Inside the Signal Blunder That Triggered a National Security Storm.

In what is now being dubbed the “Signal Slip,” President Donald Trump has admitted that a national security staffer in Mike Waltz’s office was responsible for inadvertently adding Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a high-level encrypted Signal group chat. The thread, known internally as “Houthi PC Small Group,” was actively discussing sensitive military operations, including the timing of a U.S. strike against Houthi targets in Yemen.

The story, first exposed by Goldberg himself in a viral Atlantic piece, sent shockwaves through the Beltway and beyond. Goldberg, after noticing he had been added to the thread, monitored the discussion and even tracked the impact of the strike in real time from a supermarket parking lot.

“It was one of Michael’s people on the phone,” Trump confirmed in an NBC interview. While brushing it off as a mistake, the president stood firm behind his embattled National Security Advisor: “He’s a good man. He’s not getting fired.”

National Security, Political Theater, or Both?

Despite the White House’s insistence that “no war plans” or classified information were discussed in the group chat, the inclusion of a prominent journalist in a real-time military operations discussion has reignited concerns about operational security, information discipline, and the political culture inside Trump’s second-term White House.

“If this had happened in Europe or under a NATO command structure, heads would roll,” said a former senior NATO cyber defense official. “Even unintentional exposure of operational chatter is treated as a major failure.”

The Bigger Questions No One Is Asking

• Why was a live military discussion happening over a Signal thread in the first place?
• Were there other unintentional recipients?
• Is this part of a larger pattern of informal backchannels replacing traditional NSC protocol?

Sources inside Capitol Hill told the media that several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are quietly considering a closed-door inquiry into the communications protocols used by top Trump officials. Democrats are expected to press for public hearings.

Waltz Under Pressure, but Trump Digs In

Mike Waltz, a former Green Beret and prominent figure in Trump’s foreign policy team, has long balanced between the “America First” posture of the administration and his past hawkish credentials. This latest scandal has only fueled critics on both sides: isolationists see it as proof of carelessness; interventionists see it as evidence of amateurism.

Yet Trump’s backing appears solid — for now.

“Waltz knows what he’s doing. He just needs to tighten his team,” one White House insider said. “Trump sees loyalty first, always.”

Implications for U.S. Operations Abroad

The leak comes as U.S. operations in Yemen have dramatically intensified, targeting Houthi infrastructure in what officials describe as a campaign to cripple Iran-backed maritime threats in the Red Sea. The Biden-era Operation Guardian of Prosperity has now fully morphed under Trump into a muscular, rapid-strike posture.

If anything, the Signal debacle risks overshadowing what the administration sees as a strategic success. But for America’s allies, especially those coordinating intelligence in Yemen and the Gulf, the breach may signal a deeper vulnerability.

WARYATV Strategic Forecast

• Expect short-term political containment, not accountability. Waltz is likely to survive if Trump maintains support.
• Congressional oversight will increase, especially on encrypted app usage by federal officials.
• Allies may reconsider the sensitivity of shared intelligence during ongoing Houthi and Red Sea operations.
• Watch for renewed calls for a broader NSC communications overhaul — though real change remains unlikely in an election year.

Conclusion

This was not a typical leak. It wasn’t a whistleblower, a hack, or a spy. It was a simple mistake that peeled back the curtain on how major national security decisions are being communicated in the Trump administration — through apps, in real-time, sometimes with journalists watching.

And in geopolitics, as in war, even one mistake can change the battlefield.

Strategic Forecast: Israel’s Ground Operation in Syria Marks a New Phase — What It Signals and What May Follow.

waryatv.com | Exclusive Analysis

Israel’s latest confirmed ground operation in southern Syria signals a tactical and strategic escalation that experts say could reshape the current regional balance — or at the very least, spark new responses from Iran-backed militias and proxy groups across the region.

