Despite significant losses, Hamas leveraged tunnels, civilian shields, and strategic regrouping to survive Israel’s military campaign.

The year-long Israel-Hamas war, ignited by the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, has demonstrated Hamas’s resilience despite facing the most extensive Israeli military campaign in decades. Israel’s intense ground operations, airstrikes, and precision targeting dealt significant blows to Hamas’s leadership and infrastructure, but the group adapted its strategy, regrouped, and exploited the complex urban and civilian landscape of Gaza to survive.

The Anatomy of Survival

From the outset, Hamas relied heavily on its intricate tunnel network and urban warfare tactics. The group initially sent thousands of fighters into Israel, suffering heavy casualties but leaving behind enough operatives to fortify its positions in Gaza. Hamas utilized Gaza’s dense population centers, moving command structures into schools and hospitals, effectively embedding itself within civilian infrastructure to complicate Israeli operations.

Israel’s delay in launching a ground campaign after October 7 allowed Hamas time to prepare, recover, and adapt. While Israeli forces inflicted heavy losses during their northern Gaza campaign, they did not fully clear key neighborhoods such as Gaza City, Jabalya, or Beit Hanun. This enabled Hamas to relocate, preserve its leadership, and maintain control over significant portions of Gaza.

Strategic Missteps and Regrouping

Israel’s focus on southern Gaza in early 2024 created opportunities for Hamas to regroup in the north. The group capitalized on temporary ceasefires and redeployments of Israeli forces to rebuild its command structure, recruit new fighters, and replenish its ranks. Despite losing thousands of fighters and key leaders, Hamas drew from Gaza’s young population, many of whom have grown up under its rule and see no alternative amidst ongoing conflict and destruction.

Hamas’s survival also relied on its ability to exploit humanitarian aid and project influence through control of key areas like the Al-Mawasi humanitarian zone. By the end of 2024, even as Israel’s renewed northern offensive intensified, Hamas demonstrated its capacity to regroup and mount resistance, particularly in strongholds like Jabalya.

Lessons and Implications

Hamas’s resilience underscores the challenges Israel faces in eradicating the group. Despite the IDF’s advanced military capabilities and successful elimination of key Hamas leaders, the group’s decentralized structure and deep integration within Gaza’s civilian population provide it with a strategic edge. Each time Hamas suffers losses, it rebuilds, exploiting both the misery of Gaza’s population and the lack of viable alternatives.

For Israel, the war has highlighted the difficulty of achieving a decisive military victory in such a complex and densely populated theater. As Hamas survives and adapts, the broader question remains: how can lasting peace be achieved in a region where successive generations have grown up knowing only conflict?

Returning to the White House, Trump’s second term sparks contentious debates on immigration, trade, and social policy.

Donald Trump, the polarizing political figure and former 45th president, is set to return to the White House as the 47th president of the United States. His inauguration comes four years after his defeat in the 2020 election, marking him as the second U.S. president to serve nonconsecutive terms since Grover Cleveland in the 1890s. This event, historically significant in its own right, carries with it a storm of controversy and anticipation surrounding Trump’s ambitious, and often divisive, policy agenda.

Trump’s return is overshadowed by his legal and political baggage. As the first U.S. president with a felony conviction—stemming from falsified business records tied to hush money payments—Trump has defied precedent. His victory in the 2024 election, which ousted President Joe Biden after a single term, underscores his ability to rally a fervent voter base despite controversies. Critics and supporters alike are bracing for sweeping executive actions that could upend domestic and international policy landscapes.

Immigration dominates Trump’s early agenda. He has vowed to deport millions of undocumented migrants, starting with those convicted of crimes, and plans to reinstate policies that force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico. These moves are expected to provoke legal challenges, delaying their implementation and igniting fierce public debate. Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship—a constitutional guarantee—has also drawn widespread skepticism regarding its feasibility.

