectively under house arrest, the officials said.
Annan and Shafiq posed particular problems for el-Sisi. They would have offered safe bets for voters seeking change but wary of parting company with the military, which many Egyptians still respect as a protector of stability and which produced all but two of Egypt’s presidents since the dawn of the republic in the 1950s.
But more worrisome, the tumultuous events of recent weeks fueled speculation about possible fissures within the military, which prides itself on iron-clad unity and secrecy.
It is not known whether Annan or Shafiq’s challenges to el-Sisi had any support among senior officers. But other developments have also raised question marks, such as unexplained dismissals in past months of the military’s chief of staff and the head of the General Intelligence Directorate, Egypt’s version of the CIA, who also hails from the military.
Government-controlled media have briefly mentioned conflicts among security and intelligence agencies, which are traditionally headed by men of military background, and there have been unconfirmed reports of top generals being quietly sidelined.
Further fueling speculation, el-Sisi in a recent speech angrily lashed out at unspecified opponents. “By God, the price of Egypt’s stability and security is my life and the life of the army,” he warned, directing an intense gaze at Defense Minister Sidki Sobhi, seated to his left. “I am not a politician who just talks,” he added.
Michael W. Hanna, an Egypt expert from New York’s Century Foundation, believes el-Sisi’s fury was chiefly directed at rivals inside the military.
“The regime is super sensitive,” he said, “but it may also be facing internal tensions and rivalries that are seeping out into the public domain.”
In Egypt election, El-Sisi imposes stability over democracy
In Egypt election, El-Sisi imposes stability over democracy
Medical NGO blames new US aid group for deadly Gaza chaos
- Humanitarian aid must be provided only by humanitarian organizations who have the competence and determination to do it safely and effectively
RAFAH, Palestinian Territories: Medical charity Doctors Without Borders said Sunday that people it treated at a Gaza aid site run by a new US-backed organization reported being “shot from all sides” by Israeli forces.
The NGO, known by its French name MSF, blamed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution system for chaos at the scene in the southern Gaza town of Rafah.
Gaza’s civil defense agency said Israeli fire killed 31 Palestinians at the site. Witnesses told AFP the Israeli military had opened fire.
The GHF and Israeli authorities denied any such incident took place but MSF and other medics reported treating crowds of locals with gunshot wounds at the Nasser hospital in the nearby town of Khan Younis.
“Patients told MSF they were shot from all sides by drones, helicopters, boats, tanks and Israeli soldiers on the ground,” MSF said in a statement.
MSF emergency coordinator Claire Manera in the statement called the GHF’s system of aid delivery “dehumanizing, dangerous and severely ineffective.”
“It has resulted in deaths and injuries of civilians that could have been prevented. Humanitarian aid must be provided only by humanitarian organizations who have the competence and determination to do it safely and effectively.”
MSF communications officer Nour Alsaqa in the statement reported hospital corridors filled with patients, mostly men, with “visible gunshot wounds in their limbs.”
MSF quoted one injured man, Mansour Sami Abdi, as describing people fighting over just five pallets of aid.
“They told us to take food — then they fired from every direction,” he said. “This isn’t aid. It’s a lie.”
The Israeli military said an initial inquiry found its troops “did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the humanitarian aid distribution site.”
A GHF spokesperson said: “These fake reports have been actively fomented by Hamas,” the Islamic militant group that Israel has vowed to destroy in Gaza.
Algeria ‘regrets’ Britain backing Morocco autonomy plan for W.Sahara
- “Algeria regrets the choice made by the United Kingdom to support to the Moroccan autonomy plan
ALGIERS: Algeria’s foreign ministry said it “regrets” Britain’s decision on Sunday to support Morocco’s automony plan for the disputed territory of Western Sahara, overturning a decades-long policy in favor of self-determination.
“Algeria regrets the choice made by the United Kingdom to support to the Moroccan autonomy plan. In 18 years of existence, this plan has never been submitted to the Sahrawis as a basis for negotiation, nor has it ever been taken seriously by the successive UN envoys,” the ministry said in a statement.
