From Sovereign Producer to Subordinate Consumer

🔴**From Sovereign Producer to Subordinate Consumer**

**Energy Hegemony, the Egypt–Israel Gas Deal, and the Political Economy of Managed Arab Dependency**

**Abstract**

The December 2025 approval of a long-term natural gas export agreement between Israel and Egypt—valued at approximately USD 34–35 billion and extending until 2040—marks a decisive turning point in Eastern Mediterranean energy politics. Celebrated by Israeli leadership as the largest economic deal in the state’s history, the agreement consolidates Israel’s position as a regional energy hegemon while transforming Egypt from a former gas exporter into a structurally dependent consumer. This article situates the deal within a broader political economy of energy securitization, normalization, and coercive interdependence. It traces the history of the Leviathan gas field, examines the contractual and geopolitical mechanisms that produced Egypt’s dependency, and analyzes the deal’s economic, political, and moral ramifications—particularly in the context of the ongoing siege of Gaza. A comparative section evaluates the Israel–Lebanon maritime dispute over the Karish and Qana fields, demonstrating how resistance produces limited rights while compliance generates dependency. The article argues that energy has become a primary instrument of regional domination, revealing a wider pattern of managed Arab sovereignty under Israeli and U.S. oversight.

**Introduction: The Reversal of Energy Sovereignty**

“Egypt conceded gas fields within its own maritime environment to the Israeli occupation, only to return as a supplicant buyer—transforming itself from a rights-holder into a subordinate client.”

This formulation captures the structural reality underlying the Egypt–Israel gas deal ratified by the Israeli government in December 2025. Far from a neutral commercial transaction, the agreement represents a historic reversal in regional energy relations, whereby Egypt—once a major gas producer and exporter—has been repositioned as a long-term consumer of Israeli gas.

According to Reuters, the agreement covers the export of approximately **130 billion cubic meters (bcm)** of natural gas from Israel’s Leviathan field to Egypt through 2040, with an estimated total value of **USD 34–35 billion**. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the agreement as “the largest economic deal in Israel’s history,” a characterization that underscores its strategic importance rather than its commercial neutrality.

This article argues that the deal must be read as part of a broader architecture of domination in which energy operates as a mechanism of normalization, dependency, and political leverage. From the perspective of the axis of resistance, the agreement strengthens Israel’s war economy, deepens Egypt’s fiscal and political vulnerability, and unfolds amid the ongoing siege and destruction of Gaza—without any humanitarian or political conditionality.

**The Leviathan Gas Field: Discovery, Control, and Strategic Weaponization**

Discovered in 2010, the **Leviathan gas field** is one of the largest offshore gas discoveries in recent history, with estimated reserves exceeding **620 bcm**. Located roughly 130 kilometers west of the Palestinian coast under Israeli control, the field entered commercial production in 2019.

Leviathan is operated by **Chevron**, alongside Israeli partners **NewMed Energy** (formerly Delek Drilling) and **Ratio Oil Exploration**. From its inception, the field was conceptualized not merely as a domestic energy source but as the backbone of a regional export strategy aimed at repositioning Israel as an indispensable energy hub linking Europe, Arab markets, and global LNG supply chains.

Israeli policy discourse and industry reporting consistently framed Leviathan as a strategic asset capable of reshaping regional power relations. Energy, in this context, was never divorced from geopolitics; rather, it became an extension of Israel’s security doctrine through economic means.

**Egypt’s Energy Decline: From Exporter to Importer**

**The Illusion of Self-Sufficiency**

The discovery of Egypt’s **Zohr gas field** in 2015 briefly appeared to counterbalance Israel’s rise as a gas exporter. Egyptian authorities proclaimed energy self-sufficiency and promoted Egypt as a regional energy hub. Yet this narrative obscured deeper structural weaknesses, including declining production in older fields, chronic underinvestment, rapid domestic demand growth, and severe fiscal constraints.

By the early 2020s, Egypt’s gas surplus had eroded. LNG exports fluctuated, electricity shortages re-emerged, and the state increasingly relied on external borrowing rather than long-term sectoral reform.

**Contractual Dependency and the Road to 2025**

The first decisive shift occurred in **2018**, when Egypt began importing Israeli gas through private intermediaries such as **Dolphinus Holdings**. This was not a temporary measure but the institutionalization of dependency.

The August **2025 Leviathan–Egypt agreement**, formally approved in December, locked Egypt into a **15-year purchase commitment**, guaranteeing Israel a stable export market regardless of political or regional developments.