According to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the operation was in direct response to gunfire from “terrorists” in southern Syria. In turn, IDF troops returned fire and launched airstrikes that reportedly targeted and destroyed hostile infrastructure near Daraa and Kuwaya. Syrian media claimed four people were killed and that Israeli forces briefly advanced on the ground before encountering resistance.

While Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria over the past decade, its confirmation of ground operations inside Syrian territory is rare — and notable.

“This is no longer shadow war,” said a former EU military attaché in Lebanon who spoke to WARYATV on condition of anonymity. “We are now seeing calibrated but open military incursions with the message: Israel is willing to raise the stakes.”

Why Now? A Multi-Front Reality

According to Israeli security sources and confirmed by former U.S. CENTCOM analysts, the decision to go in on the ground reflects growing Israeli concerns about an expanded threat network stretching from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq. Hezbollah’s deeper entrenchment in southern Syria, combined with Iran’s efforts to transfer precision missile technology through the region, has heightened Israeli fears of a coordinated multi-front war.

“From an intelligence perspective, it’s about timing,” said Michael R., a retired CIA Middle East analyst. “Israel likely detected weapons or personnel movements that crossed their red lines, prompting not just airstrikes, but a need to put boots on the ground to verify, seize intel, or destroy targets directly.”

Former Israeli intelligence officer Yossi K. added that while the operation was short, it was designed to demonstrate capability: “It’s as much about deterrence as it is about degradation. If you can show you’re willing to physically cross the border, you signal to Iran and Syria that the status quo is no longer tolerable.”

Implications for Syria and Iran

Damascus has condemned the operation but is unlikely to respond directly. Instead, analysts believe Iran may task its allied militias — particularly those in southern Syria and the Iraqi border area — with retaliatory actions. Already, some pro-Iranian media outlets have called the operation an act of war.

A former EU intelligence officer based in Brussels told WARYATV, “What we’re watching is not a sudden change, but an escalation of an already intensifying campaign. Israel is shifting its policy from indirect containment to limited offensive disruption.”

He added: “The Iranians will test this. They may not respond immediately, but they rarely allow direct Israeli incursions to pass without attempting a message of their own.”

Red Sea and Gaza Ties

Several Western analysts noted that the timing also aligns with increasing Israeli military action in the Red Sea corridor and against Houthi-linked targets, amid growing fears of a broader Axis of Resistance alignment. There is also speculation that the Syria operation could help relieve pressure from the Gaza front — drawing enemy resources and attention elsewhere.

“It’s classic diversion through escalation,” one European security source said. “If the north heats up, some actors aligned with Hamas could be redirected to a northern theater.”

What Comes Next?

While the IDF has not confirmed further ground missions, all signs suggest this was not a one-off.

“What we are seeing is the start of a new phase: Israel is laying the groundwork for a more kinetic approach in Syria, possibly even clearing corridors for deeper strikes or emergency deterrent missions in the event of northern escalation,” said an Israeli defense strategist now advising a think tank in London.

WARYATV’s sources also noted that civilian evacuations in southern Syria signal anticipation of further activity.

Strategic Forecast

• Israel is moving into a posture of “active forward deterrence” beyond its borders.
• Iran is unlikely to respond directly, but will lean on militias and proxy cells.
• Syria will likely remain passive but coordinate with Iran on information-sharing.
• Hezbollah and the IRGC may test Israeli lines elsewhere — especially in Golan, the Lebanon border, or via Iraqi militias.
• Expect increased Israeli air and limited ground operations in Syria through spring 2025.

This shift, while still short of full-scale war, places the region on a tighter wire.

Exclusive for waryatv.com.

Giuseppe Antoci survived a mafia hit. Now he’s taking on Europe’s biggest crime rings — and Brussels’ red tape.

By all accounts, Giuseppe Antoci should be retired, living quietly in his seaside Sicilian villa. Instead, he’s in Brussels — under armed guard — trying to drag the European Union into a serious fight against organized crime.

Eight years ago, the mafia tried to kill him. Now, as a newly elected Member of the European Parliament, Antoci is battling a different kind of beast: bureaucracy, political apathy, and a lack of real teeth in EU law.

