In the geopolitical game of the Middle East, the confrontation between Israel and Iran has always been the focus. If Israel launches military strikes against Iran, will the war spread to Egypt? This issue not only concerns the regional security landscape, but also affects the global energy lifeline and the game between major powers. This article is based on strategic logic, historical experience, practical constraints, and potential risks, combined with newly added raid cases and multidimensional data, to explore in depth the possibility and far-reaching impact of Israel’s raid on Egypt. By analyzing Israel’s military operation mode, international balance of power mechanisms, Egypt’s military strength, and regional dynamics, this article believes that a surprise attack on Egypt is a “self destructive gamble” for Israel, with almost zero possibility and catastrophic consequences.
1、 Strategic Logic: The Paradox of Motivation and Goal
Israel’s military operations have always revolved around “survival and security,” but there is a motive paradox for the surprise attack on Egypt. It needs to be analyzed from three levels: core strategic objectives, potential motivations, and cost-benefit analysis.
1. Core strategic objective: To contain Iran, not expand the war
The fundamental demand of Israel’s strike against Iran is to prevent its nuclear capabilities, weaken missile threats, and regional proxy armed networks. This goal has a clear “defensive” characteristic – to eliminate direct threats to Israel’s homeland. If Israel achieves its military goals against Iran, it has no inherent motivation to expand the war to Egypt. Although Egypt has complex relations with Iran, such as religious differences and regional leadership competition, it is not a staunch ally of Iran. The official stance of Egypt is more inclined towards balance rather than direct intervention in confronting Israel. Therefore, Israel’s military logic will not support the strategy of ‘baseless attack on Egypt’.
2. Potential motives for the surprise attack on Egypt: geopolitical reconstruction and historical grievances
Despite the lack of core motivation, in some extreme situations, Israel may consider launching a surprise attack on Egypt:
Geopolitical reconstruction risk: If Iran is weakened and Egypt takes the opportunity to fill the regional power vacuum or form a deep alliance with anti Israel forces, Israel may attempt to “preemptively” prevent its rise. For example, if Egypt forms a strategic linkage with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Syria, and Yemen, Israel’s security pressure will double.
Historical grudges and deterrence needs: In the 1956 Suez Canal War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War (the Fourth Middle East War), the Egypt Israel conflict was profound. Israel is concerned that Egypt may take advantage of the post-war situation in Iran to retaliate or use historical grievances to incite Arab countries to unite in confrontation. In addition, demonstrating military deterrence through surprise attacks may become a means for Israel to appease domestic hawks and maintain regime stability.
Strategic resource competition: The Suez Canal is a global energy and trade throat, and controlling the canal can significantly enhance Israel’s regional influence and economic benefits. But this motive has a fatal flaw: the canal blockade will trigger a global economic crisis, and the international community will never tolerate Israel seizing control of the canal through military means.
3. Motivation Paradox: Costs far outweigh benefits
The cost of raiding Egypt far outweighs the benefits, and the strategic logic is not valid:
Military cost: Egypt’s military strength should not be underestimated, with 450000 active troops, 3700 tanks, more than 200 F-16 fighter jets, and a missile defense system covering the whole country. Israel needs to deal with two fronts of war simultaneously, consuming its already limited ammunition, fighter jets, and troop reserves (Israel’s ammunition inventory is only enough to sustain a high-intensity war for 3-4 weeks). Ground warfare may lead to a consumption war between the Egyptian army and urban street fighting, replicating the predicament of the Gaza conflict.
International cost: Attacking Egypt will trigger global condemnation, the United States may cut off military aid, and major powers such as the European Union and China will push for sanctions, cutting off Israel’s diplomatic and economic lifeline. The blockade of the Suez Canal will lead to a surge in oil prices, supply chain disruptions, and a severe blow to the global economy, with Israel itself not immune.
The cost of public opinion and legitimacy: The international community will strongly condemn Israel’s “aggressive behavior”, and its image as a “victim” will be overturned, even facing accusations of war crimes and exacerbating international isolation.
2、 Reality constraints: Action limitations under multidimensional constraints
Israel’s military actions are constrained by multiple factors such as the international situation, its own capabilities, and economic dependence, greatly reducing the possibility of a surprise attack on Egypt.
