Problem

Around 60,000 migrants crossed from Morocco into the Spanish exclave of Ceuta in 24 hours between July 30th and 31st, overwhelming the territory and exposing divisions within the EU.

The immediate cause is unclear. Morocco’s authorities have yet to issue an official explanation. Spanish officials have pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling ending the automatic return of migrants intercepted while attempting to swim to Ceuta and Melilla. But the sheer scale of the crossings suggests Morocco might have deliberately relaxed border controls. The timing is also suspicious. The crisis came just ten days after Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez visited Algeria— Morocco’s arch-rival—and announced a “new phase” in Spain-Algeria relations.

The reaction within Europe has been striking. Rather than display solidarity with a member state facing pressure at the EU’s external border, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni not only blamed Sánchez’s migration policies but also called for Spain to be suspended from the Schengen area. Madrid responded by summoning the Italian ambassador and rebuking Rome’s “partisan demagoguery”.

Responses from other leaders have been similarly unsympathetic. Finnish interior minister Mari Rantanen supported Italy’s proposal to suspend Spain’s Schengen status. Manfred Weber, president of the centre-right European People’s Party, urged the European Commission to hold Sánchez accountable for failing to protect the EU’s external border. Meanwhile, France has reinforced controls along its frontier with Spain. Remarkably, little criticism was directed at Morocco itself.

Solution

In the immediate term, the EU should demonstrate solidarity with Spain. European leaders need to treat migration pressure against a member state as a collective problem and a challenge to the integrity of the EU’s external border. Publicly blaming the targeted member state lowers the political cost of weaponising migration.

Brussels should make clear that any use of migration as blackmail will carry European rather than merely Spanish consequences. Around two thirds of Moroccan exports go to the EU, which is also its largest source of foreign investment. Brussels should also be prepared to suspend negotiations on a comprehensive partnership upgrade with Rabat.

Europe also needs to revise its migration policy, which largely shapes its relations with North Africa. In the absence of a common European approach, relations default to bilateral bargains, leaving North African leaders holding the lever. And until Europe changes the incentives, Rabat will keep pulling it.

Context

Spain has managed the migration relationship with Morocco bilaterally for decades, leaving Madrid increasingly hostage to Rabat. The latter has repeatedly used migration as political leverage, most notably in 2021, when it allowed some 6,000 migrants into Ceuta in a single day amid a diplomatic rift over Western Sahara.

The following year, Spain abandoned its longstanding neutrality on Western Sahara by endorsing Morrocco’s autonomy proposal, a policy shift many attribute to the 2021 crisis. Government sources unofficially said at that time that the new bilateral understanding included Moroccan commitments to avoid a repeat of the episode.

Rabat also appears particularly emboldened at present. It enjoys strong backing both from the US and Israel, and both have become increasingly hostile towards Sánchez government. The White House responded to the latest crossings by celebrating it as evidence of the “destructive philosophy” of “extreme left and globalist policies, including those that facilitate massive migration”.

Source

The next phase of the war between the US and Iran may be decided not in the Gulf but in Yemen. The Houthis’ decision to blockade Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea—including by attacking two Saudi ships as well as Aramco’s oil infrastructure—could become a turning point in the wider conflict. Such escalation could force Riyadh to reconsider the diplomacy-first strategy that has defined both its response to the Iran war and its handling of Yemen after a costly military intervention failed to uproot the Houthis.

Staying out of the war

Since the Iran war began in February, Riyadh has maintained channels with Tehran and urged Washington to pursue de-escalation, diplomacy and an end to the war. This strategy stems from Saudi Arabia’s exposure to prolonged turmoil and its determination to avoid being dragged into a war.

There is also a more immediate Saudi calculation. By keeping lines open with Tehran, Riyadh sought, with partial success, to persuade Iran to spare the kingdom the kind of retaliation it directed at the UAE, whose support for the US-led war has been overt. Restraint has also strengthened Saudi diplomacy with the Houthis and helped preserve an uneasy truce.

This diplomatic approach has also allowed Riyadh to keep exporting oil even as Hormuz remained closed. Crude continued to flow through the East-West Pipeline from the Eastern Province to Yanbu on the Red Sea, preserving access to Asian markets, which account for up to 70% of Saudi crude exports. While the route still handles only a fraction of export volumes during peacetime, it provided Saudi Arabia with an economic lifeline while easing pressure on global markets.