He’s not just in Brussels to make noise. Antoci is the architect of Italy’s “Antoci Protocol,” a law that disrupted mafia access to EU agricultural funds. Now, he wants to make it EU-wide — and he’s not stopping there.

But can one man — with no party machine, no committee chair, and limited political capital — change how Europe fights organized crime? The answer may depend on whether Brussels is ready to do more than take selfies with him.

What Antoci’s EU Mission Really Means

Giuseppe Antoci isn’t your typical MEP. He doesn’t mingle at Parliament bars, and he doesn’t trade favors in back rooms. He’s a mafia target who now sleeps under armed protection — and he’s chosen the EU as his next battleground.

Why? Because the money the mob is chasing — clean, easy, and massive — flows from Brussels.

The EU’s €45 billion-a-year Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one of the biggest subsidy schemes in the world. And it’s a goldmine for Europe’s crime syndicates. In Sicily, mafiosi faked farm leases, intimidated landowners, and siphoned millions — until Antoci shut them down with a protocol requiring background checks on subsidy applicants. Now, he wants that law to apply across the EU.

But Brussels isn’t Sicily. It’s slower. Safer. More polite — and more political.

Antoci’s push for tougher, EU-wide oversight of funding and enforcement is landing at a moment when Brussels is caught between public demand for crime crackdowns and member states jealously guarding control over justice. The EU has limited jurisdiction on crime and policing, and its tools — Europol, Eurojust — remain underpowered and understaffed.

Meanwhile, organized crime is evolving. Drug gangs are no longer neighborhood toughs — they’re transnational corporations with encrypted comms, cyber skills, and paramilitary reach. Europol says 90% of them have infiltrated the legal economy.

The stakes are rising. Billions from the EU’s Covid-19 recovery fund are being spent now. Without stronger checks, Antoci warns, some of that money will end up in mafia accounts — and Europe will pay the price for decades.

He’s already pushing hard as a shadow rapporteur on the anti-corruption directive. His long-term goal is to replicate Italy’s “41-bis” law — which isolates jailed mafia bosses — across the bloc. It’s controversial, but after a Dutch kingpin ordered assassinations from his cell, the political mood may be shifting.

But there’s a risk: Antoci could become a symbol, not a legislator. He’s already a selfie-magnet for EU elites — von der Leyen, Metsola, ambassadors — who praise his courage but haven’t yet adopted his reforms. It’s the danger of being a hero in a system that rewards quiet compromise.

Still, Antoci is not slowing down. He sees his time in Brussels as “an act of service.” And for now, he’s a one-man reminder that Europe’s darkest enemies aren’t just in the shadows — they’re reading EU funding rules, too.

Signal Leak Sends Shockwaves Through Trump’s Security Team.

JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard — all named in a leaked Signal thread about Yemen strikes. What started as a tech blunder may trigger the first cabinet shake-up of Trump’s second term.

The accidental inclusion of a journalist in a top-secret group chat has sent national security adviser Mike Waltz’s future into turmoil — and reignited internal fights over foreign policy, loyalty, and legacy in Donald Trump’s new White House.

The fallout from the Signal leak — in which Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly looped into a thread discussing imminent strikes on Houthi targets — has consumed the West Wing. What was already shaping up to be a high-stakes week for the administration has now turned into a full-blown crisis.

How Did This Happen?

On March 11, Goldberg received an invite to join Signal from “Mike Waltz.” That alone raised eyebrows. But what came next sparked panic: Goldberg was added to a private group labeled “Houthi PC small group,” where top officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard were exchanging operational details and policy concerns.

According to insiders, Goldberg didn’t say a word — he quietly observed and later reported the exchange, igniting what may become the first major national security scandal of Trump’s second term.

The Fallout: Recklessness or Setup?

Some White House staffers want Waltz out — now. “It was reckless not to check who was on the thread,” said one senior official. “You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser.” Others say this was no accident but rather the latest ammunition for internal rivals long suspicious of Waltz’s neocon past.