1. International Landscape: Constraints between the United States and its Allies
Israel’s military operations are highly dependent on US support. 70% of Egypt’s weapons system relies on the United States and NATO (such as F-16 fighter jets, M1A1 tanks, Patriot missile systems), and attacking Egypt is equivalent to provoking the core interests of the United States in the Middle East. The United States will not allow Israel to ignite a full-scale war in the region, let alone sit idly by as the Suez Canal is blocked. In addition, major countries such as the European Union, Russia, and China need to maintain the smooth operation of the canal, and Israel’s surprise attack will face collective checks and balances.
2. The global economic lifeline of the Suez Canal
The annual throughput of the Suez Canal exceeds 1.2 billion tons, accounting for 10% of global trade, and 100 oil tankers pass through daily. Blocking the canal will lead to a surge in global oil prices (in historical cases, the 1973 Suez Crisis caused oil prices to soar by 400%), and supply chain disruptions will severely damage the manufacturing industries in Europe and China. Israel’s own economy is highly dependent on foreign trade (with a foreign trade volume of $120 billion in 2022), and the canal crisis will make its economy even worse. The international community will never tolerate any behavior that undermines global economic stability, and military intervention carries extremely high risks.
3. Military capabilities and resource limitations
Although Israel has technological advantages such as the Iron Dome air defense system and F-35 fighter jets, its military resources are limited. After defeating Iran, it is difficult to quickly replenish its ammunition, fighter jets, and personnel losses. At the same time, multi line operations will expose logistical and supply shortcomings. Egypt’s massive army and missile forces (such as the “Meteor” ballistic missiles and the “Fortress” air defense system) are enough to pose significant resistance, forcing Israel into a war of attrition.
4. Domestic political and social pressures
The support of Israeli society for the long-term war is limited. A surprise attack on Egypt will trigger an international humanitarian crisis, and domestic anti war sentiment will rise, which may affect the stability of the regime. The Netanyahu government needs to balance the demands of hawks and moderates to avoid political turmoil caused by risky actions.
3、 Historical Case: Lessons and Insights from Israel’s Raid Operations
Analyzing past Israeli raid cases can reveal their operational logic and consequences, providing a mirror for assessing the possibility of a raid on Egypt.
Case 1: The Six Day War of 1967- Lightning Raids and Geopolitical Reconstruction
Background: In 1967, Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran, and Israel faced pressure from Arab military buildup.
Action: The Israeli Air Force launched a surprise attack on an Egyptian air base, destroying 90% of its fighter jets within 3 hours. Subsequently, ground forces occupied the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights.
Result: Israel achieved a tactical victory, but it sparked international condemnation, the Soviet Union intervened to support Egypt, and the situation in the Middle East remained turbulent for a long time.
Inspiration: Assault can achieve short-term tactical success, but it cannot solve fundamental contradictions and instead exacerbates regional conflicts, relying on “preemptive strike” and absolute technological advantages.
Case 2: 1981 Bombing of Iraqi Nuclear Reactor – Precision Strike and Limited Targets
Background: Israel is concerned that Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor will provide Iran with nuclear capabilities.
Action: Israeli fighter jets bypassed Saudi airspace, precisely destroying nuclear facilities without triggering a large-scale conflict.
Result: Successfully prevented Iraq’s nuclear program, but received international condemnation and did not trigger a regional war.
Inspiration: The Israeli raid follows the principle of “limited targets, precise strikes, and avoidance of escalation”, and must avoid the airspace and interests of third-party countries.
Case 3: Gaza Conflict in 2023- Technological Advantages and Long term Consumption
Background: Hamas rocket attacks Israel, Israel launches’ Operation Iron Sword ‘.
Action: Air strikes on Gaza’s infrastructure, ground forces clearing armed strongholds, but embroiled in street fighting and disputes over civilian casualties.
Result: Although Hamas was suppressed, it triggered an international humanitarian crisis, intensified regional hatred, and consumed a large amount of military resources.
Inspiration: Faced with weaker military opponents, Israel still faces the dilemma of public opinion and resource consumption, let alone confronting Egypt with stronger military strength.
New case: Syrian airstrikes and Lebanon conflict – Israel’s “limited war” model
Background: Since 2011, Israel has carried out multiple airstrikes on targets within Syria, targeting Iranian military facilities and weapons transportation.
Action: Adopt precise strikes to avoid ground invasion, and control the scale of the action within the “surgical style” range.