That arrangement is now under strain. After Saudi-backed forces in Yemen struck the runway at Sana’a airport to prevent Iranian aircraft from landing (arguing they were enforcing a no-fly embargo on military supplies), the Houthis launched ballistic missiles and drones at southern Saudi Arabia, ending a four-year truce.

The attacks appear to reflect a shift in Iran’s strategy towards the kingdom. As the US expanded its attacks on Iranian infrastructure, Tehran has reportedly asked the Houthis to prepare to close Bab al-Mandab and threatened the East-West Pipeline directly, declaring a “port against port” doctrine under which Gulf infrastructure hosting American operations would become targets. By threatening both Hormuz and the Red Sea, Tehran appears to seek to raise the global cost of the American campaign—while again overestimating Riyadh’s ability to press Washington for de-escalation.

Riyadh’s choice

Saudi Arabia must now decide how to respond. If the Houthis fail to cause meaningful disruption at Yanbu and the East-West Pipeline, it may seek a new exclusion agreement with the group and Iran. Under such an arrangement, Saudi tankers, ports and infrastructure would be removed from their target list in exchange for restrictions on refuelling American aircraft and on intelligence support for American operations, as well as tighter controls on the Saudi-backed Yemeni forces. Tehran would also expect Riyadh to keep pressing the White House for de-escalation. The Houthis would likely demand concessions of their own too, such as resumed flights to Sana’a, access to the port city of Hodeidah, salary payments and a more formal recognition of their authority in northern Yemen.

If, however, the Houthis continue to block Saudi exports while attacking Yanbu, the East-West Pipeline or other critical infrastructure such as Aramco facilities, Riyadh may conclude that diplomacy has become a mechanism for managing its own strangulation. At that point, accommodation could be more dangerous than escalation. Saudi Arabia could then move closer to the American campaign against Iran while also reviving its own war against the Houthis. That would draw the Arab world’s most influential state directly into the conflict, making it far harder to contain.

After their public split around Yemen, the two Gulf powers now have a shared incentive to confront a common enemy

Riyadh would first try to deal with the Houthis. Saudi Arabia has already struck Houthi sites at the port of Hodeida and on Kamaran island. The next steps would likely involve coordination with the UAE. Abu Dhabi has long argued that Riyadh’s accommodation with the group was doomed to fail. After their public split around Yemen, the two Gulf powers now have a shared incentive to confront a common enemy. The UAE-backed forces in the south have already mobilised alongside the Saudi-backed internationally recognised Yemeni government, attacking Houthi missile and drone launch sites as well as weapons depots in Marib and Al-Jawf.

Avoiding a wider war

Such an escalation would be an enormous gamble for all sides. Iran would end up facing a broader coalition. Saudi Arabia would be joining an American military campaign that is yet to deliver a decisive blow against Iran, while reopening a conflict in Yemen that it previously failed to settle. Iran has already demonstrated that it can keep Hormuz closed despite US strikes, showing it retains highly dispersed missile and drone systems able to sustain a prolonged war at a very low cost. The Houthis can do much the same in the Red Sea. Meanwhile, a renewed ground war in Yemen could reignite the country’s longstanding civil war.

Europe has every interest in preventing that outcome. A prolonged closure of Bab al-Mandab would disrupt the Suez route, increase energy and shipping costs and heap further pressure on the European economy. If Saudi Arabia abandons restraint against Iran and the Houthis, the chances of a diplomatic settlement that addresses both Hormuz and the region’s wider security architecture would diminish significantly. The EU is now considering expanding the mandate of Operation Aspides to include minesweeping, amid concerns that Iran or the Houthis could use naval mines to keep Bab al-Mandab closed even after de-escalation. But naval and economic plans should support, not replace, diplomatic efforts. Europeans should use their channels with mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and especially Oman to dissuade Iran from opening new fronts in Bab al-Mandab and against Saudi Arabia, while also pressing Trump to hold back from widening American attacks to core Iranian infrastructure.

Source

In the latest episode of ECFR’s WOMENP podcast, Ellie Geranmayeh is joined by three leading Lebanese voices— Alia Moubayed, senior economist; Randa Slim, Middle East Programme director at the Stimson Center; and Maha Yahya, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut—to unpack the consequences of the trilateral framework deal signed by Israel, the US and Lebanon.