In addition to immigration, Trump aims to escalate trade tensions with key partners, promising tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. These measures risk destabilizing economic relations but appeal to his base as a push for economic nationalism. Trump has also signaled an abrupt shift in U.S. foreign policy, vowing to mediate an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine within his first 100 days. However, his aides have tempered these claims, suggesting a truce is more realistic than a resolution.

Social issues remain a cornerstone of Trump’s platform, with sharp rhetoric against transgender rights and gender-affirming care. He has pledged to restrict transgender women from participating in women’s sports and to overturn policies supporting gender-affirming medical treatments. These stances have intensified the cultural divide in America, galvanizing both conservative and progressive factions.

Trump’s return to power signals a tumultuous chapter in American politics. His policies, unyielding and controversial, will undoubtedly face resistance from courts, Congress, and civil society. As Trump’s second term begins, the nation stands at a crossroads, with the implications of his presidency likely to shape the country for years to come.

Violence erupts in South Sudan after alleged ethnic killings in Sudan spark revenge attacks, leaving three dead and businesses destroyed.

South Sudan is reeling from a wave of violent retaliation against Sudanese nationals, spurred by viral footage of alleged ethnic killings in Sudan’s Gezira State. The escalating situation highlights the fragility of South Sudan’s internal stability and the deep-seated animosities between the two nations since their separation in 2011.

The Trigger: Viral Footage and Ethnic Tensions

The violence erupted following the circulation of harrowing footage reportedly showing Sudanese soldiers killing South Sudanese civilians in Wad Madani, Gezira State. These acts, described by South Sudanese President Salva Kiir as “heinous” and “unacceptable,” reignited longstanding grievances over racial and ethnic discrimination in Sudan.

In Sudan, darker-skinned ethnic groups, including those of South Sudanese origin, have long faced systemic racism and violent persecution by lighter-skinned Arab fighters. This animosity has reached a boiling point, with the current conflict exacerbating tensions. Rights groups confirm at least 13 ethnic South Sudanese, including children, were killed in the Wad Madani incident, fueling outrage in South Sudan.

Revenge Attacks and Economic Fallout

The viral footage triggered spontaneous revenge attacks on Sudanese nationals and their businesses across South Sudan. In Juba, Aweil, and Wau, Sudanese-owned shops and homes were set on fire or looted. Bread prices surged by 17% in Juba as fear prompted shopkeepers to shutter their businesses, including the bustling Konyo Konyo market.

The violence claimed three lives and injured seven, with South Sudanese security forces firing live rounds into the air to disperse rioters. A dusk-to-dawn curfew has been imposed nationwide, and dozens of Sudanese nationals have been placed under police protection.

The chaos illustrates how deeply intertwined the two nations remain, not just geographically but economically. Sudanese traders have become an essential part of South Sudan’s economy, making their targeting a double-edged sword that exacerbates both humanitarian and economic crises.

Underlying Humanitarian Crisis

The revenge attacks come as Sudan faces what the UN has labeled the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” The ongoing conflict between Sudan’s rival military factions has displaced millions, with many Sudanese fleeing to South Sudan in search of safety. However, this influx has strained South Sudan’s fragile economy and rekindled old resentments.

South Sudan, already grappling with its own post-independence instability, finds itself at a crossroads. The government’s inability to swiftly quell retaliatory violence exposes a weak security apparatus and raises questions about its capacity to manage inflamed ethnic tensions.

President Salva Kiir’s Response

President Kiir has called for calm, urging South Sudanese to avoid taking the law into their own hands. He demanded that Sudan investigate the Wad Madani killings and protect South Sudanese citizens within its borders. However, his calls for restraint may ring hollow for many citizens, who see the violence as long-overdue justice for systemic discrimination and violence in Sudan.

While Kiir’s administration has implemented a curfew and deployed police to protect Sudanese nationals, the measures appear reactive and insufficient to address the deeper issues at play.

Regional and International Implications

The violence risks destabilizing relations between South Sudan and Sudan at a time when cooperation is critical to managing shared border conflicts and the humanitarian crisis. If unchecked, the violence could further isolate South Sudan diplomatically, complicating its ability to attract international support.