Result: Although Iran’s influence in Syria was weakened, it did not trigger a comprehensive counterattack from Syria and did not escalate into war.
Inspiration: Israel strictly adheres to the principle of “avoiding direct confrontation with regional powers” in military operations, prioritizing weak or limited targets.
Case 4: 1973 Yom Kippur War (Fourth Middle East War)
Background: Egypt and Syria launch surprise attacks on Israel in an attempt to regain lost territory.
Action: Israel was initially passive, but later counterattacked and recaptured the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.
Result: Although Israel won, the war exposed its military vulnerability, and the international community pushed for a ceasefire and peace talks.
Inspiration: Large scale wars are costly for Israel and can easily trigger international intervention, forcing Israel to accept political solutions.
4、 Potential Risk: Abyss of Chain Reaction
If Israel were to launch a surprise attack on Egypt, it would lead to catastrophic consequences far beyond expectations and any potential benefits.
1. Nuclear competition and collapse of order
The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East will sharply increase. Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and other countries have nuclear ambitions. If Egypt is attacked, it may accelerate its nuclear weaponization process. For example, Egypt has hinted that if Israel launches an attack, it may restart its nuclear program. This could lead to a domino effect collapse of the global nuclear order, threatening the international nuclear non-proliferation regime (Page 1).
2. Regional Alliance Fission and Proxy Wars
Egypt forms an alliance with Iran: If Egypt forms an anti Israel alliance with Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, Israel will face a dual encirclement of “human wave tactics” and “proxy wars”. Its technological advantages are difficult to offset its numerical disadvantage, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Gaza’s Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthi armed groups may launch attacks simultaneously, creating a multi line combat dilemma.
Joint Arab Action: Egypt, as a populous and military power in the Arab world, if attacked, will trigger a wave of regional nationalism, prompting Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and other countries to send troops for support, evolving into the “Sixth Middle East War”.
3. Global Economic and Energy Crisis
The blockade of the Suez Canal will lead to a surge in global oil prices and supply chain disruptions, severely impacting the manufacturing industries in Europe and China. International shipping has been forced to detour around the Cape of Good Hope, with transportation costs soaring by 40% and global trade shrinking by 3% -5% (International Monetary Fund data). Israel’s own economy relies on ports and foreign trade, and the canal crisis will exacerbate its economic situation and worsen its fiscal deficit.
4. Humanitarian disasters and international isolation
Attacking Egypt will cause massive civilian casualties, and the international community will impose severe sanctions on Israel. The United Nations may push for military intervention, and China and Russia may take the opportunity to expand their influence in the region. Israel’s image as a ‘victim’ will be overturned, diplomatic isolation will intensify, and even face war crimes charges.
5、 Assessment of the possibility of a surprise attack on Egypt
Based on the above analysis, the possibility of Israel launching a surprise attack on Egypt is extremely low, almost zero. The reasons are as follows:
1. Strategic rationality overwhelms the impulse to take risks
The Israeli decision-makers are well aware that attacking Egypt will ignite the Middle East powder keg, drag the United States into the water, suffocate the global economy, and paralyze the United Nations mechanism. If the Netanyahu government remains rational, it will prioritize a “limited war” over a “full-scale war”.
2. Realistic abilities are difficult to support a two front war
After defeating Iran, Israel’s military resources, international support, and domestic morale are all at a low point. To fight Egypt again, it is necessary to mobilize national forces, which may lead to internal turmoil. Although its air force and army are strong, it is difficult to simultaneously deal with Iran’s retaliation and the resistance of Egypt’s regular army.
3. Effective international checks and balances mechanism
The United States, the European Union, and Russia all do not want to see the Middle East fall into a full-scale war. As an important member of the African Union and the Arab League, Egypt’s security is crucial to regional stability. Any attack on Egypt will trigger international intervention, and Israel cannot withstand sanctions and isolation from multiple countries.
6、 Alternative Strategy: Israel’s Possible Choices
If Israel believes that the Iranian threat is difficult to eliminate, it is more likely to adopt the following strategies:
Continuous limited strikes: such as bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities and missile bases to avoid ground invasion;
Diplomatic pressure: Jointly promote international sanctions with the United States to weaken Iran’s economic and military strength;
Strengthening the defense system: upgrading the Iron Dome system, developing anti missile capabilities, and building strategic depth;
Dividing regional allies: using the conflict between Egypt and Iran to prevent them from forming an alliance;
Strengthening intelligence and special operations: Weakening Iran’s key figures and infrastructure through assassination, cyber attacks, and other means.