And while Trump has not pulled the trigger, the White House is clearly rattled. Text chains among aides are buzzing. “Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” one source admitted.

The blunder also opened a new line of attack from “America First” isolationists, who have never trusted Waltz’s credentials — particularly his past ties to Dick Cheney and the Bush-era counterterror playbook. His relationship with Goldberg, in their eyes, is proof of where his true loyalties lie.

Trump’s Move: Loyalty or Leverage?

So far, Trump is standing by his man. “President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

But that confidence may be conditional. The president is known for letting public narrative shape private personnel decisions. Should Fox News turn sour, or Trump see too many headlines with “Waltz” and “leak” in the same sentence, that support could evaporate fast.

And there are whispers that this blunder may provide Trump with an opening — a chance to appease isolationists in his base by ousting someone perceived as too hawkish, too Beltway, too old guard.

Vance, Hegseth, Gabbard… Who Else Is in Trouble?

The leak also dragged in other high-profile officials. JD Vance’s remarks — advocating for a delayed strike to avoid economic blowback — were widely seen as undermining Trump’s hardline stance. Some speculate that Trump might be more furious at Vance than Waltz. Or perhaps at Hegseth, allegedly the one who shared strike details in the first place.

One aide put it bluntly: “This could turn into a loyalty test.”

The ultimate decision — to fire or forgive — will come down to Trump’s read on who embarrassed him, who is expendable, and who can be useful moving forward.

American researchers are fleeing political interference under Trump—and Europe is welcoming them with open labs.

Europe Offers Scientific Asylum as Trump-era Cuts Drive U.S. Researchers Abroad.

As Donald Trump’s administration slashes research budgets and clamps down on what it calls “ideological science,” European universities are responding with an unexpected offer: refuge. Across Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, institutions are opening doors to American researchers disillusioned or displaced by political interference and funding cuts.

The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), founded in 1834 to uphold academic independence from church and state, is leading the charge. It recently announced 12 postdoctoral fellowships specifically aimed at international researchers, with a “particular focus” on Americans. “We see it as our duty to come to the aid of our American colleagues,” said Jan Danckaert, VUB’s rector, describing the current U.S. environment as one of “political and ideological interference.”

The cuts in question are far-reaching. Research arms like NASA, the CDC, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration face funding freezes. Studies involving climate change, vaccines, or social equity—deemed “woke” by the Trump White House—are increasingly targeted. For many U.S.-based researchers, the result is censorship by omission: their work isn’t banned, but quietly defunded.

European institutions see both a moral imperative and an opportunity. At France’s Aix-Marseille University, the launch of a “Safe Place for Science” program has already drawn nearly 100 applicants—many from elite institutions like Yale, Stanford, and even NASA. The program offers three-year placements to researchers facing “catastrophic” restrictions at home.

“We’re not poaching talent,” said Aix-Marseille president Éric Berton. “We’re responding to a crisis.” He and others have described this as a form of “scientific asylum,” framing it less as brain drain and more as solidarity.

France’s government has also moved swiftly. Research Minister Philippe Baptiste urged institutions to submit proposals for attracting American scientists, while Pasteur Institute Director Yasmine Belkaid noted a “daily” influx of inquiries. “You might call it a sad opportunity,” she said, “but it is an opportunity.”

The Netherlands, too, is launching a dedicated fund for incoming researchers. While it remains open to all nationalities, the announcement by Education Minister Eppo Bruins made clear that geopolitical shifts—read: Trump’s policies—are driving its urgency.

This wave of European outreach highlights growing transatlantic divergence on science policy. Where Washington appears to be prioritizing political loyalty over peer review, Europe is positioning itself as the new global capital of academic freedom. This shift could have long-term implications, from how climate science is advanced to which countries dominate the next generation of technological breakthroughs.

