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.

Misinformation alert: Viral posts claim Trump cut US military aid to Egypt due to Ethiopia’s regional actions. In reality? The aid issue is tied to Trump’s Gaza relocation plan, not Horn politics. 

Why These False Claims About US Aid to Egypt Are Spreading — and Why They Matter

Viral social media posts in early March falsely claimed that the United States had cut military aid to Egypt due to the country’s alleged “destabilizing role” in the Horn of Africa—specifically relating to Ethiopia and the region’s tense power politics.

The reality? While tensions between Cairo and Addis Ababa over the Nile and the GERD project remain high—and were further inflamed after Egypt sent military equipment to Somalia in response to Ethiopia’s controversial MoU with Somaliland—the U.S. has not tied military aid to these developments.

Instead, any potential aid reductions to Egypt are more plausibly linked to Trump’s Gaza relocation plan, which Egypt has publicly opposed. That plan—to relocate displaced Palestinians into neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan—has sparked regional outrage and new fault lines in U.S. alliances.

The U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa debunked the viral claims, saying there’s been no official move to cut Egypt’s aid over Horn politics. Aid to Egypt remains tied largely to the 1979 Camp David Accords, and while temporary holds have happened due to human rights concerns, the GERD has not (yet) altered the calculus in Washington.

So Why Is This Misinformation Spreading?

Regional anxiety: With Egypt and Ethiopia at odds, and Somalia-Somaliland-Ethiopia relations in crisis, social media is primed for rumors that reinforce nationalistic narratives.

Distrust of U.S. intentions: Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy—cutting aid, pushing radical plans—makes even far-fetched rumors believable to some.

Information vacuums: Lack of public clarity around shifting U.S. positions in East Africa leaves space for speculation and disinformation.

Bottom Line:

While a real debate over U.S. military aid is happening, especially due to Gaza relocation tensions, it’s not because of Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa. But in a region as politically charged as this, every rumor feels like a warning shot.

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?

“All I want is for Elon to be taken down.” — Rep. Jasmine Crockett sparks firestorm.
Pam Bondi responds with legal threats. Protests loom March 29.

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a stern warning Sunday to Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, urging her to “tread very carefully” following Crockett’s remarks supporting the “Tesla Takedown” protest movement targeting Elon Musk.

Crockett, who serves on the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) Oversight Committee, sparked controversy last week during a virtual rally where she said, “All I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down.” She emphasized that her calls for action were nonviolent and rooted in economic pressure.

The “Tesla Takedown” movement is planning 500 demonstrations across the U.S. on March 29, demanding accountability from Musk over his deepening ties to the Trump administration and alleged attempts to gut federal oversight. Protesters are urging mass boycotts and divestment from Tesla.

Bondi, appearing on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, said Crockett’s comments could incite escalation. “She is an elected public official, so she needs to tread very carefully,” Bondi said. “Nothing will happen to Elon Musk, and we’re going to fight to protect all Tesla owners throughout this country.”

DOJ Charges Spark More Controversy

Bondi’s remarks came days after the Justice Department announced charges against three individuals accused of vandalizing Tesla properties, which Bondi labeled “domestic terrorism.” The protests — some of which have turned destructive — have included graffiti, tire slashings, and disrupted operations at several Tesla service centers.

“We are not coming off these charges,” Bondi said. “We are looking at everything, especially if this is a concerted effort.”

While Crockett has not been linked to any unlawful activity, Bondi’s comments are part of a growing Republican push to frame the Tesla protests as not only economically damaging but potentially criminal. It also reflects heightened sensitivities around Musk’s political alliances and expanding influence in Trump’s federal restructuring plans.

As protests approach and rhetoric intensifies, observers note a deepening fault line between progressive lawmakers and the pro-Musk wing of the GOP — with Tesla increasingly becoming a symbol of both economic power and political polarization.

Ethiopia wants a seaport. Egypt & Eritrea just sent a diplomatic NO. Red Sea tensions escalate as Cairo says only coastal states should lead security.

Cairo and Asmara are drawing closer again. In a high-level meeting on Sunday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi received Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh to discuss rising tensions across the Horn of Africa, with a clear focus on countering Ethiopia’s growing assertiveness—particularly over Red Sea access.

Officially, the meeting addressed a range of issues: regional stability, Red Sea governance, support for Somalia, and Sudan’s worsening crisis. But behind the formal language lies a sharpened diplomatic alignment between two coastal states increasingly wary of Ethiopia’s intentions.

Egypt’s top intelligence chief Hassan Rashad and newly appointed Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty were both present, signaling the strategic weight Cairo assigns to these talks. Saleh, meanwhile, delivered personal greetings from Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki—met with warm reciprocity from Al-Sisi, who reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to deepening ties across all sectors.

According to Egyptian spokesperson Ambassador Mohamed El-Shennawy, the leaders discussed advancing regional cooperation, including the tripartite coordination mechanism with Somalia. Both countries underscored support for Somalia’s sovereignty and its battle against terrorism—a likely nod to shared concerns over Ethiopia’s military maneuvers and regional ambitions.

The core message from Cairo and Asmara was clear: when it comes to the Red Sea, coastal states must lead. Egypt and Eritrea jointly rejected the idea of non-coastal states—read: Ethiopia—gaining influence in Red Sea maritime security. It’s a position grounded in both geography and politics, but it’s also a veiled warning to Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia’s renewed push for sea access has stirred regional unease. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s previous assertion that a seaport was “an existential issue” triggered alarm bells not just in Eritrea, but in capitals across the region. Though Abiy has since walked back the rhetoric—saying he prefers diplomacy and mutual benefit—few believe Addis has shelved its ambitions.

