Russia’s cash delivery to Syria signals deepening ties as new Syrian rulers balance between Moscow’s support and Western pressure over sanctions.

Russia’s latest move in Syria is a stark reminder that Moscow is not leaving the war-torn nation anytime soon. The arrival of newly printed Syrian currency from Russia—just days after a phone call between President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s new de facto leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa—is more than a financial transaction. It’s a power play.

For years, Russia propped up Bashar al-Assad’s regime with military intervention and diplomatic shielding. When Assad finally fell in December, many assumed Moscow’s grip on Syria would weaken. Instead, the Kremlin has moved swiftly to reassert influence, using financial leverage and strategic alliances to entrench itself in the country’s post-Assad future. The cash shipment is a clear sign that Russia is ready to keep backing Syria’s fragile new administration, even as the West stalls on lifting crippling sanctions.

The geopolitical chess game unfolding in Syria is not just about loyalty—it’s about survival. Sharaa and his Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) faction shocked observers by maintaining lines of communication with Moscow. Many expected a complete break from Russia, given HTS’s history as a militant group that once battled Assad’s Russian-backed forces. Instead, Syria’s new leadership appears to be taking a pragmatic approach, recognizing that Moscow still holds the keys to crucial military, economic, and geopolitical resources.

Sanctions remain the biggest roadblock to Syria’s recovery. Western governments, particularly the U.S., are hesitant to lift restrictions designed to cripple Assad. But as history has shown, sanctions can become bargaining chips. France has already hosted Syria’s new foreign minister, and there are quiet signals that some European states may be open to easing restrictions. Washington, however, remains skeptical, with U.S. officials questioning whether Sharaa has truly distanced himself from his past as a jihadist leader.

The American strategy seems to mirror what it did with Sudan—dangling the prospect of sanctions relief in exchange for major political concessions. But Syria is not Sudan. If Washington expects Damascus to recognize Israel as a trade-off, as Sudan did in 2020, it will find itself at a dead end. For Syria’s rulers, normalizing ties with Israel remains politically impossible. That means they must keep multiple doors open—aligning just enough with the West to avoid further economic collapse while maintaining Russian backing to ensure military and financial stability.

This is where Russia’s cash airlift plays a critical role. It’s a direct challenge to the West’s economic stranglehold, a signal to both Syria and its Gulf neighbors that Moscow remains a reliable partner. With the Syrian economy in shambles and investment impossible under current sanctions, Russia is positioning itself as the lifeline. The message to Sharaa is clear: stick with Moscow, and the Kremlin will ensure the regime’s survival.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states and Turkey—both crucial to Syria’s future—are watching closely. Russia has cultivated strong ties with these regional powers, and their willingness to engage with Syria could be swayed by Moscow’s continued involvement. Keeping Russian forces in Syria also secures Moscow’s access to critical naval and military bases, ensuring its long-term presence in the Middle East.

For Syria, the challenge is navigating a tightrope between Moscow’s strategic interests and Western economic pressure. If the U.S. refuses to lift sanctions, Damascus will have no choice but to deepen reliance on Russia, even at the risk of alienating potential European allies. The coming months will reveal whether Sharaa can successfully maneuver between these power blocs—or if he will be forced to pick a side in this geopolitical tug-of-war.

Djibouti’s Mahamoud Ali Youssouf is set to win the AU Commission race, leveraging his experience, French-speaking bloc support, and the political prowess of President Ismail Omar Guelleh.

The battle for the African Union Commission chairmanship is nearing its checkmate moment, and all signs point to Djibouti’s Mahamoud Ali Youssouf emerging victorious. This is not just another election—it is a high-stakes power game dictated by forces far beyond the public eye, where alliances are brokered in shadowy corridors, and kingmakers remain unseen. While Kenyan veteran Raila Odinga enjoys the backing of powerful Western circles, the real political arithmetic favors Youssouf, a trusted student of Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh, a man who has never lost a political game.