Lebanon is among the countries most impacted by the US and Israel’s war against Iran. Following the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Hezbollah resumed direct attacks against Israel in March, plunging the country back into conflict. Around 4,000 people in Lebanon have since been killed and over a million displaced, with Israeli ground forces now occupying parts of south Lebanon.

In June, Israel, the US and Lebanon signed a historic—and controversial—trilateral framework deal, with the parties meeting again in July to discuss the implementation phase, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied parts of Lebanon. But with a ceasefire between the US and Iran unravelling, the durability of the Lebanon deal is unclear. Together, Ellie, Alia, Maha and Randa discuss whether the deal can bring lasting peace to Lebanon and how international players can support efforts to stabilise the country.

Listen to all past episodes of ECFR’s WOMENP series.

This podcast was recorded on July 16th, 2026.

Bookshelf:

The Best Kind of American: A True Story of Murder, War, and America’s Undoing in the Middle East by Kim Ghattas

Beirut Blues by Hanan Al-Shaykh

A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered by Kamal Salibi

---

Source

💾

To nobody’s surprise, the US and Iran are back at war. After Washington launched a new series of strikes on Iran on July 8th, the two are exchanging fire on assets across the Gulf. Once again, movement through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s major thoroughfare of oil exports, is minimal and global fuel prices are creeping back up.

North Africa, still reeling from the consequences of the fighting earlier this year, is nervously watching on. Egypt’s and Tunisia’s finances are suffering and the balance of power between Morocco and Algeria looks shaky, as does Libya’s delicately poised political status quo. The war’s corrosiveness is pushing the region closer to instability. This was true after the ceasefire, and even moreso now it has been broken.

For Europe, north Africa’s travails are a security and economic threat. But they are also an opportunity for Europeans to finally redevelop their relations with their southern neighbours by helping buttress them against this tumultuous new world and in turn, protect themselves against future unrest.

Taking blows

As import-oriented economies, North African countries are largely dependent on streams of global currencies, and they are increasingly energy hungry. This makes them hyper vulnerable to the Iran war’s geopolitical and geoeconomic fallout, as the first wave of fighting made all too clear.

When Iran closed the strait of Hormuz in February and struck energy terminals across Arab gulf states, it hit energy markets and upended budgets across the region. The Tunisian government, for example, already locked in a Sisyphean struggle to find enough foreign currency for key monthly imports and loan repayments, designed their budget with an assumed price of oil at $63 per barrel, only to see it soar to over $100. They almost depleted their emergency reserve within the first few weeks of the war and relied on quiet energy loans from neighbours. Egypt, similarly, was forced to go to Libya and costly spot markets after Israel declared force majeure on key gas exports following the gulf shutdown. The government even forced 24-hr metropolises into darkness after 9pm. The region now faces this new round of fighting with the energy stores depleted and the coffers dry.

North Africa’s oil economies were also affected. Algerian and Libyan hopes to leverage high oil prices have been stymied by loans to neighbours, production limits and domestic energy demands. Libya—which depends on fuel imports and suffers from massive fuel smuggling operations—had their first unified budget in years gravely unbalanced before even being signed.

It is not just energy. Exports of two seemingly innocuous chemicals, urea and sulphur, have also been hit, crippling a fertiliser industry central to north African economies (and food supply). Morocco is home to the world’s largest phosphate exporter, while Egypt, is one of the world’s largest consumers and exporters of fertilizer. Tunisia’s phosphate industry is a jewel of its economy, yet entirely dependent on imported materials. As a region that imports over half its food, the falling export revenues and raised costs of domestic agriculture are acutely painful. Government costs are rising, labour-intensive industries contracting, exports falling, while the prices of basic foodstuffs inflate in a region where food insecurity already doubled between 2019 and 2024.   

The long-term damage

North Africa’s longer-term struggle will be maintaining the foreign currency streams that fund imports and, by extension, social programmes. In other words, the war has triggered consequences that will become new structural realities

After the shock of these initial blows, North Africa’s longer-term struggle will be maintaining the foreign currency streams that fund imports and, by extension, social programmes. In other words, the war has triggered consequences that will become new structural realities.

As calm returned following the initial ceasefire, energy, fertiliser, food, tourism and shipping markets began returning to normal. This gave regional governments some clarity over cashflows. And, with the diplomatic structures from the ceasefire in place, markets are proving slightly more resilient following the recent outbreak of violence. However, the renewed war is still young and the future ominous. For North Africa’s two largest foreign currency streams—remittances and Arab gulf investments—the omens are even worse, leaving the region in crippling suspense over what comes next.

