There is no doubt that Naguib Mahfouz had great appreciation for President Gamal Abdel Nasser, as he considered him the greatest supporter of the poor in our entire history. This criterion was always on the writer's mind, as he would rejoice and support every decision Abdel Nasser made. However, he criticized the enthusiastic approach to foreign policy.

Mahfouz says: Abdel Nasser became a brave knight and a global liberator, which achieved personal glory for him, but Egypt lost the opportunity. I am against provoking the major powers, because the primary reason for the July Revolution and Abdel Nasser's rise was the poor conditions of the Egyptian people.

Mahfouz was concerned with public policy, and he realized that if politics is not everything, it is involved in everything.

Munir Amer, in his conversation with Naguib Mahfouz (Rose al-Youssef Magazine - Issue 1848 - November 11, 1963), explains that Naguib Mahfouz talks about politics for the first time. Does this mean that our great writer had never talked about politics before in his press interviews, even though most of his works and creations have a political spirit flowing through them and between their lines? From this perspective, the importance of Munir Amer's conversation with our writer, who was an employee and did not talk about politics all day like other writers working in the press, becomes clear. Politics was almost their daily bread.

However, Naguib Mahfouz clarifies to Mahmoud Al-Khatib (Al-Taliaa Magazine – July 1977) that his generation used to mix politics with soccer while playing with English teams. They aimed to win against them, even using violence as a way to restore dignity.

He explains to Aisha Abul Nour (Akhbar Al-Sa'a Magazine – August 6, 1980) that politics should be the wisdom that provides happiness and progress for humans.

He confirms to Saleh Morsi (Al-Masry Al-Youm – February 3, 1984) that we must study world politics and the global situation well. We are living these days in a world with giants, so if we want to live in this world, we must know what the giants want and plan accordingly to avoid provoking the lion. The issue is not a matter of individual courage.

Mahfouz delves deeper into this aspect, asking: How do I challenge America, and how do I challenge the Soviet Union? He answers: Our policy should be: how can I benefit from the world powers for self-realization, see what they want, without challenge.

He wonders: Can positive neutrality achieve this principle for me? If it's possible, it's good; if both consider me not with them, it's bad. History has given us an example that Naguib Mahfouz sees as clear: Mohamed Ali reshaped Egypt and made it a civilized state, but he wanted to become an emperor, forgetting that there were stronger empires that would not allow him to do so. The result was that they struck him, and more importantly, they made the renaissance that he made.

However, he lists the positives of Abdel Nasser, starting from agricultural reform to the social umbrella and "class restructuring." Saleh Morsi believes that Mahfouz meant the melting of class differences, passing through the High Dam and Arab nationalism.

He tells Morsi: If you went back in time and remembered how the people supported the July 23 Revolution unconditionally, and then imagined that the group that carried out the revolution had established a party and participated in the elections, you would have realized that this party would have swept all other parties without competition. If they had established a party and participated in the elections, the Wafd Party would not have become more than an opposing party with weight.

During Abdel Nasser's days, you and I would open our eyes in the morning to find a new decision... just us and our luck. This was how it was, and naturally, the decision would either elevate us to the skies or make the earth swallow us. This means that all the gains that occurred during Abdel Nasser's time were lost due to the lack of democracy. For example, would the torture practiced in those days have been possible if there had been freedom of opinion, democratic rule, and press freedom?

Before the revolution, such incidents were individual and only occurred during the periods of a dictatorial coup, and they were exposed. Naguib Mahfouz reaches the peak of his opinion on Abdel Nasser's era when he says: This regime managed to undermine the Egyptian character... Fear dominated the people.

He emphasizes to Morsi that politics doesn't know personal emotions, pride, action, and reaction. A politician must be completely calm. He gives the example of Japan, which opened its doors to the United States, absorbed its power, and now can threaten it economically. This is a war, but in another form. He stresses that there is no way to the future except through this method that takes care of our interests, far from heartache. He tells Saleh Morsi: "Don't misunderstand my words as if I am compromising my country's dignity. On the contrary, my goal is to preserve dignity and interest at the same time." He explains that we are a small country, and our goal in life should be to progress within limits and reach the peak available to us in all aspects related to human dignity. Human dignity is the progress in industry, agriculture, science, education, governance, and all aspects of our lives.

He adds that the first thing we should think about is our goals; we shouldn't compromise them in any way. If these goals conflict with what is unacceptable and there is no other option but to clash, even if it means my demise, I must clash because my goal is my dignity. May God have mercy on someone who knows their worth.

He tells Emad Al-Ghazali (Al-Wafd 1987): "They accuse me of being in tune with Abdel Nasser's era and Sadat's era, but this is not the case, and portraying it this way is a big mistake. I was an opposition voice during Abdel Nasser's era, and my works prove that. My opposition was focused on freedoms. As for the positive aspects of the revolution, we were entirely with it. When Sadat came, we were with him in both victory and peace. However, I was against everything that happened afterward during the openness era." This opinion was published in "The Day the Leader Was Killed", so I cannot be considered unconditionally in sync.

Naguib Mahfouz witnessed the Arab earthquake that swept through the Gulf region on the morning of August 2, 1990, when Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait and attempted to annex it to Iraq. This led to the region's turmoil, and it has not been able to recover since. The repercussions were terrifying and rapid, which no one could have imagined.

He told Nahed Farid (Rose Al-Youssef - August 1990): "I consider the invasion of Kuwait a crime, and I hold President Saddam Hussein primarily and ultimately responsible for what is happening in the region."

He adds: "President Saddam squandered Kuwait and is undoubtedly the sole cause of the foreign forces' presence in the region. But despite this, I am completely against the war, even if the result is Kuwait's return. The total destruction that any war in the region will cause cannot make us aspire for it to happen, regardless of the outcome."

Mahfouz is surprised by the Arab leaders who support the Iraqi president, even though they condemned the invasion from the beginning. If they genuinely want the Arab nation's best interest, as they claim, why don't they advise him to save it from the lurking dangers?

He confirms that Egypt's stance is consistent with all international principles and the Arab League Charter, and in this position, interests align with principles.