Egypt’s foreign minister urges end to Israeli war in Gaza during call with Witkoff
- Badr Abdelatty emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement
- He said alleviating the humanitarian suffering in Gaza must be a priority for the international community
LONDON: Egypt's Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, stressed the urgent need for an immediate cessation of Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip during a phone call with Steve Witkoff, the US President's Special Envoy to the Middle East.
Abdelatty emphasized that alleviating the humanitarian suffering in the Palestinian coastal enclave must be a priority for the international community and called for unconditional access to humanitarian aid.
He emphasized that a just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a comprehensive political settlement that aligns with President Trump's vision for sustainable peace in the Middle East, the Emirates News Agency reported.
Abdelatty was a member of the Ministerial Committee designated by the Joint Extraordinary Arab-Islamic Summit on Gaza, which Israel prevented from visiting the occupied West Bank on Sunday to meet with Palestinian officials in Ramallah.
Arab ministers from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt, along with the Secretary-General of the Arab League, condemned what they described as the "arrogant" decision by Israel to block their visit and its rejection of any peace efforts.
Is Iraq ready to stand alone against extremist threats if US withdrawal goes ahead?
- Decades of training and investment have improved security forces, but critical capability gaps remain
- Analysts warn premature pullout could erase progress against extremism and empower armed groups
LONDON: When Daesh extremists seized control of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, many wondered whether the onslaught could have been prevented had US troops not withdrawn from the country three years earlier.
As the militants surged into Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, there were reports of members of the Iraqi Security Forces stripping off their uniforms as they fled.
“We can’t beat them,” an unnamed army officer told Reuters amid the chaos. “They are well-trained in street fighting, and we’re not. We need a whole army to drive them out of Mosul.”
After three years of fierce fighting that took Daesh within 25 kilometers of the capital, Baghdad, the extremists were finally driven back and Mosul was liberated.
The gargantuan military effort was spearheaded by Iraq’s elite Counter Terrorism Service, bolstered by the return of American troops and the US Air Force.
Images of the destruction in Mosul, along with the catastrophic impact of Daesh’s occupation, might be playing on the minds of Washington officials as they once again weigh whether or not to remove American troops still stationed in Iraq.
As it stands, the US and Iraq have agreed to end Operation Inherent Resolve — the US-led coalition’s mission to combat Daesh — by September. Most of the 2,500 US personnel in Iraq are scheduled to leave in the initial phase, with a small number remaining until 2026.
Many believe US President Donald Trump, acting under his isolationist tendencies, will want to hasten the withdrawal of those forces, or is unlikely to extend their stay if the Iraqi government requests it.
With reports of an increase in attacks by Daesh sleeper cells, fears of instability across the border in Syria, and with Iran looking to shore up its proxy militias in Iraq, there are concerns that another complete US withdrawal will once again leave the country vulnerable.
“The risk of premature withdrawal from Iraq is that the Iraqi Security Forces will lose critical operational and tactical support, and Daesh will seize the opportunity to reconstitute and once again terrorize the Iraqi people and state,” Dana Stroul, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Pentagon official, told Arab News.
The mooted withdrawal of US troops comes more than 20 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussain, freeing the country from dictatorship, but ushering in a period of sectarian civil war.
US forces were drawn into cycles of violence and routinely became the target of two mutually antagonistic sectarian forces: Iran-backed militias and an insurgency in which Al-Qaeda played a prominent role.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to end US involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not without first ordering a massive troop surge in an attempt to salvage the mission.
In Iraq, where more than 100,000 people were estimated to have died in the violence, there was widespread public anger at the American presence. In the US, the war was also deeply unpopular with thousands of American soldiers having been killed.
Some American and Iraqi officials wanted to maintain a US military presence in the country, fearful of an Al-Qaeda resurgence. But attempts to negotiate an agreement for a reduced force failed and in October 2011 Obama announced that all of the remaining 39,000 US troops would be withdrawn by the end of that year, bringing a close to the mission.
The US spent $25 billion on training and equipping Iraq’s security forces up to September 2012, alongside Iraq’s own spending on fighter jets and other advanced materiel. So it was something of a surprise that Iraqi forces were so quickly overrun when Daesh launched its offensive in 2014, having emerged from the remnants of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Images of Daesh fighters driving around in US armored vehicles captured from the Iraqi military symbolized how quickly Iraq’s armed forces had deteriorated since the 2011 withdrawal.
