The Egyptian Military Involvement: A Calamity in the Making

The current geopolitical landscape in East Africa has taken a perilous turn, as Somalia’s alliances draw closer to Egypt amid an escalating crisis with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). As Egypt intensifies its military cooperation with Somalia, the situation intensifies, setting the stage for a potential regional conflagration. The recent arrival of Egyptian military aircraft in Mogadishu, loaded with arms and ammunition, is not just a mere tactical maneuver; it represents a potentially catastrophic shift that threatens the stability of Somaliland, Ethiopia, and the broader region.

Somalia, in a desperate attempt to mask its political failures and internal strife, is resorting to the dangerous strategy of proxy warfare, leveraging Egypt’s animosity towards Ethiopia. This desperate alignment signals a strategy that not only endangers Somalia but also puts Somaliland and Ethiopia at great risk. The Mogadishu administration, struggling with governance issues and rampant terrorism at home, risks provoking a conflict that could spiral out of control, drawing Somaliland and Ethiopia into a disastrous confrontation.

The Somali government’s recent military rapprochement with Egypt speaks volumes about its inability to focus on the pressing issues within its borders. While Somalia grapples with Al-Shabaab insurgency and extreme poverty, it chooses to redirect attention by engaging in dangerous military pacts that threaten surrounding nations. This alliance with Egypt not only undermines Somaliland’s hard-fought quest for recognition and stability but also jeopardizes Ethiopia, which remains embroiled in its own struggles with a backdrop of civil conflict and humanitarian crisis.

Somalia’s Fragile State: A Tactic of Distruction

The embattled nature of Somalia’s political landscape reveals a government that prioritizes regional warfare over essential domestic reforms. Just as the Sudanese political arena further destabilizes, the Somali leadership appears willing to repeat tragic historical patterns, where the suffering of one nation serves as a mere backdrop for the political ambitions of another. The risk associated with these international alliances cannot be understated; they could spiral out of control, igniting tensions that would lead to open conflict.

The Egyptian Escort: A Weapon of Desperation

The abysmal condition in Sudan serves as a grim cautionary tale about the dangers of civil strife and outside influences. Somalia should heed this message rather than seek alliances that could have explosive repercussions. Egypt’s military involvement marks a fraught escalation that feeds into an existing pattern of regional discord, with Somalia effectively acting as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game. Major General Nasr Salem’s assertion that this military backing is a defensive measure for Egyptian interests is a thin veneer for a reckless disregard for regional stability. This dangerous rhetoric undermines efforts to cultivate peace and cooperation in a region that has endured too much violence.

It is evident that this military cooperation is a message of deterrence against Ethiopia. However, the reality is different: it is a declaration of imminent conflict. The transport of arms and military collaboration places Ethiopia and Somalia on a collision course over the Nile and beyond. Ethiopia, informed about the seriousness of the situation, has made it clear that it will not tolerate aggression against its territorial integrity. History has repeatedly shown that proxy wars often spiral into direct confrontations, creating devastation and enduring animosity.

Implications for Somaliland

For Somaliland, the urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. The arrival of Egyptian military support to Somalia is a direct threat to its sovereignty and hard-earned stability. Somaliland’s drive toward self-determination may be threatened by the burgeoning conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia, igniting instability in an already fragile region. The implications extend beyond immediate dangers — a military confrontation could erase years of progress in governance and development, plunging Somaliland back into the chaos that characterized years of civil war.

The Somali government’s rhetoric of refusing to acknowledge Somaliland’s partnership with Ethiopia no longer holds weight in the face of growing international recognition and cooperation. The reality is that Somaliland is seeking its legitimate place on the global stage, and Somalia’s attempts to crush its aspirations through military alliances will not suffocate its quest for independence.

Conclusion

The currents of war are gathering strength, and the specter of conflict looms large. The prevailing desire from Somalia and Egypt to instigate a regional war serves an agenda steeped in insecurity rather than promoting peace and stability. Instead of looking outward and engaging in dangerous military posturing, Somalia must address its internal issues and build a government that truly represents the needs and aspirations of its people.