Moreover, the viral footage and subsequent attacks underscore the role of social media in accelerating and amplifying ethnic tensions. As South Sudan grapples with this crisis, managing misinformation and online incitement will be critical to preventing further violence.

A Nation on Edge

The revenge attacks in South Sudan illustrate the volatile interplay of ethnic grievances, economic dependency, and weak governance. While curfews and police interventions may temporarily contain the violence, they do little to address the underlying resentments that continue to fester.

President Kiir’s government faces a delicate balancing act: protecting Sudanese nationals while addressing the legitimate anger of its citizens over systemic discrimination and violence. Without meaningful efforts to foster reconciliation and address economic strains, South Sudan risks plunging further into instability, with devastating consequences for both nations.

President Irro faces internal opposition, entrenched political cultures, and a volatile regional environment as his administration sets its course for governance and diplomacy.

Somaliland’s political landscape is undergoing a significant transition following the election of President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi Irro. With new leadership comes heightened expectations, internal scrutiny, and the persistent challenges of navigating regional dynamics and domestic political culture.

Internal Opposition: Motivations and Impacts

Opposition to President Irro’s administration has emerged swiftly, driven by two primary factions. The first comprises individuals dissatisfied with their exclusion from government appointments. These actors, many of whom were affiliated with the previous administration, harbor ambitions for influence and are motivated by the critical role Somaliland’s recognition on the global stage plays in its national identity. Their criticism reflects both personal frustration and a broader concern over the administration’s strategic priorities.

The second group within the opposition is fundamentally motivated by personal gain, viewing government positions as avenues for wealth and influence. This culture, entrenched in Somaliland’s political landscape, undermines public service and fosters divisions that inhibit effective governance. The perception of political office as a means of personal enrichment continues to erode trust in governmental institutions and poses a significant obstacle for the new administration.

The Challenge of Political Culture

Somaliland’s political culture remains a double-edged sword for the new government. While political engagement is robust, the widespread belief that leadership roles equate to financial gain detracts from the ideals of public service and accountability. Transforming this culture requires more than rhetoric; it demands tangible reforms that emphasize civic responsibility, transparency, and institutional integrity.

The administration must prioritize reshaping public perception by fostering accountability and ensuring that leadership is seen as a duty rather than an entitlement. This cultural shift is critical for building a resilient governance structure capable of addressing Somaliland’s pressing challenges.

Foreign Policy Silence: Strategy or Neglect?

One of the most notable critiques of President Irro’s early days in office is his administration’s perceived silence on foreign policy, particularly as the possibility of U.S. recognition under President-elect Donald Trump looms. This silence has sparked speculation about the government’s preparedness to engage in international diplomacy and its strategic vision for Somaliland’s recognition efforts.

While diplomatic reticence can be a calculated strategy, it risks being misinterpreted as neglect. Somaliland’s leadership must communicate its foreign policy objectives clearly to its citizens, reassuring them of its commitment to advancing the nation’s interests on the international stage. Transparency in foreign relations is essential to maintain public trust and demonstrate the government’s ability to navigate complex diplomatic landscapes.

The Role of Constructive Opposition

Opposition within the first 100 days of a new administration is not unusual, but it must strike a balance between critique and collaboration. Constructive opposition can provide valuable insights and help shape policies that serve the national interest. However, premature confrontations risk destabilizing the administration’s ability to establish a stable governance framework and prioritize policy initiatives.

Somaliland’s opposition must recognize the importance of fostering unity during this transitional period, focusing on national progress over factional interests.

Regional Dynamics: Navigating the Horn of Africa

Somaliland operates within a volatile regional context characterized by shifting alliances, contested borders, and longstanding tensions. Somalia’s instability, Ethiopia’s evolving political landscape, and the actions of neighboring states like Eritrea add layers of complexity to Somaliland’s governance.