Djibouti’s Mahamoud Secures Historic AU Commission Chairmanship

For weeks, waryatv.com’s intel network has tracked the intricate maneuvers shaping this race. At first glance, Odinga seemed like the natural frontrunner—his Pan-African credentials, economic vision, and Western ties made him an obvious choice. But beneath the surface, forces were realigning in ways only seasoned power players could predict. Somaliland, which has long viewed Odinga as an ally due to his support for its recognition, is watching this contest with cautious neutrality. This time, it’s not about who stands with Somaliland but rather about power shifts happening behind the scenes—shifts that will reshape African diplomacy for years to come.

At the heart of this power transition is the Djiboutian political machine, an operation so methodically efficient that it rarely miscalculates. President Guelleh, the undisputed architect of Djibouti’s regional dominance, has placed his full weight behind Youssouf. Djibouti’s strategic importance, sitting at the gateway of the Red Sea with military bases hosting the U.S., China, France, and Japan, gives it an unparalleled advantage. More importantly, Guelleh’s long-standing relationships with African heads of state—especially in the French-speaking bloc—are yielding decisive votes.

French-speaking African nations have emerged as the quiet kingmakers in this election, and their bloc is rallying behind Youssouf. The Francophone alliance is a historical force in AU politics, and when mobilized effectively, it overrides external pressures. Youssouf’s diplomatic finesse, multilingual skills, and emphasis on African self-reliance have resonated deeply with leaders seeking a more independent AU, free from the suffocating influence of global superpowers. His push for economic sovereignty, including a single African currency and reduced reliance on Western financial institutions, has given him an edge among those wary of external interference.

The key orchestrator in this equation is Djibouti’s Economy Minister Ilyas M. Dawaleh, a political tactician who has been playing a masterful background role in securing crucial endorsements. His recent remarks on X, praising Youssouf’s tireless campaign and widespread support across Africa, are not just words—they are a coded message to those who understand AU politics. Dawaleh knows something the public does not: that the game is already won. The final votes may not be cast yet, but the deals have already been sealed in private meetings, away from the public spectacle of debates and media narratives.

Odinga’s team, aware of the shifting tides, is making last-minute diplomatic overtures. Kenya’s President William Ruto has deployed his full diplomatic arsenal to rally East African votes, but the cracks are already visible. Regional rivalries, internal political calculations, and the looming 2027 Kenyan elections have weakened the unity behind Odinga’s bid. The AU race is not just about who is best suited for the job—it is about who controls the system that decides the outcome. And that system, for now, is favoring Mahamoud Ali Youssouf.

By the time the votes are counted, Djibouti’s disciplined political strategy, the backing of the Francophone bloc, and the unseen hand of Guelleh’s diplomatic empire will have delivered yet another victory. Youssouf’s win will not be an accident—it will be the result of a meticulously crafted power play, executed with precision.

This is why those who follow waryatv.com closely will not be surprised. They saw it coming.

Trump escalates US airstrikes in Somalia, vowing to crush ISIS-Somalia in Puntland’s mountains. With IS now a global threat, will relentless strikes follow?

Donald Trump has thrown down the gauntlet in Somalia, launching airstrikes against ISIS strongholds and declaring all-out war against jihadists hiding in Puntland’s rugged terrain. With a signature show of force, he boasted of wiping out terrorist caves and eliminating high-value targets in a single decisive hit. Unlike Biden, who wavered, Trump is making it clear—Somalia is back on America’s radar, and the hunt for terror has no borders.

The Somali government, desperate for US backing, is scrambling to praise Trump’s intervention. But airstrikes alone won’t be enough. Puntland forces, already in the trenches fighting ISIS for years, demand more than token American firepower. They are battling a growing force, swelling with foreign jihadists and financed through a sophisticated extortion network. From Ethiopian recruits to North African operatives, ISIS-Somalia has become the terror network’s new heartbeat, channeling cash, fighters, and ideology across Africa and beyond.

Trump’s strikes are a message—not just to ISIS, but to Iran-backed Houthis, who arm Somali insurgents from across the Red Sea. US Africa Command warns that ISIS-Somalia has doubled in size, threatening the West with terror exports. The December attack on a Puntland military base was just the beginning. If left unchecked, the jihadists will turn Somalia into a launchpad for global terror.