If not checked, this burgeoning crisis could entangle the region in violence reminiscent of past conflicts, leaving a trail of destruction reminiscent of Sudan’s current humanitarian debacle. It is imperative for Somaliland and Ethiopia to unite and call for moderation, urging Somalia to reconsider the path it is on. History is rife with examples where proxy wars led to calamities; the time is now for all stakeholders in the region to work towards genuine peace, channeling our energies into building a future free from war and strife for all citizens of the Horn of Africa.

As the clouds of war gather, the message should be clear: the people of the region and beyond deserve better than the failed tactic of proxy warfare – they deserve peace, stability, and the chance to thrive in a secure environment.

The Red Sea region is increasingly becoming a geopolitical hotspot, as recent developments in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Somaliland illustrate a complex interplay of national interests and international interventions. Central to these dynamics is the growing tension between Turkey, Egypt, and Ethiopia, driven by competing strategic interests and the recognition of Somaliland.

Turkey’s involvement in Somalia dates back to 2011, initially focusing on humanitarian aid and gradually expanding to include military support and infrastructure development. By 2017, Turkey established a military base in Mogadishu to train Somali forces, demonstrating its commitment to the country’s stability and to protecting its investments. The bilateral defense agreement signed in February 2024, which includes maritime security, further solidifies this partnership. Turkey’s role has been framed as supportive, aimed at bolstering Somalia’s ability to secure its long coastline and manage maritime resources.

However, this partnership has strained relations with Somaliland. The Somali government’s recent directives requiring ships in Somaliland’s waters to display the Somali flag underscore its assertion of control over Somaliland’s territories claimed by Somalia. This has been exacerbated by Turkey’s involvement in strengthening Somalia’s maritime security, which Somaliland perceives as a challenge to its sovereignty.

Ethiopia, a landlocked nation with ambitions for access to the Red Sea, has pursued a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Somaliland. This agreement is crucial for Ethiopia’s economic interests, as it seeks maritime access through Somaliland’s ports. This development is seen as a strategic move to alleviate Ethiopia’s dependency on neighboring countries for sea access.

The MOU has been met with hostility from Somalia, which views it as undermining its territorial integrity. Somalia’s response, including new maritime directives and bolstered defense agreements with Turkey, reflects its attempt to counteract Ethiopia’s influence and assert its claims over Somaliland.

In a dramatic escalation, Egypt has recently deployed military personnel and equipment to Somalia under a bilateral agreement aimed at addressing regional instability and countering Ethiopia’s moves. This deployment is seen as a direct response to the Ethiopia-Somaliland MOU and a broader strategic effort to challenge Ethiopia’s growing influence in the region.

The Egyptian involvement is framed as part of a broader strategy to exert influence in the Horn of Africa, countering Ethiopia’s and Turkey’s expanding roles. Egypt’s military presence in Somalia signals a potential escalation in regional conflicts, as it aligns with Somalia’s position against Somaliland’s recognition and Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) plays a critical role in the Horn of Africa’s geopolitical landscape. Historically, the UAE and Turkey have had rival interests in the Red Sea region, though relations improved from 2020 onwards. The UAE’s involvement in the Ethiopia-Somaliland deal and its management of key Somali ports, such as Berbera and Bosaso, complicates Turkey’s position.

Somalia’s alignment with the UAE, particularly its reliance on Emirati investment and support, further isolates Somaliland and complicates Turkey’s strategy. Turkey’s increasing engagement with Somalia, particularly through defense agreements, is at odds with its previous stance of neutrality and mediation between regional factions.

The Horn of Africa is now witnessing the emergence of two primary factions: Ethiopia, Somaliland, and the UAE on one side, and Somalia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia on the other. This polarization reflects deep-seated rivalries and strategic interests that extend beyond regional borders. The recent deployment of Egyptian forces and the ongoing maritime dispute highlight the fragile and volatile nature of the current regional order.

The escalating tensions and military maneuvers suggest that conflicts in the Horn of Africa could intensify, potentially leading to broader confrontations involving Egypt and Ethiopia. The stakes are high, as regional stability, economic interests, and control over strategic maritime routes are at the forefront of these geopolitical struggles.