7、 Egypt’s Response Strategies and Potential Responses
If Egypt faces the threat of Israel, it will take the following measures:
Military preparedness: Strengthen the defense of the Suez Canal, deploy missiles and air defense systems, and mobilize the army reserve;
Diplomatic mobilization: calling on Arab countries and the United Nations to intervene and build a united front against Israel;
Economic response: Deepen trade cooperation with the European Union and China, reduce dependence on the Suez Canal;
Public opinion war: using international media to expose Israel’s “aggressive behavior” and seek global support;
Limited counterattack: Avoid direct full-scale war by launching missile attacks on Israeli border targets or supporting Gaza armed groups.
8、 New Dimension: International Law and Regional Alliance Dynamics
From an international legal perspective:
If Israel attacks Egypt without authorization from the United Nations, it will constitute an “act of aggression” prohibited by Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. The International Criminal Court may intervene in investigating war crimes.
As an international waterway, any blockade or attack by Israel on the Suez Canal would violate the International Convention on the Law of the Sea and trigger global sanctions.
2. Regional alliance dynamics:
Arab League: If Egypt is attacked, the Arab League may push for collective military action, replicating the pattern of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. But internal conflicts (such as the competition between Saudi Arabia and Egypt for regional leadership) may weaken the cohesion of the alliance.
Türkiye Iran alliance: Türkiye may form an “anti Israel triangle” with Iran and Egypt, but Türkiye itself has differences with Egypt on Libya, Syria and other issues, and the stability of the alliance is questionable.
Saudi Arabia’s Neutrality and Potential Transformation: Saudi Arabia may remain neutral, but if Israel threatens its energy transportation routes (such as the Red Sea route), it may intervene to support Egypt.
9、 Deep analysis of the impact of economy and energy
1. The economic lifeline of the Suez Canal:
The annual revenue of the canal reaches 6.2 billion US dollars, accounting for 3% of Egypt’s GDP. Blocking the canal will lead to the collapse of Egypt’s economy, but Israel will also find it difficult to withstand global sanctions and trade disruptions.
40% of Europe’s oil imports rely on the Suez Canal, and the blockade will force energy prices in Europe to soar, exacerbating the inflation crisis.
About 30% of China’s imported oil passes through the Suez Canal, and supply chain disruptions will impact manufacturing and economic growth.
2. Israel’s economic vulnerability:
Israel’s dependence on foreign trade is as high as 80%, mainly exporting high-tech products and agricultural products. If the Suez Canal is blocked, its export route will be forced to detour, resulting in a 30% increase in costs and a sharp decline in corporate profits.
International sanctions may lead to the withdrawal of foreign investment, the collapse of the tourism industry (Israel’s tourism revenue reached $4 billion in 2022), and exacerbate fiscal pressure.
10、 The overlapping risks of climate crisis and energy transition
In the context of the climate crisis, the impact of the Suez Canal blockade on global carbon neutrality goals is more significant:
Shipping detours around Cape of Good Hope increase carbon emissions: Each oil tanker detours an additional 300 tons of carbon emissions, and the global shipping industry’s annual carbon emissions increase by 5% -8%.
The renewable energy supply chain is hindered: European photovoltaic modules and wind power equipment heavily rely on transportation through the Suez Canal in Asia, and the interruption will slow down the energy transition process.
11、 Conclusion: The cost of taking risks far exceeds the benefits
The possibility of Israel’s surprise attack on Egypt is essentially a ‘self destructive gamble’. Historical cases have proven that although surprise attacks can achieve short-term tactical victories, they cannot solve fundamental contradictions and instead trigger even greater disasters. If the Netanyahu government remains rational, it must be well aware that attacking Egypt will ignite the Middle East powder keg, drag the United States into the water, suffocate the global economy, and even paralyze the United Nations mechanism. The security dilemma of Israel has never been a proposition that can be solved through “more wars”. The real threat lies not in Egypt’s guns, but in whether Israel itself is willing to break out of the vicious cycle of ‘violence against violence’. The lessons of history and the shackles of reality collectively point to one answer – the surprise attack on Egypt is a red line that Israel will never dare to cross.