President Irro’s administration must adopt a proactive approach to regional diplomacy, leveraging Somaliland’s stability and strategic location to foster partnerships while safeguarding its sovereignty. Balancing domestic challenges with regional engagement will be crucial for maintaining Somaliland’s position as a potential key player in the Horn of Africa.

Overcoming Challenges

President Irro’s administration faces an uphill battle to reshape Somaliland’s political culture, address internal opposition, and establish its foreign policy credentials. Success will depend on fostering accountability, engaging constructively with critics, and maintaining transparency in governance.

In the broader Horn of Africa, Somaliland must navigate geopolitical tensions with foresight and agility, ensuring that its actions align with long-term national interests. The administration’s ability to address these challenges will ultimately define Somaliland’s trajectory in the years to come.

By emphasizing unity, accountability, and strategic vision, Somaliland can position itself as a model of resilience and determination in a region marked by volatility. The coming months will test the resolve of its leadership, but they also present an opportunity to solidify Somaliland’s identity as a nation ready to assert its place on the global stage.

The Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement sparks rivalry between Joe Biden and Donald Trump as both leaders claim credit for brokering peace.

The long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hamas marks a pivotal moment in the Middle East, halting a 15-month conflict that has ravaged Gaza and strained international diplomacy. However, this milestone is now overshadowed by a political tug-of-war in Washington, as outgoing President Joe Biden and incoming President-elect Donald Trump both claim credit for brokering the deal.

Biden’s Case for Recognition

President Biden has framed the ceasefire as the culmination of persistent diplomatic efforts led by his administration. Over the past year, his team engaged in painstaking negotiations with allies such as Qatar and Egypt, aiming to build consensus for a sustainable truce.

Biden’s public statements emphasized his administration’s role in shaping the deal’s structure, particularly the phased withdrawal of Israeli troops and the exchange of hostages. The framework reportedly mirrors proposals his administration tabled months ago. Biden’s consistent push, even in the face of repeated breakdowns in talks, reflects his determination to cement his legacy as a peacemaker.

Jonathan Panikoff, a Middle East security expert, commended Biden’s resilience, stating that his administration “kept the talks alive” despite numerous setbacks. This achievement bolsters Biden’s credentials as a seasoned statesman, especially as he exits the presidency amid low approval ratings.

Trump’s Claim to the Breakthrough

President-elect Trump’s team was brought into the final stages of the negotiations, with his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, playing a key role in pushing for a resolution. Trump has claimed that his decisive post-election stance and direct involvement spurred the breakthrough.

Trump’s narrative rests on the assertion that his electoral victory and impending inauguration pressured both sides to agree. His threats of intensified consequences for Hamas if the conflict persisted were designed to demonstrate his administration’s tough stance on Middle East security.

Supporters argue that Trump’s involvement reinvigorated stalled negotiations, crediting his team’s collaboration with Biden’s envoy, Brett McGurk, as a turning point in the process.

Who Deserves Credit?

Both leaders have legitimate claims to aspects of the ceasefire’s success. Biden’s administration laid the groundwork, investing months in diplomacy and fostering relationships with key regional players. Trump’s team, however, appears to have injected a sense of urgency that brought the parties to the table for a final agreement.

The ceasefire highlights the value of continuity in U.S. foreign policy, with the outgoing and incoming administrations collaborating to achieve a shared goal. While Biden may rightly view the deal as a testament to his administration’s diplomatic perseverance, Trump’s involvement underscores his promise to reassert American influence in resolving global conflicts.

What’s Next?

The ceasefire, while a significant achievement, is only the beginning of a challenging path toward long-term peace and stability. The agreement includes the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the exchange of hostages, and a surge in humanitarian aid to alleviate Gaza’s dire conditions.

However, the situation remains volatile. Ongoing airstrikes and retaliatory actions highlight the fragility of the truce. The ability of the new Trump administration to maintain and build on this momentum will be critical in shaping the region’s future.