In summary, the complex interplay between Turkey, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Somaliland reflects a broader struggle for influence and control in the Red Sea region. Turkey’s support for Somalia and its recent maritime agreements have clashed with Ethiopia’s efforts to secure access through Somaliland, while Egypt’s military deployment signifies a growing confrontation with Ethiopia. The evolving alliances and conflicts in the Horn of Africa underscore the region’s significance in global geopolitics and the potential for increased instability as competing interests collide.

How Turkey and Somalia’s Baseless Attacks Threaten Regional Stability

The Perfect Storm: A Looming Catastrophe in the Horn of Africa

 As Ethiopia, Somaliland, and their adversaries inch toward war, the Red Sea unfolds its own environmental disaster, echoing the region’s escalating chaos.

In the tumultuous landscape of East Africa, a perfect storm is brewing—one that threatens to unravel decades of fragile stability and ignite a regional conflict of unprecedented scale. As Ethiopia, Somaliland, and various external players inch closer to war, the Red Sea mirrors this escalating chaos with its own unfolding disaster.

Ethiopia stands at a precipice, confronted by a coalition of adversaries that includes not just Somalia but also the Egyptian military and the notorious Al-Shabaab militants. The current situation is a volatile mix of political maneuvering, historical rivalries, and foreign interventions. The Ethiopian government, grappling with the looming transition of the African Union’s Transitional Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) to a new peace support mission, warns that this period is fraught with peril. Ethiopian officials assert that they “cannot stand idle” as forces threaten their national security. The involvement of Egyptian troops, reportedly with air support, has intensified the already tense atmosphere, raising alarm bells across the international community.

Meanwhile, whispers of Somalia becoming a battleground for proxy conflicts and terrorism grow louder. Egypt’s military presence in Somalia signals a strategic response to Ethiopia’s dominance over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). This conflict of interest transforms the Horn of Africa into a high-stakes chessboard where powerful nations clash.

Adding to the regional turmoil, the Pentagon has raised alarms about the environmental crisis unfolding in the Red Sea. The Greek tanker Sounion, attacked by Houthi rebels, is now leaking oil into the sea. This disaster exacerbates the humanitarian crisis affecting millions who face food insecurity and displacement. The environmental impact could be devastating, threatening marine life and further destabilizing an already volatile region.

The Sounion incident is a stark reminder of how interconnected global conflicts and environmental crises have become. The oil spill could have far-reaching consequences, impacting the livelihoods of those dependent on the Red Sea’s resources and compounding the ongoing humanitarian emergency.

In a parallel narrative, Somaliland issues grave warnings against what it perceives to be a coordinated assault on its sovereignty, revealing the dynamics that threaten to ignite an already fragile situation. Elections around the corner only sharpen the political stakes, conjuring images of destabilizing forces threatening the peace painstakingly built over years. As tensions boil over local anti-Somaliland militias clash, the specter of broader violence looms like an ominous storm cloud overhead.

The stakes are high as Ethiopia resists suggestions that it should be excluded from future peacekeeping missions in Somalia, advocating for inclusive dialogue. However, external pressures, coupled with internal factionalism, may undermine these efforts. The possibility of a broader conflict looms, with Somaliland issuing grave warnings about coordinated assaults on its sovereignty. Upcoming elections only heighten the stakes, with local militias clashing and threatening the fragile peace.

As the situation continues to escalate, the region faces a perilous crossroads. Ethiopia’s strategic maneuvers with Somaliland, combined with the aggressive posturing of Egypt and the disruptive actions of the Houthis, create a volatile mix. The prospect of war seems increasingly likely, with the potential for widespread devastation.

Observers are left to ponder whether genuine dialogue and compromise can prevail or if the region is doomed to spiral into further chaos. The choices made today in the Horn of Africa will have global repercussions, possibly igniting a conflict that could engulf the region in turmoil. As we stand on the brink, the question remains: Can humanity navigate this perilous moment, or will the simmering tensions explode into a cataclysm that reshapes the region’s future?

The answer may well define the fate of East Africa in the coming days.

As both sides retreat, the shadow of Iran’s next move looms over the region.