But will Trump’s warpath continue, or is this just a headline-grabbing display? Airstrikes won’t be enough to uproot an entrenched insurgency. Puntland wants more—sustained operations, intelligence, and direct US military support. Without it, ISIS will regroup, recruit, and return stronger than ever. The question remains: Is Trump ready for a long war, or is Somalia just a convenient battleground for his next bold statement?

Trump declares war on the International Criminal Court, imposing sanctions after arrest warrants for Netanyahu. Will the ICC survive, or has Trump rewritten the rules of global justice?

Trump just flipped the script on international justice. The ICC dared to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defense minister, and now Trump has unleashed the full force of US sanctions, branding the court’s actions as a direct assault on American and Israeli sovereignty. With a single executive order, he’s blocking ICC officials’ assets, banning them from entering the US, and sending a crystal-clear message—Washington and its allies are above this court’s reach.

The move isn’t just retaliation; it’s a full-scale counteroffensive against what Trump calls a “corrupt, illegitimate” body that has no right to prosecute non-member states. His stance is simple: the ICC has no authority over Israel or the US, and any attempt to claim jurisdiction will come at a price. This isn’t the first time Trump has crushed the ICC—his 2020 sanctions paralyzed the court’s operations when it dared investigate US troops in Afghanistan. Now, he’s doubling down.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, is reeling. Officials fear that Trump’s sanctions could cripple the court, making it impossible to function. Amnesty International and legal watchdogs are sounding the alarm, calling Trump’s order an existential threat to global justice. But to Trump and Netanyahu, this is about survival—Israel is in the fight of its life in Gaza, and they won’t let an international tribunal dictate their war strategy.

This showdown isn’t just about Netanyahu. It’s a warning shot to every international body that challenges US and Israeli military actions. Trump has drawn the line in the sand, and the message is clear: America and its closest allies will not be shackled by foreign courts. With the ICC now facing its greatest crisis, the world is left wondering—will the court stand its ground, or will Trump’s power play shatter it for good?

Trump eyes Morocco, Puntland, and Somaliland as destinations for displaced Gazans in a high-stakes power play.

Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy move is nothing short of a geopolitical earthquake—a proposal to forcefully relocate Gazans to Morocco, Puntland, or Somaliland while the U.S. takes control of the Gaza Strip. This plan, revealed in reports following Trump’s White House meeting with Netanyahu, underscores his aggressive push to reshape the Middle East on his own terms.

“They won’t tell me no,” Trump declared, referring to Jordan and Egypt, suggesting that regional powers will have no choice but to comply. He envisions Gaza’s population being “given a fresh, beautiful piece of land,” funded by yet-to-be-named donors, turning this chaotic crisis into what he describes as a clean slate.

Why These Three Destinations?

The selection of Morocco, Puntland, and Somaliland is not random. These territories share one crucial trait: They all need something from the U.S.

Somaliland is desperate for international recognition and economic support. Trump’s deal could serve as their “ticket” to legitimacy on the world stage.

Morocco is engaged in an ongoing battle over the Western Sahara, where U.S. backing could be a game-changer for its claims.

By dangling U.S. diplomatic leverage, Trump is attempting to convert geopolitical desperation into a migration solution.

The High-Risk Gamble

But can these regions even handle such an influx?

Somaliland and Puntland, though stable compared to Somalia, are still fragile and lack the infrastructure to absorb potentially millions of displaced Gazans.

Morocco has been cautious with past refugee waves, and such a move could inflame regional tensions.

The Middle East could erupt if Palestinians are forcibly removed from their homeland, with Hamas and other factions seeing this as a final act of ethnic cleansing.

Trump’s Vision: A Game-Changer or a Disaster?

While Trump presents this as a grand solution to Gaza’s instability, it risks setting off new conflicts across Africa and the Middle East. The idea of the U.S. seizing control of Gaza while reshuffling its population is a throwback to colonial-style power plays, which could backfire spectacularly.

If Trump moves forward with this radical plan, it will be one of the most aggressive geopolitical gambits in modern history, redefining not only the future of Gaza but also U.S. influence in Africa and the Arab world. The only question is: Who will dare to resist?

As M23 halts its advance, fears loom over the sustainability of peace in eastern Congo.