Ultimately, the Gaza ceasefire serves as a case study in the complexities of modern diplomacy, where overlapping administrations, competing narratives, and high-stakes negotiations converge. While Biden and Trump each claim victory, the enduring beneficiaries must be the people of Gaza and Israel, who have borne the brunt of this devastating conflict.

The complexities of a post-Assad Syria and its implications for regional stability and Israeli security.

The potential coexistence of Israel and a post-Assad Syria presents a multifaceted challenge. With the new Syrian leadership under Abu Mohammad al-Jolani signaling a break from Iran and advocating for stability, a shift in Middle Eastern dynamics seems possible. However, Israel’s cautious approach highlights the deep-seated complexities of this emerging reality.

Under Jolani’s leadership, the new Syrian government claims to prioritize rebuilding over conflict. In a statement to the BBC, Jolani emphasized Syria’s weariness from prolonged wars and its intent to disengage from the so-called “resistance axis” led by Iran. This position indicates a desire to distance Syria from the adversarial policies of the Assad regime, particularly its alignment with Tehran and Hezbollah.

While these declarations mark a significant rhetorical shift, Israel and the West remain skeptical, given Jolani’s hardline background and the nascent state of Syria’s transitional governance. The path to trust requires tangible actions, including the dismantling of Iran’s influence and the establishment of credible state institutions.

For Israel, the fall of the Assad regime has created both opportunities and risks. Israel’s immediate response—stepping up airstrikes on Syrian military assets—underscores its focus on neutralizing threats. The strikes aim to prevent advanced weapons, including chemical arms, from falling into the hands of extremist factions and to assert Israeli dominance in the region.

At the same time, Israel has expanded its buffer zones along the Golan Heights, effectively recalibrating its security posture. This proactive approach reflects lessons learned from recent conflicts, such as Hamas’s October 7 attack, emphasizing preemptive measures to ensure national security.

Israel’s concerns extend beyond Syria to Turkey’s potential influence over the new Syrian government. A Syrian leadership with ties to Turkey’s Islamist factions could revive fears of neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. This scenario complicates Israel’s willingness to accept a Syrian regime led by former jihadists, regardless of their proclaimed moderation.

Turkey’s influence could also ripple across the region, reshaping power dynamics in neighboring countries and emboldening Islamist movements. For Israel, these developments necessitate a strategic recalibration to address emerging threats while exploring opportunities for normalized relations with Syria.

Israel has expressed conditional openness to engaging with the new Syrian leadership. Key prerequisites include the complete severance of Syria’s ties to Iran and assurances that extremist groups will not be allowed to operate within its territory. These conditions align with Israel’s broader security objectives but require substantial changes on the ground.

While these terms align with Israel’s broader security objectives, the feasibility of their implementation remains uncertain. The fragmented nature of Syria’s transitional leadership and the enduring influence of external actors like Iran and Russia pose significant hurdles.

The possibility of coexistence between Israel and a new Syria hinges on several factors: the dismantling of Iranian influence, the stabilization of Syria’s internal security, and the neutralization of extremist factions. While Jolani’s rhetoric suggests a willingness to engage diplomatically, Israel’s cautious approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of the challenges ahead.

Ultimately, the success of this transition depends on Syria’s ability to establish credible governance, free from external manipulation and ideological extremism. Only then can a foundation for lasting peace and regional stability be built.

Rising attacks by radicalized individuals reignite debates on cultural influences, security gaps, and IS’s global reach.

A troubling surge in extremist violence across the United States and Europe has reignited global security concerns and debates over the interplay of cultural, socio-political, and ideological factors fueling terrorism. Recent high-profile attacks, such as the New Orleans truck-ramming and shooting that left 15 dead, and the deadly Christmas market incident in Germany, highlight the persistent threat posed by lone-wolf terrorism and ideological radicalization.

The Islamic State (IS), despite losing its territorial caliphate in 2019, continues to exert significant influence through guerrilla tactics and online radicalization. Analysts argue that IS’s ability to inspire and motivate individuals worldwide underscores its evolution into a transnational phenomenon. Lone-wolf attacks, often driven by ideological propaganda found online, remain one of the hardest challenges for security forces to anticipate and prevent.