The seething cauldron of Middle Eastern conflict appears to have taken a breath, but the question that dominates the headlines is: for how long? After weeks of mounting tensions and the assassination of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in late July, both Israel and Hezbollah have momentarily stepped back from the precipice of all-out war. But this retreat is nothing more than a temporary pause in an ongoing, high-stakes game.

The early hours of Sunday saw Hezbollah launching its anticipated retaliation, a move that Israel was ready for. Israel’s military claims to have neutralized what could have been a catastrophic assault, intercepting a barrage of rockets aimed at its territory. Yet, Hezbollah’s rhetoric tells a different story, asserting that their operation was a strategic success. This tit-for-tat exchange leaves us grappling with the same questions: where do we go from here, and what does this mean for the region?

On one side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has painted the latest skirmish as a victory, emphasizing that Israel remains prepared for further strikes if necessary. The Israeli Defense Forces reportedly deployed around 100 aircraft to hit 270 targets in southern Lebanon, supposedly quelling the immediate threat. However, Hezbollah dismisses these claims, arguing that the Israeli attacks merely targeted “empty valleys.”

In response, Hezbollah unleashed a volley of Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. These rockets, while less powerful and only reaching a limited range, were accompanied by a promise of further drone attacks. The retaliation resulted in the tragic death of an Israeli Navy sailor. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, issued a video statement, seemingly apologizing to the Lebanese people and urging those displaced by the conflict to return to their homes. Yet, Nasrallah’s assurances may be premature as the situation remains volatile and unresolved.

Meanwhile, the specter of Iran looms large over this conflict. Analysts had anticipated a coordinated response involving Iran’s military capabilities and its proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. However, no such coordinated strike has materialized. This absence could signal Iran’s cautious approach, weighing its options carefully. Tehran may be deliberating between a stronger response and avoiding a full-scale war that could jeopardize its nuclear ambitions and provoke international intervention.

The internal debate within Iran could also be a factor. With newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian known for his moderate stance, there may be a clash with the hardline factions within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) pushing for a more aggressive stance. Iran’s restraint might be a strategic choice to avoid escalating the conflict further while still using its proxies to exert pressure.

On the domestic front, Netanyahu faces immense pressure from his right-wing cabinet and the Israeli public. With around 60,000 Israelis displaced due to Hezbollah’s threats, Netanyahu’s political survival is on the line. His military strategy, which has been engaged on multiple fronts for nearly 11 months, is straining Israel’s resources and economy. The recent downgrade by Fitch Ratings reflects the economic toll of this persistent conflict.

Netanyahu’s dilemma is stark: he must balance military actions with political realities, all while striving to regain public confidence. His efforts to portray himself as a defender of Israeli security may ultimately hinge on resolving the conflict with Hezbollah and securing a ceasefire with Hamas.

Yet, with no clear resolution in sight and both sides entrenched in their positions, the current lull in hostilities may only be the calm before a storm. As negotiations between Israel and Hamas falter, the specter of renewed conflict remains ever-present. The Middle East remains a volatile and unpredictable stage, where temporary pauses in warfare only heighten the anticipation of the next dramatic turn.

From COVID to Mpox: Unveiling the Alarming Truth Behind Zoonotic Diseases

The mystery of how diseases leap from animals to humans has never been more urgent. The world was blindsided by COVID-19, and now, mpox—a disease with its origins in the animal kingdom—has been declared a global health emergency. But what drives these pathogens to cross the species barrier? The answer might just be more startling than you think.

In his provocative new book, Fighting an Invisible Enemy, virologist Barry Schoub, a pioneer in communicable disease research, delves into the disturbing reality of zoonotic diseases. These are illnesses that make the leap from animals to humans, often with catastrophic consequences. Schoub’s revelations paint a grim picture of how our actions are not just influencing but actively accelerating these dangerous spillovers.

The process begins with a zoonotic spillover—a term that might sound clinical, but it’s anything but benign. Imagine a virus, lurking in an animal, suddenly finding a way into the human population. This isn’t just a rare occurrence; it’s becoming alarmingly common due to human encroachment on wild habitats. As we invade once-remote ecosystems or force wild animals into closer contact with human settlements, we create perfect conditions for these pathogens to jump species.