The irony isn’t lost on European institutions. In 2016, Trump dismissed Brussels as a “hellhole” in a Fox News interview, citing unsubstantiated fears over migration. VUB referenced that quote directly in its press materials, calling its new program “a symbolic gesture of solidarity.”

That symbolism cuts both ways. For the U.S. academic community, especially in fields like climate science, health, and the social sciences, the message is clear: if you want to keep your work alive, you may have to take it abroad.

Europe’s response marks a subtle but significant act of scientific diplomacy. It suggests that the continent is not just willing—but eager—to fill the leadership vacuum left by Washington’s retreat. And it raises a broader question: will this be remembered as a short-lived migration or the start of a long-term shift in where science happens, and who shapes its agenda?

Why Is President Irro Flying to the UAE Again? Whispers of Recognition, Billion-Dollar Deals, and a Storm Brewing in Berbera.

In just under 100 days, Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi Irro is heading to the United Arab Emirates for the third time. That’s not just frequent travel—it’s unprecedented. What’s driving these urgent, tightly coordinated visits to Abu Dhabi? Why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs absent from the entourage, replaced by presidential aides and a deepening cloud of silence?

A senior diplomatic source, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the UAE visits as “recognition choreography”—a final act in a diplomatic ballet being orchestrated quietly behind closed doors.

“What you’re seeing isn’t normal protocol,” the source said. “This is high-stakes geopolitical engineering. What’s being prepared now will change the future of Somaliland forever.”

Is Recognition on the Table—via Dubai?

For months, rumors have swirled in foreign policy circles that the United States may recognize Somaliland—but not directly. Instead, the Emiratis are being positioned as brokers, offering a politically ‘neutral’ channel for what could be the most significant diplomatic announcement since Somaliland declared back its 1960 independence in 1991.

“Dubai is the middleman. Recognition won’t come with fireworks—it’ll come through handshakes in quiet halls and business corridors,” a Gulf intelligence analyst told WARYATV. “Washington prefers deniability. Abu Dhabi delivers the message.”

Indeed, Irro’s persistent presence in the UAE—paired with deepening Emirati involvement in Berbera’s port, airport, military infrastructure, and now digital infrastructure—suggests a comprehensive state-to-state alignment is being quietly cemented. And it doesn’t end there.

Berbera: The Crown Jewel Everyone Wants

The Berbera corridor has become a magnet for global powers. As the UAE upgrades the airport into a logistics and military hub, the United States is allegedly exploring a forward operating base there.

Is this why Turkey suddenly reappeared in Hargeisa after years of silence?

“Everyone knows Berbera is the new Gibraltar,” a regional security analyst said. “It controls the chokepoint between Africa and the Gulf. Whoever controls it owns tomorrow’s trade.”

Some speculate that Microsoft’s G42-backed data center in Berbera is not just about cloud computing—but part of a strategic backdoor for U.S. tech expansion, bypassing Chinese chip restrictions. If true, Somaliland has already become a digital battlefield in a 21st-century great power game.

The Ethiopia MOU—About to Become a Treaty?

President Irro’s UAE visits also come amid sudden silence from Addis Ababa on the controversial MOU between Ethiopia and Somaliland. Could this silence mean negotiations have resumed—this time, with Emirati mediation?

Whispers in the diplomatic grapevine suggest a trilateral arrangement is on the table: Ethiopia gets maritime access, Somaliland gets recognition—and the UAE gets everything in between.

If true, this is no longer just diplomacy—it’s statecraft with billion-dollar stakes.

What About Gaza? Are Refugees a Bargaining Chip?

In a stunning twist, some foreign observers point to recent private discussions in Abu Dhabi regarding the relocation of Gaza refugees to parts of East Africa. Somaliland’s name has appeared in these closed-door talks.

“It’s a long shot,” said one insider. “But if Somaliland offered temporary humanitarian corridors or resettlement zones, the geopolitical goodwill would be enormous—especially with Washington and Tel Aviv.

Could this be part of a larger pact? Offer land. Gain recognition. Cash in diplomatic credit.