M23’s sudden ceasefire declaration in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has paused the bloodshed—for now. The rebel group, which has wreaked havoc across the region, claims it is stopping its military operations for humanitarian reasons. But in a battlefield dominated by over 100 armed factions, many see this move as a temporary maneuver rather than a lasting peace effort.

The streets of Goma are tense but active. Aid groups are racing against time to assist thousands wounded and displaced by the recent onslaught of violence between M23 and pro-government militias. Meanwhile, in South Kivu, M23 fighters remain stationed just kilometers from Bukavu, their guns silent—for now.

This ceasefire follows urgent diplomatic intervention from the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern Africa Regional Community (SADC), who are now scrambling to forge a political solution. With Kinshasa and Kigali locked in an escalating dispute, regional leaders are set to meet in Tanzania in an attempt to de-escalate the crisis.

But the bigger question remains—is this truce real or just another strategic pause? U.N. agencies report that 770 bodies littered the streets of Goma, with 2,880 more injured, underscoring the brutal toll of this conflict. The Red Cross is struggling to collect the dead, while humanitarian groups plead for the Goma airport to be reopened to deliver medical aid and evacuate the critically wounded.

The biggest threat to this ceasefire? The Wazalendo and other militias not bound by the truce. These groups reject M23’s deal, and without their inclusion in peace talks, the cycle of war in the mineral-rich killing fields of eastern Congo will rage on.

Meanwhile, DRC President Félix Tshisekedi, who snubbed last week’s EAC summit, is now expected to face off with Rwandan President Paul Kagame at the upcoming regional crisis meeting. With Rwanda’s support for M23 already verified by the U.N., the chances of a lasting peace remain dangerously slim.

For now, the guns are silent. But in a region where ceasefires are often just another phase in the war, the question isn’t if the fighting will resume—but when.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to meet U.S. President Donald Trump, the stage is set for another high-stakes negotiation in the Middle East. Drawing from his 2017 strategy, Trump appears ready to broaden the diplomatic canvas to force movement on the Gaza war, hostage deals, and regional realignments.

Trump’s Game Plan: A Bigger Deal for a Bigger Concession

Trump’s Middle East policy has always been defined by thinking beyond traditional frameworks. In 2017, he abandoned the two-state orthodoxy, signaling openness to alternatives. Now, he seems poised to redefine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by weaving it into a larger regional deal, which could involve Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf states.

The sticking point in the hostage deal negotiations remains Hamas’ demand for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war—something Netanyahu has categorically rejected. Trump’s approach? Offer Israel incentives to compromise by tying the deal to something far bigger: Saudi normalization, security guarantees, and population redistribution.

The “Refugee Relocation” Bargain

Trump’s most controversial proposal—convincing third countries to take in Gazan refugees—aims to ease pressure on Netanyahu’s fragile coalition. If Israel agrees to a ceasefire and limited withdrawal, Trump could leverage U.S. influence to pressure Gulf states into absorbing displaced Palestinians. This would not only weaken Hamas’ grip but also neutralize domestic Israeli opposition to a broader settlement.

Saudi Normalization: Netanyahu’s Escape Route?

Trump may also revive the Abraham Accords momentum, offering Saudi recognition of Israel as the ultimate prize—provided Israel makes limited concessions on Gaza’s governance. In 2020, Trump convinced Netanyahu to freeze West Bank annexation in exchange for peace deals with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. Could he pull off a similar trade-off in 2025?

Netanyahu’s Political Dilemma

Unlike 2017, Netanyahu now faces serious constraints:

• A weakened domestic position due to judicial conflicts and the ICC arrest warrant threat.
• A right-wing coalition that opposes any compromise with the Palestinians.
• Hamas’ continued presence in Gaza, which complicates any ceasefire agreement.

While Trump’s deal-making instincts suggest a grand bargain is on the table, Netanyahu’s ability to sell it at home is highly questionable. If he accepts too many concessions, his government could collapse—but if he rejects Trump’s expanded vision, he risks alienating his most powerful ally.

Ultimately, Trump is playing the long game, and if his strategy of “expanding the canvas” succeeds, the Middle East could see a historic power shift—one that reshapes alliances, redraws battle lines, and alters the fate of Gaza’s population. The question remains: Will Netanyahu gamble on a bigger deal, or will his political reality force him into a corner?