Why Iran remains the prime suspect in the Damietta attack

When news broke last Wednesday evening that an American floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) had been targeted by a drone in the port of Damietta, a heated “patriotic” denial campaign was immediately launched. Commentators widely insisted that such an attack was impossible, arguing that Egypt’s advanced air defense systems could not be bypassed by an explosives-laden drone, especially one launched from Yemen, over 2,000 kilometers away.

Only a few hours had passed, yet staunch defenders of our ironclad system insisted that the incident was merely an accident. They pointed to a Ministry of Petroleum statement confirming a fire aboard an American vessel that spread to an adjacent ship, but the statement notably omitted any cause or reference to a drone strike.

This fierce debate lasted only hours before the Cabinet issued an official statement confirming that the American ship had indeed been hit by a drone, the kind of weapon that has dominated daily news cycles since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war against Iran, and throughout the endless chain of conflict sparked by Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack, which has spread across nearly the entire region.

In contrast to the stealth fighters, F-35s, and B-1 bombers whose capabilities US President Donald Trump boasts—planes capable of flying over 14 hours to drop one-ton bombs—the Iranians have used low-cost drones. These weapons have struck US bases, oil refineries, gas fields, and data storage centers built by Washington across the Gulf states, inflicting hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

Hasty judgments

Given this reality, the emotional haste to dismiss the possibility of a drone attack was incomprehensible, as was the repetition of slogans like “Egypt is guarded against all evil.” It was as though divine intervention would compensate for any shortcomings in the country’s air defenses, or as if we possessed greater capabilities than the United States, which failed to intercept drone strikes against the Gulf states, Jordan, and Iraq—attacks that left US personnel dead and wounded.

No sooner had the debate over the drone attack subsided than intense arguments erupted over who was responsible, against the backdrop of a region teetering on the edge of full-scale war driven by a clear US strategy to maximize pressure on Iran and force it into an agreement ending the conflict on American terms.

While the authorities remain silent—stating that investigations remain underway and reiterating warnings against propagating unofficial reports—public opinion across the media and social platforms has splintered. One side places responsibility squarely on Iran, whether directly or through its regional allies like Lebanese Hezbollah, given its proximity to the Mediterranean port of Damietta. The opposing side vehemently rejects any accusation against beloved Tehran, which leads the Axis of Resistance against the US imperial project and its Zionist ally.

Pro-Resistance partisans quickly pointed fingers at Israel, asserting without evidence that it staged the attack to drag Egypt into the war. They celebrated a cryptic statement by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who emphasized the importance of relations with Egypt while making an enigmatic allusion to the need for vigilance against “Israeli schemes and false-flag operations aimed at undermining regional peace.”

Iranian motives

I do not need to reiterate my conviction that the Israeli regime considers covert intelligence operations and conspiracies a domain of military and technological supremacy, nor my belief that Israel’s current government of war criminals would not hesitate to commit any act harmful to Egyptian interests. What proved astonishing, however, was the rush by Egypt’s “Resistance” camp to exonerate Iran, which has yet to issue an official, definitive denial of involvement.

In diplomatic practice, deception and disinformation are recognized components of negotiation strategies—disciplines in which the Iranians are widely acknowledged to excel. It is difficult to understand how observers can overlook Iran’s clear record over the past five months: orchestrating attacks on targets in Gulf countries—including traditional allies or close partners like Qatar and the Sultanate of Oman—and subsequently adopting official silence or floating the possibility of third-party “false flag” operations intended to fuel the war. Both Qatar and Oman have continued their diplomatic mediation efforts aimed at halting the US war on Iran, despite repeated strikes that severely disrupted Qatari gas production.

Similarly, in the opening weeks of the war, isolated Iranian missiles were launched toward Turkey and Azerbaijan—where US assets are located—followed by official Iranian denials. Both nations chose to avoid direct confrontation while signaling to Tehran that the message had been received and that they would not allow their territory to serve as a launchpad for US strikes against Iran. Turkey, a NATO member whose president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, maintains a distinct relationship with Trump, adhered to this stance. Erdoğan even played a crucial role in frustrating Israeli plans to subvert the Iranian regime through support for Iranian Kurdish militias, fearing that doing so might reactivate Kurdish armed groups within Turkey.

The current Iranian regime is fighting for its survival. Confronted by a formidable American military apparatus aided by the Zionist entity—which openly boasts of its army’s regional military superiority and nuclear capabilities—Tehran has clearly decided that its most potent weapon is to inflict maximum disruption on the global economy. Whether by maintaining the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or prompting the Houthis in Yemen to resume disrupting Red Sea navigation through the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait and attacking Saudi shipping, its goal is to compel Trump to bring the war to a complete end.

Closing both straits—Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandeb—would cut off global markets from Gulf oil, which accounts for roughly 22% of global production (12% from Saudi Arabia alone). Furthermore, the scale of potential damage Iran can inflict on Gulf energy production and refining infrastructure is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars, requiring years to repair and restore to normal capacity. Should Iranian strikes extend to gas export terminals in Damietta, this display of force would deal another severe blow to the global economy.

To achieve this objective, Iran views all methods as permissible, including deploying drones and launching strikes against enemies and friendly states alike. To friendly states, Tehran typically conveys that they are not the target themselves, but rather the American interests embedded within them amid the ongoing war. Frequently, to obscure direct involvement, Iran relies on its traditional allies—Lebanese Hezbollah, loyalist Shia militias in Iraq, or the Houthis in Yemen—to execute specific missions under a shared understanding that they all face the same existential threat. If the Iranian regime falls, these groups will inevitably meet the same fate.

Israeli considerations

Israel is well aware that staging an attack against Egypt would carry an extraordinary cost under the existing peace treaty between the two countries. Furthermore, identifying the party responsible for a strike is no longer a technical challenge. It is absurd—almost laughable—that commentators continue to cite the 1954 Lavon Affair as a reminder of the deceit of Israeli intelligence operations, when recent months have offered far more relevant examples, from the pager detonations targeting Hezbollah personnel and the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah to the assassinations of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military commanders.

Given Iran’s established doctrine in confronting the aggressive war waged against it by the US and Israel, the most plausible scenario is Tehran’s involvement—likely indirect—in directing the drone that targeted Damietta port.

Much now depends on Egypt’s official position, which appears cautious about any direct confrontation with Iran. Egypt has consistently chosen to work alongside regional mediators such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan to halt a war that promises only catastrophe for the region and the world.

We oppose the illegal American-Israeli war on Iran, and there is a clear recognition that a total Iranian defeat would yield an unacceptable Israeli dominance over the region. However, blind defense of Iran’s actions is equally unacceptable and ignores Egypt’s strategic interests as a major regional power. It is inconceivable that Egypt’s interests would be served by the emergence of Iran as a dominant power controlling the oil and resources of the Persian Gulf—a region with which Egypt shares deeply interconnected interests and where millions of Egyptians reside.