Unverified reports suggest billions in UAE development funds—for roads, desalination, and defense—are tied to this very framework. One leaked document references $3.1 billion in planned Emirati investments in Somaliland if “status normalization” is achieved.

Emotion and Uncertainty Collide

Somalilanders are left asking: Is our president securing our rightful seat among nations, or is he walking into a deal made in smoke-filled rooms? Is this the final chapter of a three-decade recognition struggle—or merely another mirage of sovereignty?

There’s awe at the possibility, anger at the secrecy, and joy at even the whiff of recognition. Yet there’s also fear.

“We are playing with giants,” one Hargeisa academic warned. “In this game, the small players can be eaten—or they can be crowned. It depends on the strength of their leader.”

Whatever Irro is doing in Dubai, it’s no ordinary state visit. The stakes are existential. The silence is deafening. The outcome? Possibly world-shifting.

Somaliland is no longer just a forgotten corner of the Horn—it is now a chessboard of global ambition. All eyes are on the skies over Berbera, waiting for the next plane to land—and the next headline to break.

Despite limited ceasefire gestures, Putin continues to manipulate peace talks while consolidating gains—and Trump appears to be offering leverage without returns.

The latest phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has done little to shift the trajectory of Russia’s war in Ukraine. If anything, it has underscored how adept the Kremlin remains at stalling substantive peace efforts while subtly manipulating diplomatic optics.

From the outset, the optics were clear: Putin made Trump wait, quite publicly, to assert dominance—not only for his domestic audience but also to reinforce his standing in the bilateral dynamic. Delays, vague statements, and selective concessions are all hallmarks of Moscow’s diplomatic playbook—and in this case, they’re working to Russia’s advantage.

The only apparent outcome from the call—a 30-day pause on attacks targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure—is minimal and strategically convenient for Russia. It allows the Kremlin to reduce international pressure while preserving its ability to press ground offensives and conduct strikes on civilian and military targets outside of power grids.

Meanwhile, Trump’s response has been muted and ambiguous, presenting the energy ceasefire as a broader agreement than it actually is, while giving Putin space to dictate terms under the guise of cooperation. The Kremlin’s version of events suggests Trump proposed the ceasefire, which is highly unlikely given how favorable it is to Russia. It’s more plausible that Putin offered it as a limited gesture—cheap to implement, easy to reverse, and beneficial to his forces.

The Asymmetry in Negotiating Power

What’s striking is the imbalance in approach. Putin continues to pursue maximalist objectives: controlling Ukraine’s trajectory, maintaining annexed territory, and ending Western military support to Kyiv. Yet Trump has already begun softening the American position—freezing aid, engaging in talks without Ukraine present, and signaling acceptance of territorial compromise.

Each of these concessions undermines Ukraine’s negotiating position while enabling Russia to consolidate gains. The fact that Trump entertained such talks without Zelensky’s input is a glaring breach of diplomatic norms and weakens the principle of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Moreover, Putin’s demands—including halting Western military assistance and accepting Ukraine’s demilitarization—remain outlandish and designed to be rejected. They serve more as propaganda tools than serious proposals, allowing Moscow to cast Kyiv as the uncooperative party.

A War of Imperial Design

The core issue remains unchanged: Russia’s war aims have not shifted. Putin seeks nothing less than the geopolitical subjugation of Ukraine and the formal absorption of illegally annexed territories. The integration of these regions into the Russian Federation—via treaty and policy—is not merely occupation; it is attempted annexation by force.

This war was never about self-defense or NATO expansion. It has always been an imperial project cloaked in manufactured grievances and legal distortions. That Moscow continues to refer to Ukraine’s leadership as untrustworthy or “terrorist” only reinforces its refusal to treat Ukraine as a legitimate sovereign equal.

Zelensky’s Calculated Restraint

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s cautious response to the Trump-Putin call reveals both his diplomatic pragmatism and the constraints under which Kyiv operates. By not directly rejecting the partial ceasefire and avoiding criticism of Trump, Zelensky aims to preserve U.S. backing, however unpredictable it may be.