This leap isn’t straightforward. For a virus to infect a human, it must attach itself to specific receptor sites on our cells, much like a key fitting a lock. When this rare fit occurs, the virus invades, replicates, and starts a chain of infection. The virus then exits the initial host and moves on to infect others, potentially triggering an outbreak.

But what drives these spillovers? It’s not just the virus’s adaptability; it’s our relentless behavior. The global wildlife trade, both legal and illegal, continually brings exotic animals into contact with humans. Our agricultural expansion and deforestation force animals out of their natural habitats, pushing them into human spaces. Wet markets in various parts of the world, where live animals are sold and slaughtered, provide a perfect storm for viruses to jump to humans.

Adding fuel to the fire is climate change. Extreme weather, deforestation, and habitat destruction create conditions ripe for new diseases to emerge. The Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia and Singapore in the late 1990s is a chilling example. Droughts and deforestation drove fruit bats into orchards, where they transmitted the virus to pigs, which then infected humans. This outbreak, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, was only controlled through mass slaughter of pigs.

Today, air travel accelerates the spread of these diseases, making what took months in the past happen in days. The 21st century’s rapid global connectivity, combined with human activities that damage our environment, mirrors the challenges faced by indigenous populations in the past. Just as Europeans introduced devastating diseases to the Americas centuries ago, modern humans are unwittingly creating conditions for new pandemics.

The stark reality is that as we continue to damage the planet and encroach on wildlife, we are not only risking our health but also paving the way for the next catastrophic outbreak. The invisible enemies are already among us, and our behavior could be the key to whether they become the next

Negotiations Drag On Amid Continued Violence—Who Will Blink First in the Fight to End Gaza’s Crisis?

Negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza have stretched into a second day in Doha, Qatar, as the humanitarian crisis in the region deepens. The relentless conflict has now claimed over 40,000 lives in Gaza, casting a grim shadow over the ongoing peace talks.

The latest round of discussions, which resumed Friday after a full day of negotiations on Thursday, involves key international and regional players. U.S. national security spokesperson John Kirby described Thursday’s talks as “constructive,” underscoring the urgency and critical nature of the negotiations. However, as violence continues unabated, the path to peace remains fraught with obstacles.

Despite the talks’ progress, Israel has continued its military operations in Gaza. Reports indicate that Israeli airstrikes resulted in the deaths of at least six Palestinians in Jabalia on Thursday night, adding to the mounting toll. The ongoing assaults, particularly on Rafah and Khan Younis, have been a significant point of contention in the cease-fire negotiations.

Hamas, while not directly participating in the Doha talks, has voiced its frustration through Hossam Badran, a senior Hamas politburo member. Badran criticized Israel’s continued military actions as a barrier to reaching a cease-fire agreement. Hamas demands a comprehensive resolution, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of displaced Palestinians, and a deal on hostages.

The high-stakes negotiations include notable figures such as Israeli spy chief David Barnea, domestic security head Ronen Bar, and military hostages chief Nitzan Alon. From the U.S., CIA Director Bill Burns and Middle East envoy Brett McGurk are involved, alongside Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and Egypt’s intelligence chief Abbas Kamel. Their task is monumental: to broker a cease-fire and address the complex issues of hostages and ongoing violence.

The urgency of these talks is amplified by recent regional tensions, particularly following the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31. Iran’s potential retaliation and the presence of U.S. warships in the region underscore the risk of a broader conflict. Washington is keen to secure a cease-fire to mitigate these risks and stabilize the situation.

The White House has also condemned recent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in the West Bank, labeling them “unacceptable” and calling for an immediate halt. With U.S. presidential elections looming, Republican candidate Donald Trump has criticized the Biden administration’s calls for a cease-fire, claiming it would merely allow Hamas to regroup.

As the talks continue, gaps remain significant. Disagreements over the presence of Israeli troops in Gaza, the sequencing of hostage releases, and the movement of civilians are proving challenging. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s willingness to compromise on some issues has not yet translated into a breakthrough.

UN human rights chief Volker Turk has described the death toll as a “grim milestone,” attributing the devastation to alleged failures by the Israeli Defense Forces to adhere to the rules of war. Meanwhile, Israel claims to have “eliminated” over 17,000 Palestinian militants during the conflict.