Experts also point to cultural dynamics as a contributing factor to violence. Immigrants from conflict-prone regions may inadvertently carry the socio-political tensions of their homelands to host countries, creating friction in communities. This cultural influence, compounded by progressive attitudes that sometimes overlook violent tendencies, has been criticized for enabling radicalization.

Incoming U.S. President Donald Trump has pledged to curb terrorism by reducing immigration from regions with histories of violence. This policy is seen as a measure to address the “imported violence” phenomenon, though critics warn it may exacerbate social divisions.

Globally, IS remains a potent force in conflict zones, with a resurgence in Iraq and Afghanistan and increasing activity in Africa. Its decentralized structure and reliance on extortion, criminal activities, and ransom for funding allow it to adapt and persist despite territorial losses.

Recent attacks underscore the vulnerability of public spaces and mass gatherings to terrorism. While security measures can mitigate risks, the inherent unpredictability of lone-wolf actors poses a significant challenge to achieving absolute safety.

The rise in terrorist incidents serves as a sobering reminder that the fight against extremism is far from over. The enduring ideological appeal of groups like IS, combined with cultural and socio-political complexities, demands a multifaceted approach to counterterrorism, balancing security with integration and inclusivity.

Bold plans for polar trade routes, resource acquisitions, and curbing China’s Arctic ambitions signal Trump 2.0’s aggressive global strategy.

President-elect Donald Trump’s musings about acquiring Canada, Greenland, and reclaiming control of the Panama Canal might sound like whimsical imperialism, but a deeper look reveals calculated strategy rather than random rhetoric. This ambitious vision ties directly into Trump’s broader goals: securing American dominance, countering China’s Arctic ambitions, and leveraging strategic trade routes.

Trump’s interest in Canada and Greenland stems from their geopolitical and economic potential. The Northwest Passage, unlocked by global warming, offers an alternative to the traditional trade routes through the Panama Canal. This Arctic corridor is poised to become a crucial link between the Atlantic and Pacific, challenging both Panama’s dominance and China’s “Arctic Silk Route” ambitions. Greenland’s rich mineral resources and strategic location amplify its appeal, while Canada’s proximity and resource wealth make it a logical extension of Trump’s America-first agenda.

This is not without precedent. The U.S. previously purchased Alaska and Louisiana and strategically supported the separation of Panama from Colombia in 1903 to construct the Panama Canal. Trump’s comments signal a willingness to revisit these bold, historic moves in the modern context of competition with China and other global powers.

China’s increasing influence in the Panama Canal region and Arctic trade routes is central to this strategy. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has enabled Chinese companies to dominate critical infrastructure in Panama, threatening U.S. trade interests. Similarly, China’s Arctic ambitions have spurred Russia to militarize its Arctic territories, raising alarms in Washington. Trump’s push to control these regions reflects a determination to preemptively neutralize these threats.

Domestically, Trump’s focus on Canada and Greenland could be a strategic economic play. Canada’s faltering economy, compounded by a weakened Canadian dollar and dependence on U.S. trade, leaves it vulnerable to Trump’s tariff threats. Meanwhile, Greenland’s sparse population and historical tensions with Denmark could make American integration more palatable to its citizens.

For India, Trump’s second term could yield mixed outcomes. A strong stance against China aligns with India’s strategic interests, particularly concerning the Indo-Pacific. However, Trump’s transactional approach to trade could introduce challenges, including potential tariff impositions that hurt Indian exports. His focus on polar routes and Arctic resources might also deprioritize Indian concerns in South Asia.

Ultimately, Trump’s geopolitical calculus hinges on bold, disruptive moves. While his vision for Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal may seem outlandish, it underscores a coherent strategy to reassert American dominance, counter global rivals, and secure economic and strategic advantages. The next four years promise a wild ride indeed.