The Gulf is north Africa’s main labour market, especially for Egypt which has 3.3 million nationals in the region. Remittances from this labour are a vital stabiliser for the region’s poorer economies, with increasing importance during tough times as a forex supply and economic ballast that governments do not have to pay for.

Last year, the value of remittances to Morocco was around €11.4bn, roughly 8% of GDP; it is already 10% higher so far this year. In Tunisia it was €2.6bn, 5.6% of GDP but making up around 30% of Tunis’s foreign currency reserves. In Egypt the statistics are even more concerning as remittances grew a startling 40.5% year-on-year to €36.2bn, roughly 12% of GDP.

The Gulf is also the largest source of foreign investment. It has repeatedly bailed out Egypt, provided a rare source of foreign projects in Tunisia’s otherwise seized economy, and in Morocco, the UAE alone accounts for 19% of foreign direct investment.

Given the scale of dependence, even small constrictions in Gulf labour markets and investments could destabilise these economies through hitting remittances and GDP respectively. Among North African capitals, there is a deep-seated fear that Gulf economies are much harder hit than let on, with anecdotal expectations of mass layoffs and cuts to foreign spending.

Instability ahead

This is a grim forecast for already suffering economies with simmering unrest. Poor finances have fuelled a long-running battle between Tunisia’s government and protestors while 2025 saw Morocco’s worst protesting since 2011’s Arab Spring. In the shadow of the Iran war, cost-of-living and inequality issues will only worsen. Similar anxieties drove Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to send air-defence systems to the Gulf and visit Abu Dhabi, to shore up the relationship after the UAE expelled thousands of Pakistani labourers seemingly as punishment for Islamabad’s diplomatic efforts.

Amid it all, the rivalry between Algeria and Morocco has intensified. Thanks to the energy crisis, Algiers leveraged high oil prices to: accelerate energy-sector development; consolidate its trilateral Maghreb union (that pointedly excludes Morocco); court Europe with energy; and advance the trans-sahara pipeline linking Nigerian and Nigerien oil to Algeria’s export terminals.

This has toppled the regional balance of power in Algiers’s favour, just as Rabat’s closest allies—the US, the UAE and Israel—are otherwise occupied. As their pantomime rivalry is the pivot on which regional stability and politics rests—especially given their spiralling arms race—this misbalancing could lead to heightened tensions and other flashpoints throughout the region most notably over the Western Sahara.

In Libya, high oil prices enticed Turkey and the US to try and use the lure of energy sector developments and the potential for profiting off them as bait for a new political agreement. Unsurprisingly, this has only stoked mass protests from a population long-promised elections and struggling with the worst cost-of-living crisis since the 1950s because of the kleptocracies this deal is trying to unite.

Fertile ground for Europe

As the region’s political economy teeters on the edge, it might seem that there is little Europe can do to stop a cascade of instability it was never really involved in. But at the precipice of crisis is also a platform for Europe to advance its strategy to transform relationships with North Africa, most recently articulated in the EU’s pact for the Mediterranean. Given the pact’s purpose is to redevelop Europe’s southern relations and build closer working partnerships, there is no better moment to see it through. After all, a friend in need is a friend indeed.

Both the EU and its member states can help stabilise the situation and in turn, improve relations. Interested countries, like Spain, France and Italy could donate or cheaply loan their Special Drawing Rights—an asset provided by the IMF designed to supplement a state’s foreign exchange reserves—to ensure struggling regional economies ride out the storm. Alongside this they should encourage the European Commission to extend the food and resilience facility for the southern neighbourhood to help struggling states deal with the fallout of the fertiliser crisis.

Such steps would help Europeans develop credibility and good will, stabilise the neighbourhood and lay the groundwork for expanded EU engagement in north Africa. The commission could then build on this in the long-term by going to regional capitals with plans to develop green power generation, facilitate European private-sector investment, and develop infrastructure through Global Gateway. This would satisfy the region’s energy and economic imperatives while developing the green energy imports and nearshoring environment that Europe needs.    

After a year of unrest, North Africa may very well stabilise itself, but there is a decent chance it could deteriorate into polycrisis. Regardless of the outcome, if Europe refuses to respond it will once again be assuming the position of the passive bystander, the worst geopolitical role possible at a time of either great opportunity or dire crisis.

Source