In Gaza, where nearly the entire population of 2.3 million has been displaced, the yearning for peace is palpable. Aya, a 30-year-old resident from Deir Al-Balah, expressed a desperate hope for resolution, saying, “We are hopeful this time. Either it’s this time or never, I am afraid.”

The conflict began on October 7, following a deadly Hamas raid that Israel claims resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 people. This triggered a fierce Israeli retaliation, leading to the ongoing devastation. As negotiators battle to bring an end to the bloodshed, the world watches with bated breath, hoping for a resolution that seems increasingly elusive.

Turkey’s Shadow Diplomacy and Somalia’s Deflection Tactics Undermine Somaliland’s Legitimate Deal with Ethiopia

Somaliland’s landmark deal with Ethiopia is under fierce and unfounded attack by Turkey and Somalia. While Ethiopia and Somaliland celebrate a crucial memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed on January 1, the dubious tactics of Turkey and Somalia reveal a troubling disregard for Somaliland’s sovereignty and democratic legitimacy.

Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan

The MoU, which includes a strategic 20-kilometer coastal lease for Ethiopia to establish a marine base, represents a significant boost for Somaliland’s strategic and economic positioning. Yet, instead of recognizing Somaliland’s right to forge its own path, Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan has been orchestrating secretive, indirect negotiations with Somali officials, avoiding direct confrontation with Ethiopia. This covert intervention raises serious questions about Turkey’s motives and its undermining of Somaliland’s sovereignty.

Somalia’s reaction has been nothing short of hostile. Accusing Ethiopia and Somaliland of infringing on its territorial integrity, Somalia is effectively masking its own failures with baseless claims. Despite the significant turmoil and instability plaguing Somalia—where Al-Shabaab continues to wreak havoc—the Somali government’s criticisms of the Ethiopia-Somaliland deal are seen as a smokescreen for its inability to address its internal crises.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has further exacerbated the situation by demanding “concrete results” from the negotiations and issuing statements on social media that blatantly downplay Somaliland’s rightful claims. Erdogan’s actions reflect a clear bias and raise concerns about Turkey’s real intentions, suggesting an agenda that undermines Somaliland’s achievements and strategic autonomy.

Ahmed Moallim Fiqi Somalia foreign minister, formerly a member of the Islamic Courts Union with Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Minister Hakan Fidan

Contrary to Somalia’s inflammatory rhetoric, Somaliland’s MoU with Ethiopia is a testament to its resilience and strategic significance. Since declaring back its independence in 1991, Somaliland has maintained a stable and democratic government, holding multiple free elections and establishing a model for governance in the region. Its ability to navigate complex international relations with Ethiopia highlights its sovereignty and underscores the legitimacy of its strategic agreements.

Somaliland’s government rightfully condemns the interference from Turkey and the unfounded accusations from Somalia. The MoU with Ethiopia is not just a diplomatic agreement but a crucial step toward regional stability and economic development. Somaliland’s strategic port city of Berbera, poised to become a major economic hub, is a testament to its growing influence and rightful place in the Horn of Africa.

In contrast, Somalia’s ongoing internal struggles and its government’s inability to ensure stability only serve to highlight the contrast between the two regions. Somaliland’s democratic success and peaceful governance starkly contrast with Somalia’s daily challenges and instability, making Somalia’s criticisms not only misplaced but also hypocritical.

As the world watches this unfolding drama, the real issue is clear: Somaliland’s right to engage in strategic partnerships and assert its sovereignty is being unjustly challenged. Turkey and Somalia’s baseless attacks threaten to destabilize a region that is already fraught with tension. The Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU represents a legitimate and strategic alliance that deserves recognition and respect, not the unjustified criticism and diplomatic games being played by external actors.

Strengthening Regional Cooperation: Somaliland-Ethiopia MoU

As Israel’s Targeted Killings Escalate, Hezbollah Faces a Risky Decision That Could Shape Lebanon’s Future

Hezbollah is trapped in a deadly conundrum, a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario, as Israel’s relentless strikes have decimated its leadership since October 7. The most significant of these was the killing of Fouad Shukr, a senior military leader, labeled a terrorist by the US State Department with a $5 million bounty on his head. Shukr was targeted and killed in an Israeli attack on July 30 in Beirut, marking a severe blow to Hezbollah’s command structure and leaving the group with a critical decision: to strike back or not.

Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, has promised retaliation, but on his terms and when the opportunity is ripe. Yet the clock is ticking, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. The group’s silence is being mocked on social media, with both Hezbollah and its Iranian backers derided for their lack of action. Unlike Iran, however, Hezbollah’s battle isn’t just with external foes but internal ones too. To maintain its grip on power within Lebanon, Hezbollah cannot afford to appear weak, making a response almost inevitable.

But how does Tehran view this unfolding crisis? Regional diplomacy is in full swing, with Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi crisscrossing the Middle East in search of a de-escalation formula. The latest proposal on the table: Iran forgoes its promised revenge for the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in exchange for a ceasefire in Gaza. This proposal has even garnered support from US President Joe Biden, Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, and Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, all of whom called for a truce on August 8, urging an end to the suffering in Gaza.

Yet, a Lebanese news site has indicated that Hezbollah will seek vengeance for Shukr’s killing, irrespective of diplomatic efforts. For Hezbollah, it’s about re-establishing deterrence. Israel’s assassinations, some likely based on years of intelligence gathered by informers, are an existential threat to Hezbollah’s leadership. The group needs to show Israel that these killings come with a hefty price. But can they do this without triggering a devastating response?

If Hezbollah strikes back, the consequences could be dire. War is unpredictable, and Hezbollah has no way of knowing how far Israel will go in its retaliation. Could Lebanon become the next Gaza, flattened by relentless Israeli airstrikes? Even a ceasefire might not shield Hezbollah from further Israeli actions. Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has made it clear that Lebanon is a separate issue from Gaza, suggesting that a truce in one arena won’t necessarily translate to peace in another. Shukr’s assassination has also highlighted a troubling reality for Hezbollah: the group has been infiltrated. The precise location of Shukr was likely leaked by someone close to him, underscoring Hezbollah’s vulnerability.

Technologically, Hezbollah is outmatched by Israel, which has been able to target the group with chilling precision. Despite being lauded as a resistance movement, Hezbollah’s recent losses suggest it is struggling to live up to that image. The group’s primary goal now is to halt the assassinations. But can this be achieved by delivering a painful blow to Israel, or will such a move provoke an even harsher Israeli response?

A heavy Israeli strike on Lebanon would be catastrophic. Hezbollah’s enemies within Lebanon would seize on the devastation to blame the group for dragging the country into a conflict it cannot afford. Even if Hezbollah manages to handle the military aspect of an Israeli strike, the political fallout could be insurmountable. Unlike in 2006, when most Lebanese united against Israel, the country is now deeply divided. Another war could deepen these divisions, making Hezbollah’s position even more precarious.

Moreover, Hezbollah’s support within Lebanon is not as strong as it once was. A study by the Washington Institute found that while a staggering 93 percent of Shiites view Hezbollah positively, only 29 percent of Christians and 34 percent of Sunnis share that sentiment. This lack of broad-based support could lead to internal strife, possibly even civil war, should Hezbollah’s actions provoke a severe Israeli response.

The 2006 war showcased Hezbollah’s strength, but the current conflict is exposing its weaknesses. This is not a message Hezbollah wants to send to either Israel or its internal enemies. The group may be forced to make concessions, such as agreeing to the election of a Lebanese president in exchange for domestic support in its struggle against Israel. But such a move would require trust, something Hezbollah does not have in abundance within Lebanon’s fractious political landscape.

Alternatively, Hezbollah could seek to protect itself by avoiding actions that might drag Lebanon into a wider war. One option mentioned in recent discussions is accepting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offer of intervention. This would involve sharing influence with Turkey, a deal that might be more palatable than the current arrangement with Russia in Syria, where Israel operates with impunity.

Whichever path Hezbollah chooses, it faces a grim reality. The group will only make concessions when it realizes it has no other choice. Whether Hezbollah has reached that point of recognition remains to be seen.