According to the analysis, the breakthrough of the Abraham Accords and the potential for normalization with Saudi Arabia are perceived in Cairo as a direct threat to national interests.

By Hezy Laing

Lt. Col. (res.) Eli Dekel, an expert on field intelligence and the Egyptian army, presents a worrying analysis of Egypt’s strategic intentions toward Israel.

In an interview with the Hebrew language TOV news network, he said that the optimistic predictions that Begin Sadat peace agreements ( according to which the Egyptian army would reduce its regular forces and switch to a reserve formation) did not materialize even at the level of the individual battalion.

On the contrary, since the signing of the agreements, the Egyptian army has only been growing stronger with increasing intensity.

Dekel claims that Egypt has never desired a true, long-term peace, and that its deep-seated motives are inherently hostile to Israel.

Beyond historical hostility, Dekel points out a new strategic threat that is disturbing the Egyptians: the initiative to establish a land trade route that will connect India to the port of Ashdod via Saudi Arabia.

Such a project, based on high-speed trains, could constitute a partial and significant replacement for the Suez Canal, which is a supreme economic and strategic asset for Egypt.

The emerging India–to–Ashdod trade corridor is a proposed overland‑maritime route linking India to the Mediterranean through the Arabian Peninsula. Cargo would depart from western Indian ports, cross the Arabian Sea, and unload at ports in the United Arab Emirates.

From there, containers would travel by rail through Saudi Arabia and Jordan, eventually reaching Israel’s port of Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast.

This route is designed to shorten shipping times between Asia and Europe by bypassing the congested and vulnerable Suez Canal.

It also reflects growing economic cooperation between India, Gulf states, and Israel, driven by shared interests in logistics modernization and regional connectivity.

The corridor is expected to support high‑value goods, reduce freight costs, and create a competitive alternative to traditional Red Sea shipping lanes. For Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the project aligns with long‑term plans to diversify their economies and become global logistics hubs.

For Israel, it offers a direct land bridge to Asian markets and strengthens its strategic role in East–West trade. If fully implemented, the route could reshape commercial flows between South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.

Egypt opposes the corridor because it directly threatens the Suez Canal, which provides billions of dollars in annual revenue and is central to Egypt’s geopolitical influence. Cairo fears that a functioning India–Gulf–Israel land bridge would divert a significant share of container traffic away from the canal.

The new India–UAE–Saudi Arabia–Jordan–Israel trade corridor is expected to shorten shipping times and reduce transportation costs by replacing a long maritime journey with a combined sea‑and‑rail route.

Sending cargo from India to Europe through the Suez Canal typically requires sixteen to twenty days, depending on congestion and security conditions in the Red Sea.

By contrast, the proposed corridor would move goods from Indian ports to Ashdod to European destinations in roughly eight to twelve days, saving six to ten days overall and cutting the journey by nearly half.

Financially, the route reduces dependence on the Suez Canal, where transit fees for large container ships can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Shorter sea legs, lower insurance premiums, and more efficient rail transport could reduce total shipping costs by ten to twenty percent per container, depending on cargo type and volume.

According to the analysis, the breakthrough of the Abraham Accords and the potential for normalization with Saudi Arabia are perceived in Cairo as a direct threat to national interests.

Dekel believes that the Egyptians are determined to thwart these moves by any means.

While at this stage the activity is mainly diplomatic, Egypt is preparing its army for the possibility that political efforts will fail, and it will be required to use military force to protect its economic and strategic position in the region.