As the extent of Daesh’s brutality began to emerge, including the slaughter of the Yazidi minority and the beheading of Western hostages on YouTube, the US ordered its forces back to the region, as part of an international coalition, to fight the extremists in both Iraq and Syria.
After some of the most brutal urban warfare seen since the Second World War, Iraq’s then-prime minister, Haider Al-Abadi, declared the territorial defeat of Daesh in December 2017. US forces continued to help their allies in Syria to defeat the extremists there in March 2019.
By December 2021, US forces in Iraq no longer held combat roles, instead working on training, advisory, and intelligence support for the country’s military. The remaining 2,500 US troops are spread between Baghdad, Irbil in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, and Ain Al-Asad air base.
However, soon after Al-Abadi’s declaration of victory over the extremists, a new threat emerged in Iraq in the shape of Iran-backed militias, originally mobilized to help defeat Daesh. Having extended their reach over Sunni and Kurdish areas, these groups began attacking US bases with rockets and drones in a bid to force their immediate withdrawal.
These attacks, sponsored by Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, prompted President Trump, during his first term, to order the killing of militia chief Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis and Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike on their motorcade as they left Baghdad Airport on Jan. 3, 2020.
Soleimani’s death was a major setback for Iran’s proxies throughout the region, but the attacks on US positions did not subside. In fact, with the onset of the war in Gaza in October 2023, Iraq’s Shiite militias mounted a fresh wave of strikes, ostensibly in support of Hamas.
The deadliest of these occurred on Jan. 28, 2024, when three US personnel were killed and 47 wounded in a drone attack on Tower 22 just over the border in Jordan, prompting then-US president, Joe Biden, to order a wave of airstrikes on militia positions in Iraq.
Mindful of the need to protect its proxies in Iraq, at a time where Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis have been weakened and the sympathetic Assad regime in Syria has fallen, Iran appears to have forsworn further militia strikes on US forces.
The latest agreement to end the US presence was reached in September last year with the aim of moving to a fully bilateral security partnership in 2026.
Meanwhile, the US Defense Department announced in April it would be halving the number of troops in northeast Syria “in the coming months.”
An indication of Trump’s aversion to the continued US military presence came during a speech in Saudi Arabia while on his tour of the Gulf in May when he decried “Western interventionists.”
A clear concern surrounding a US withdrawal is whether Iraq’s security forces are now strong enough to withstand threats like the 2014 Daesh assault. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 is also no doubt fresh in the minds of defense officials.
A recent report by the New Lines Institute think tank in New York said that a US withdrawal from Iraq would “heavily impede the intelligence and reconnaissance collection, artillery, and command-and-control capabilities of Iraqi military forces.”
The report studied quarterly independent audits for the US Congress between 2019 and 2024 to assess the capabilities of Iraqi forces. It looked at the three main forces in Iraq: the Iraqi Security Forces, Counter Terrorism Service, and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
The report said: “While segments of Iraq’s military, such as the CTS and Kurdish security forces, have proven efficient in counterterrorism operations, several gaps exist in Iraq’s conventional capabilities, including artillery, command and control, inter- and intra-branch planning, and trust.”
The think tank said there were serious questions about whether Iraq’s security forces would be able to “hedge against internal and external challenges” in the absence of the US security umbrella.
The report’s co-author Caroline Rose, a director at New Lines, says the gaps in Iraqi capabilities “could reverse over a decade of progress that Operation Inherent Resolve has made in Iraq.”
“If the objective is still to advance Iraqi forces’ operational capacity, sustain gains against Daesh, and serve as a ‘hedge’ against Iranian influence, there is work still to be done,” she told Arab News.
While Iraq has enjoyed a period of relative stability, the threats to its national security continue to lurk within and beyond its borders.
The biggest fear is of a Daesh resurgence. Although the group has been severely depleted, it continues to operate cells in rural areas of Iraq and Syria, and has since made headway in Afghanistan, the Sahel, and beyond.
