Yossi Schwartz, ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 28.10.2026
In the Manifesto adopted by the IV. Congress of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), September 2023, www.thecommunists.net, we said
“As Marxists, we strictly differentiate between just wars and unjust wars, wars of oppression and wars of liberation. Just wars are armed insurrections and civil wars of the working class and the popular masses against the ruling class, of oppressed nations against their oppressors, of democratic forces against reactionary and fascist opponents. Just wars are wars of national defense of semi-colonial countries against imperialist aggressors. Reactionary wars are wars of the ruling class resp. imperialist powers against the oppressed as well as military conflicts between sectors of the ruling class resp. between reactionary or imperialist states.”
The Egyptian parliament’s (October 26, 2026) decision to grant President el-Sisi a mandate to deploy military forces in Saudi Arabia has caused widespread upheaval in Southwest Asia.
1. The Background and the Economic Motivation
The Egyptian vote came after a success by the Houthis, which included attacks on Riyadh’s international airport and the facilities of the state-owned oil company Aramco. For Cairo, the main motive is not only to protect its financial ally, but also to protect Egypt’s wealthy generals.
Houthi attacks in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait have paralyzed Red Sea shipping, forced companies to circumnavigate Africa, and dramatically cut Egypt’s revenues from the Suez Canal, one of the country’s most critical sources of foreign currency.
Egypt says the forces are intended only for defensive purposes. The deployment is expected to focus on air defense systems, electronic warfare, radar to intercept UAVs and missiles, and naval backup in the Red Sea. President el-Sisi declared that the move “will not include attacks inside Yemen.” But there is a possibility that the Egyptian position will be exacerbated
2. Internal opposition
Although the resolution passed with most two-thirds, it was not passed by absolute consensus and sparked heated debates behind closed doors:
The opposition: Parties such as the Egyptian Social Democratic Party chose to abstain in a nominal vote. They criticized the parliament for not being presented with sufficient data on the mission’s duration, the economic costs it would impose on Egypt, and the real risks to soldiers’ lives.
Opposition sources warned against an “open military commitment” and called on Cairo to leave room for diplomatic maneuver without becoming an active party in a broad regional fighting.
The fear of the masses of the Egyptian people rests on historical trauma
The Yemen War in the 1960s: Under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt sent tens of thousands of troops to intervene in the civil war in Yemen. The campaign turned into a bloody, catastrophic, and costly war of attrition, dubbed “Egyptian Vietnam.”
That war drained the Egyptian state’s coffers, eroded its army, and was a major factor in its weakness on the eve of the 1967 defeat. This memory is the main reason Egypt has refrained from deploying significant ground forces outside its borders in recent decades (since the 1991 Gulf War), and Sisi therefore emphasizes that this time it is a defensive deployment in Saudi territory, not inside Yemen. But he is not to be believed.
3. The Iranian Position:
1. The economic motive, the damage to the Suez Canal, and the interest of the Egyptian bourgeoisie.
The global news networks emphasize that the escalation directly harms Cairo’s economic oxygen pipeline:
According to Reuters, “Cairo sees Gulf security as an integral part of its national security, but it also has a direct economic interest: Houthi attacks on the Red Sea and Strait shipping lanes”
Bab al-Mandeb severely disrupted maritime traffic and dramatically cut revenues
of the bourgeoisie in Egypt, including the generals from the Suez Canal, one of Egypt’s most critical sources of foreign exchange.
Firstpost Channel (India/International): “The decision underscores the deep economic and strategic ties between Cairo and Riyadh, as well as Egypt’s urgent interest in securing the Red Sea shipping corridors that are vital to Suez Canal revenue.
Analysis by the DC Arab Center Washington: “Cairo has many reasons to be concerned about the Houthi attacks… The escalating attacks have severely damaged Suez Canal revenues for the budget year, and the Canal Authority’s most optimistic forecasts have had to be updated downward due to the resumption of fighting.”
2. The limitation to “protection only”
The imperialist media and others, including Al Jazeera, justify Egypt’s decision, focusing on Sisi’s statements and defining the boundaries of the process to avoid being dragged into an all-out war inside Yemen:
According to Al Jazeera, President el-Sisi stressed that any Egyptian military action will be limited to defending the territory and borders of Saudi Arabia and will not include attacks or involvement within Yemen… Egyptian Foreign Minister Bader Abdel Ati stated that the move is a ‘precautionary measure’ only, and that it prevented it.”