Egyptian pipelines and LNG facilities now serve Israeli exports, effectively transforming Egyptian infrastructure into a logistical extension of Israel’s energy strategy.

**Economic Consequences for Egypt: Debt, Dependency, and Sovereignty Erosion**

The deal imposes significant long-term costs on Egypt’s already fragile economy. Payments are largely denominated in foreign currency, exacerbating Egypt’s balance-of-payments crisis at a time of acute dollar shortages, high inflation, and mounting external debt.

Energy costs will either be transferred to consumers—through higher electricity and fuel prices—or absorbed by the state via subsidies, deepening fiscal deficits. In either scenario, the social burden will fall disproportionately on ordinary Egyptians.

Beyond economics, the deal represents a profound erosion of **energy sovereignty**. When electricity generation and industrial production depend on gas supplied by a historically hostile state, political autonomy becomes structurally constrained. Energy dependency thus translates directly into political vulnerability.

**Israel’s Gains: Revenue, Leverage, and the War Economy**

Israel emerges as the unequivocal beneficiary. The deal guarantees: • USD 34–35 billion in long-term revenues • Stable demand through 2040 • Enhanced geopolitical leverage over Egypt • Expanded credibility as a global energy supplier

According to the __Financial Times__, Israeli state revenues from taxation and royalties will significantly boost public finances. These revenues directly support Israel’s military and security sectors, particularly during a period of prolonged warfare.

In effect, Egyptian energy consumption becomes a financial pillar of Israel’s war economy.

**The Karish–Qana Dispute: Lebanon, Managed Rights, and Contained Sovereignty**

The Egypt–Israel gas arrangement must be contextualized alongside another pivotal Eastern Mediterranean case: the maritime dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the **Karish** and **Qana (Sidon)** gas fields.

Karish, located south of the disputed maritime line, was unilaterally developed by Israel and entered production in 2022 under **Energean**. Lebanon objected to Israeli extraction prior to demarcation, warning that unilateral production constituted an act of aggression.

Under the U.S.-mediated agreement of October 2022: • Israel retained full rights to Karish • Lebanon secured exploration rights over Qana • Israel is entitled to indirect financial compensation from any Qana revenues, paid via the operating company **TotalEnergies **

**Has Lebanon Secured Its Rights?**

Legally, Lebanon did obtain internationally recognized exploration rights without formal normalization with Israel—unlike Egypt. No direct gas trade or long-term dependency was created. However, Lebanon’s gains remain **partial and constrained**.

As of 2025, Lebanon has not extracted a single cubic meter of gas from Qana.

Exploration remains subject to corporate hesitation, geopolitical instability, and Western political pressure. Meanwhile, Israel’s production from Karish and Leviathan is immediate, monetized, and export-oriented.

Lebanon has secured **legal access**, not **energy sovereignty**.

**Comparison with Egypt**

Crucially, Lebanon’s limited gains were inseparable from **deterrence**. Negotiations accelerated only after credible resistance threats during the Karish standoff. Egypt, by contrast, negotiated from a position of compliance, not leverage.

**Gaza and the Moral Rupture of Energy Normalization**

The gas deal was approved while Gaza remained under total siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, and humanitarian relief. Energy, in this context, is not neutral; it is weaponized.

Despite claiming a mediating role, Egypt did not condition the agreement on lifting the siege or guaranteeing humanitarian access. From the axis-of-resistance perspective, this constitutes economic complicity and normalization amid mass civilian suffering.

**Energy as Hegemony: A Political Economy Reading**

The Egypt–Israel gas deal exemplifies **energy securitization**: the transformation of natural resources into instruments of coercion, discipline, and normalization. Israel’s gas exports function simultaneously as: • A normalization mechanism • A source of war financing • A tool of regional leverage

This reflects a neo-colonial pattern in which peripheral states provide infrastructure and markets while dominant powers extract value and impose structural constraints.

**Conclusion: Against the Geography of Subordination**

The Egypt–Israel gas deal is not simply an economic contract; it is a strategic architecture that reshapes regional power relations. It converts Egypt into a dependent consumer, finances Israeli militarism, and proceeds without regard for Gaza’s suffering.

The Lebanon case demonstrates that resistance can extract limited rights, while Egypt’s experience shows that compliance produces dependency. Energy sovereignty, the article concludes, cannot be separated from political leverage.

A state that imports its energy from its occupier does not merely lose resources—it forfeits decision-making itself.

**🔵**[Link to the article in Arabic ](https://t.me/almuraqb/318)