“Since January, the US military is still actively supporting the Iraqis,” said the Washington Institute’s Stroul. “There have been monthly operations against Daesh, including the killing of a senior leader in western Iraq. This tells us that Daesh is still a threat, and the US support mission is still necessary.”
Another concern is that instability in Syria, where the embryonic, post-Assad government is facing significant security challenges, could again provide a breeding ground for Daesh that could spill across the border.
“There are still 9,000 Daesh detainees held in prison camps in northeast Syria,” said Stroul, adding that these present “a real risk of prison breaks that will replenish Daesh ranks and destabilize Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the region. If the security situation deteriorates in Syria, this will have seriously negative impacts in Iraq.”
And then there is the ongoing threat posed by Iran-backed militias. While these militias have been officially recognized as part of Iraq’s security apparatus, some believe the US presence in Iraq helps keep them — and, by extension, Iran — in check.
“The staging of US forces and equipment, combined with a deep Iraqi dependence on American technical and advisory support, creates an obstacle and point of distraction for Tehran and its proxies,” Rose said.
If the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is inevitable, then how can Washington best prepare Iraq to go it alone?
For Rose, the US should play a “long game” to sustain security ties with Iraq and preserve the progress made under Operation Inherent Resolve.
She recommended the US continue investing in Iraq’s defense and security, conducting regular joint military exercises, and using its current presence in Irbil and Baghdad to build strong relations with security officials.
She also advised other international bodies, like the NATO Mission-Iraq and the EU Advisory Mission Iraq, to coordinate closely with the US as the drawdown gets underway.
Although the US appears set on pivoting away from the region to focus strategic attention on the Asia-Pacific, some still hope there could be a way for America to maintain some form of military presence, given the rapidly evolving situation in the wider Middle East.
Reports earlier this year suggested some senior Iraqi politicians aligned with Iran privately want a US presence to continue, at least until ongoing US-Iran nuclear talks reach a conclusion.
“The US military mission is one of support, advice, and assistance by mutual consent of Baghdad and Washington,” Stroul, of the Washington Institute, said. “If the Iraqi government invites the US military to remain for some period of time, there should be agreement on the supporting role that the US can play.”
If Iraq hopes to maintain lasting stability, it needs to ensure its security forces can act alone to protect the country and population from internal and external threats.
Continuing to work with the world’s foremost military power, even in a limited capacity, would go some way to ensuring the horrors of 2014 are not repeated.
Egypt unveils plan for new desert city in latest megaproject
- The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta
CAIRO: Egypt has unveiled plans for a vast new urban development west of Cairo where a man-made channel of the River Nile will eventually wind through what was once arid desert.
The new city, named Jirian, meaning “Flow” in Arabic, is part of Egypt’s Nile Delta scheme, a massive agricultural initiative to reclaim about 2.5 million acres west of the original Nile Delta.
The ambitious agricultural project, which started in 2021, seeks to boost production of strategic crops such as wheat and corn while reducing the North African country’s food import bill.
The project is the latest in a string of megaprojects launched by President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi in recent years, including a new administrative capital east of Cairo.
While officials say these projects are key to Egypt’s long-term growth, they have also contributed to the country’s soaring foreign debt, which quadrupled since 2015 to reach $155.2 billion by late 2024.
The country has also received billions of dollars from the International Monetary Fund and the EU to ensure its financial stability, with the EU pledging billions more last month.
At a launch event on Sunday, Egyptian Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouli called the Jirian project “an urban and development revolution.”
He added that it would create 250,000 jobs and serve as the cornerstone of a wider development zone equivalent in size to four to five governorates.
“We are talking about full-spectrum development,” he told reporters, describing a sprawling urban zone that will include industry, logistics hubs, and homes for “between 2.5 and 3 million families.”
The government did not disclose the project’s total cost, which is being developed in partnership with three major Egyptian real estate firms.
The new Nile Delta project comes at a time when Egypt is already under pressure to secure its water future.
With 97 percent of its fresh water sourced from the Nile, the country has been locked in a years-long dispute with Addis Ababa over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which Cairo fears could reduce downstream water flows.