But Ukraine’s red lines remain unchanged: territorial sovereignty, independent alliances, and unrestricted defense capabilities. These are non-negotiable principles for Kyiv and its supporters.

Freezing the conflict at current front lines—effectively locking in Russian gains—may be seen by some as a path to ending the war. But such a solution lacks credibility unless it includes Russia revoking its annexations and allowing international oversight in the disputed regions.

Conclusion

Trump’s call with Putin highlights a troubling pattern: a U.S. president eager for a symbolic peace deal, increasingly susceptible to Kremlin flattery and delay tactics, while giving away leverage that could have been used to demand meaningful concessions.

Putin’s war aims remain fully intact. His strategy is simple—stretch out negotiations, maintain military pressure, and bank on Western fatigue. As Trump signals flexibility and rewards half-measures, the danger is not just a frozen conflict, but a normalization of aggression.

Any peace without justice, sovereignty, and accountability risks becoming a prelude to future conflict—and a gift to authoritarianism.

The rise, financing, and recent battlefield setbacks of ISIS’s Puntland affiliate reveal a weakened but persistent threat. 

The Islamic State in Somalia (ISS), a jihadist group based in Puntland, emerged in 2015 as a splinter from al-Shabaab. Initially underestimated, it capitalized on clan ties, smuggling routes, and regional instability to carve out a role within the broader Islamic State network. Though often inflated in reputation, the group’s ability to generate revenue and project ideological influence has kept it relevant—until recent months.

Led by Sheikh Abdulqader Muumin, a former al-Shabaab propagandist who once lived in Sweden and the UK, the group established its presence with extortion, assassinations, and media-savvy propaganda. By 2017, its influence had grown enough to be designated as an official province of ISIS, known as the Maktab al-Karrar. While never matching al-Shabaab in strength or territorial control, ISS became a key financial node, particularly after being placed in charge of ISIS operations in Central Africa and Mozambique.

From its base in the mountainous Buur Dexhtaal area, the group reportedly funneled over $2 million annually from extortion, livestock, imports, and diaspora channels. These funds not only sustained operations but also raised Muumin’s profile within the transnational jihadist movement. By 2023, U.S. officials claimed he had been elevated to a broader leadership role within ISIS, although this remains unconfirmed and controversial.

Despite its financial network, the group’s operational capacity has been limited. Its strength peaked between 600 and 1,600 fighters—dwarfed by al-Shabaab’s thousands. Its involvement in international plots, like the planned attacks on the Vatican and Israeli embassy in Stockholm, appear exaggerated or weakly substantiated. Moreover, doubts over Muumin’s legitimacy as a global ISIS leader stem from his clan lineage and the group’s relatively small footprint.

Recent developments, however, have dramatically altered the group’s trajectory. A coordinated offensive by Puntland authorities, supported by U.S. and Emirati airpower, began in January 2025 and resulted in a series of battlefield defeats. By March, ISS had lost key strongholds, including Buur Dexhtaal. Over 70 fighters were reportedly killed, and many foreign jihadists captured. The momentum broke, and morale within the group collapsed.

Yet ISS is not entirely eliminated. Its deep familiarity with Puntland’s rugged terrain allows some remnants to remain hidden. Neither Muumin nor his deputy, Abdirahman Fahiye, have been confirmed dead. ISS could still pose a threat through localized insurgency, relying on extortion from northern businesses and recruitment from marginalized groups, including Oromo refugees and disenfranchised youth in Bosaso.

The Islamic State in Somalia now stands diminished but not destroyed. Its recent losses expose the limits of its reach and the overstated claims of its regional importance. However, the group’s ability to exploit economic desperation and governance gaps means it retains the potential to regenerate. Sustained pressure, financial disruption, and community engagement will be critical to preventing a resurgence in one of Somalia’s most fragile regions.