The National newspaper: “The approval of parliament does not mean that forces will be deployed immediately. Sisi now has the legal authority to act, but he has made it clear that Egypt will only do so if an official and urgent request will be received from Riyadh.”
Thus, Sisi is not committed only to support Saudi Arabia on the land of the Saudies.
3. The Internal Opposition
The international press exposes the controversies that arose behind the scenes and the public fear inspired by the past war in Yemen:
According to the Egyptian British news website “Egypt Independent: “The opposition parties, including the Egyptian Social Democratic Party, chose to abstain in the namesake vote. They raised considerations related to the economic costs that the mission would impose on Egypt, and the real risks of being dragged into a broad regional escalation.”
According to a Reuters report on the opposition front: “The coalition of opposition parties (the Civic Democratic Movement) rejected the idea of Egyptian military involvement in a regional war, arguing that Cairo’s role should focus solely on mediation and diplomacy.”
4. The Houthi Axis’ Response
The international coverage also shows the other side’s response and parallel diplomatic efforts:
Euronews: “While the Egyptian parliament is approving the military mandate, senior diplomats from the member states of the Mecca Defense Alliance (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiy) are meeting in Tehran with Iranian President Masoud Pazshakhian, in an attempt to halt the escalation and find a diplomatic path.”
Arab and international news networks stressed that the Houthi leadership in Yemen reacted angrily to the Egyptian vote, with officials saying the parliament’s decision in Cairo a “declaration of war” and warned that Egypt’s slide down this path poses a serious danger to its national security and internal stability.
5. The position of the United States:
Washington welcomes the Egyptian move, as it fits with US efforts to form a broad regional coalition against the Iranian support axis, and removes some of the logistical burden from its shoulders [Reuters, 2026-10-26 [Reuters, 2026-10-26].
According to a CNN report: “The White House and the Pentagon have publicly expressed support for the Egyptian decision, stressing that it is a vital step for regional stability. An administration official said: ‘We welcome Egypt’s willingness to take an active and leading role in defending our partners in the Gulf. The deployment of Egyptian air defense systems and radars will complement the deployment of American forces and strengthen deterrence against Houthi aggression and Iranian drones.'”
Analysis in The New York Times: “For the United States, the Egyptian move constitutes an ‘Arab kosher certificate’ for the regional war effort. However, U.S. diplomats in Cairo are holding quiet talks with Egyptian generals to keep forces on the defensive, aiming to prevent an all-out regional war that would require deeper, more direct U.S. involvement.”
6. Europe’s position
For European capitalists, the main interest is economic: opening Red Sea shipping lanes and minimizing damage to global supply chains hit hard by ships diverting to bypass Africa [Reuters, 2026-10-26]. At the same time, Brussels fears a broad military escalation.
A report from the French news agency AFP: “The spokesperson for the European Union Commission for Foreign Affairs said the EU ‘recognizes Saudi Arabia’s full right to defend its sovereignty and shares Egypt’s deep concern about the infringement of freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. ‘” ‘ At the same time, the spokesman stressed that the EU calls on all parties to show maximum restraint and urges Cairo to use its political influence to promote a long-term diplomatic solution and not rely solely on military solutions.”
Financial Times article: “European economies, which are suffering from the high cost of shipping by sea due to the shutdown of the Suez Canal, see the Egyptian move as a necessary step to restore deterrence in the Red Sea. However, there is serious concern in Berlin and Paris that an active Egyptian military presence on Saudi soil and on the shores of the Red Sea could lead to a direct incident with Iran, which would shatter European diplomatic efforts to calm the region.”
7. Israel’s position
Jerusalem is closely following the move with satisfaction, as it weakens the status of the Iranian axis and creates a unified Sunni-Arab front that serves Israel’s interest in preserving freedom of navigation in Eilat and curbing the Houthi struggle.
8. Conclusion:
The revolutionary position is for a military victory by the Houthis, who support the Palestinians without political support, against the pro-imperialist front of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
It is relatively easy even for some centrists to take a position in a war between two imperialist states, or an imperialist state and a semi-colony. It takes a real understanding of the world’s class relationships and interests to assess a war between two semi-colonies or an internal civil war between two camps in a semi-colony.