A new U.S. plan emphasizes Saudi-led regional influence and Palestinian relocation, while Israel’s role remains uncertain.

President Donald Trump’s evolving Middle East strategy centers on strengthening ties with Saudi Arabia and restructuring the region’s dynamics. At the heart of this approach is a plan to evacuate at least half of Gaza’s population, funded by Saudi Arabia and Gulf states, to facilitate reconstruction. Gaza residents are already preparing for potential relocations to Algeria and Tunisia, while Egypt and Jordan are under pressure to accept Palestinians.

The proposed overhaul includes modernizing Gaza with new ports, hospitals, schools, and commercial facilities, all managed by a multinational force and Palestinian Authority representatives. Surprisingly, Israel is expected to play only a peripheral role in this reconstruction effort. Trump’s team, led by envoy Steve Witkoff, views Saudi Arabia as the linchpin in this ambitious project.

Key to Trump’s Middle East agenda is Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has proposed significant investments in the U.S., with Trump pushing for up to $1 trillion. Saudi normalization with Israel, once a cornerstone of U.S. strategy, has been deprioritized due to concerns over public backlash in the kingdom and the Crown Prince’s safety. Instead, discussions have shifted to economic and security cooperation, sidelining Israel’s involvement in broader regional plans.

Qatar also features prominently in Trump’s strategy. U.S. officials are urging Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to increase American investments, but further normalization with Israel is contingent on contentious demands, including the establishment of a Palestinian state and the evacuation of settlers from the West Bank.

Revisiting the 2002 Saudi Peace Initiative, Trump appears to be exploring avenues for broader Arab-Israeli normalization, albeit with significant caveats. The initiative’s conditions, such as East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and the return of refugees, remain sticking points that complicate its revival.

Trump’s strategy reflects a shift from Israel-centric policies to broader regional dynamics led by Saudi Arabia, with an eye on countering China’s influence and cementing the U.S.-Saudi partnership. This approach, however, raises questions about its feasibility, given the complexities of Palestinian relocation, regional tensions, and the potential sidelining of Israel in key negotiations.

Rubio’s no-show at EU foreign ministers’ meeting fuels fears of Trump administration sidelining Brussels in favor of bilateral diplomacy.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s absence at the EU foreign ministers’ meeting has amplified concerns in Brussels about a potential shift in Washington’s approach to Europe. Rubio declined an invitation extended by EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, leaving EU diplomats uneasy over what appears to be a deliberate strategy of sidelining Brussels.

Rubio’s no-show is more than a scheduling issue; it reflects a broader pattern in President Donald Trump’s administration. Since taking office, Trump has bypassed EU institutions, favoring bilateral engagements with member states. For instance, Trump’s direct dealings with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen over Greenland—reportedly laced with sanctions threats—highlight this approach.

EU officials worry that bypassing Brussels will erode the bloc’s unity, especially on critical issues like trade and defense. Trump’s team has already leveraged bilateral ties, such as prioritizing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni over EU leaders at his inauguration. Meanwhile, Rubio’s outreach to select European capitals, while ignoring EU representatives, underscores the divide-and-conquer approach.

This strategy marks a stark departure from the Biden administration’s cooperative engagement with the EU. Under Biden, the U.S. and Brussels coordinated closely on sanctions, vaccine rollouts, and geopolitical challenges. Trump’s administration appears to prefer a fractured Europe, possibly to exert more influence over individual states.

While some EU member states, like Italy, remain optimistic about relations with Washington, top EU officials urge unity. Irish Foreign Minister Simon Harris emphasized the importance of maintaining strong transatlantic ties. Yet, with Trump’s administration favoring bilateralism, the EU faces the challenge of preserving cohesion while managing growing pressure from Washington.

As Rubio avoids Brussels, the EU must navigate an uncertain relationship with Washington, balancing optimism for dialogue with caution against fragmentation. Another opportunity for engagement looms on February 24, but whether Rubio prioritizes the EU remains to be seen.

Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff receives one of the harshest sentences in the largest COVID-19 pandemic fraud scheme in U.S. history.

Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff, a Somali-American leader and key player in the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud, was sentenced to 17 and a half years in prison on Friday. The scheme, the largest pandemic-related fraud in U.S. history, siphoned federal funds intended to feed underprivileged children and redirected them toward luxury items, properties, and overseas investments.

The Fraudulent Scheme
Shariff, 34, served as CEO of Afrique Hospitality Group, a business used to funnel stolen funds from the Federal Child Nutrition Program. Prosecutors revealed that he submitted fraudulent claims for feeding up to 3,500 children daily at nonexistent sites, pocketing more than $1.3 million. Fake meal counts, invoices, and attendance records were submitted to claim reimbursements, while shell companies were used to launder the stolen money.

The fraud exploited emergency changes in the Federal Child Nutrition Program during the pandemic, which temporarily relaxed oversight to ensure children could access meals during school closures. Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit that sponsored sites like Shariff’s, facilitated the scheme in exchange for kickbacks.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson described the operation as “brazen,” stating, “Their scheme involved fake meals, fake kids, fake invoices—but very real money.”

Sentencing
Shariff was found guilty in June 2024 on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel handed down a 210-month sentence, which includes three years of supervised release and $48 million in restitution.

“When the world was at its most vulnerable, you were not a helper; you were a thief,” Judge Brasel said during the sentencing. She criticized Shariff’s “staggering lack of respect for the law” and cited his obstruction of justice, which included deleting communications on the Signal app and recording witness testimony during the trial.

Shariff apologized in court, tearfully acknowledging the damage his actions had done to his community, but his words did little to sway the judge. Supporters in the packed courtroom reacted emotionally, with one individual shouting, “No justice,” before being silenced.

Community Impact
The fraud case has tarnished public trust and damaged the reputation of Minnesota’s Somali-American community. Acting U.S. Attorney Lisa Kirkpatrick called the scheme a “brazen theft” of taxpayer funds intended to feed children, adding that it exploited both public generosity and pandemic-related vulnerabilities.

Community leaders worry that the scandal will exacerbate negative stereotypes about Somali-Americans. The case involves a total of 70 defendants, with investigations revealing systemic abuse of the Federal Child Nutrition Program.

Conclusion
Shariff’s sentencing sends a strong message about accountability in pandemic-era fraud cases. However, it also highlights broader concerns about the misuse of public funds and the reputational damage inflicted on vulnerable communities. As federal authorities continue to prosecute others involved in the scheme, the case serves as a cautionary tale of greed exploiting a global crisis.

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.