For Eritrea, which shares a long, fragile border with Ethiopia and fought a bitter war with it between 1998 and 2000, such aspirations are more than academic. Ethiopia’s overtures toward Somaliland and Djibouti are being watched closely in Asmara, which sees any compromise of its own Red Sea sovereignty as unacceptable. Egypt shares that view, albeit for different reasons.

Cairo’s Red Sea calculus is shaped by its own maritime security needs and rivalry with Ethiopia over the Nile. With the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) still unresolved, Egypt views Ethiopia’s rise as a regional power with growing skepticism. An Ethiopia with Red Sea access—whether via Somaliland, Djibouti, or even leased ports—would complicate Egypt’s strategic reach.

Somalia, too, looms large in these discussions. Egypt and Eritrea’s commitment to Somalia’s territorial integrity could be interpreted as a signal against Ethiopia’s potential alignment with Somaliland, which claims independence and has attracted growing foreign interest. By affirming support for Mogadishu, Egypt and Eritrea are likely aiming to undercut Ethiopia’s alternative port strategies.

The situation in Sudan adds further urgency. Both Egypt and Eritrea have long borders with Sudan and fear its collapse could create a vacuum for extremist groups or expand Ethiopia’s influence through proxies. Coordinated policy toward Sudan is now a pillar of their regional engagement.

As Ethiopia navigates its landlocked reality, Cairo and Asmara are sending coordinated warnings: the Red Sea is not up for negotiation. The diplomatic signals from this meeting suggest that the Red Sea may soon become a more formalized axis of regional cooperation—possibly at Ethiopia’s exclusion.

As diseases spike from unsafe beverages flooding our markets, our local champion—Somaliland Beverage Industries—faces unfair competition. This isn’t just bad trade policy. It’s a national failure.

Somalilanders are facing a crisis. Substandard beverages from outside our borders are making people sick—and our own companies like SBI are being pushed out. It’s time to ask: Who is protecting the people?

The time has come for Somaliland’s government to answer the pressing question plaguing our nation: why are unsafe, adulterated beverages flooding our markets, leading to a surge in diseases previously unknown in our land? This is not just a matter of poor health; it is a crisis that threatens the future of our people and our sovereignty. The ongoing importation of these harmful beverages must be addressed without delay, and the government must take immediate steps to protect our local industries, particularly Somaliland Beverage Industries (SBI)—a beacon of local investment and prosperity.

A Public Health Crisis: Unseen Diseases and Unsafe Products

Recent reports have highlighted a disturbing increase in diseases linked to imported beverages that do not hold up to the standards of quality we expect. Health experts are sounding the alarm, warning us that beverages with questionable ingredients and expiration dates are increasingly saturating our markets. The consequences are dire: with rising cases of non-communicable diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular issues, and cancers attributed to sugary, frequently expired products, it is evident that imported beverages are playing a significant role in this public health crisis.

The Somaliland constitution explicitly protects “Made in Somaliland” products, and by doing so, recognizes the value of our own industry. So why is the government allowing foreign beverages from countries like Yemen and Ethiopia to flood in through dubious channels, effectively undermining local businesses while exposing our population to hazardous products? The law is clear, yet enforcement seems to be lacking.

Discrimination Against Somaliland Beverage Industries

What’s particularly disheartening is the treatment of Somaliland Beverage Industries, a company founded by billionaire Ahmed Osman Guelleh in 2010 and the largest beverage corporation in Somaliland. SBI not only produces quality drinks that meet our standards, but it also uplifts the local economy by creating jobs and driving innovation. Yet, while other businesses blatantly violate trade regulations without consequence, SBI is systematically crippled by unfair competition from imported beverages.

This begs the question: why are we prioritizing foreign companies over our own? Other firms operating in Somaliland, despite being owned by outside interests, thrive under the protection of the local government. Why, then, does SBI face barriers that threaten its survival? The lack of government support for our national company is detrimental to the very fabric of our economy.

Exploiting Loopholes: An Industry Under Siege

The tremendous influx of substandard beverages leveraging loopholes in the taxation system further exacerbates this crisis. The government remains silent while low-quality imports, often expired, find their way into our markets, competing unfairly against quality products made by Somalilanders for Somalilanders. It is imperative to remember that our country adopted national trade requirements to protect local goods. It’s time our government enforced these laws with the vigor they deserve.

Moreover, there is a clear correlation between the increase in imported sugary beverages and a spike in non-communicable diseases among our residents. This health crisis cannot be ignored any longer. The heavy taxation of non-essential commodities, including imported beverages, skin whitening creams, cigarettes, and chat, should be implemented as part of a comprehensive health policy. By doing so, we will not only protect our citizens but also fortify the local economy.

The Government Must Act; We Deserve Better

The current trajectory of our import policies and health standards is unsustainable. Failure to act on this issue will lead to an irreversible public health crisis, further entrenching Somaliland’s reliance on foreign entities while stifling our local industries. Somalilanders—our children, our families—deserve better than to be fed poison in the form of inferior beverages.

It is time for the Somaliland government to acknowledge these pressing issues and take decisive action. This includes:

Regulating and Monitoring Imports: Implement stricter guidelines on the importation of beverages to ensure products meet safety standards.

Supporting Local Industries: Give more support and resources to Somaliland Beverage Industries and other local businesses, fostering a spirit of national pride and economic resilience.

Implementing Smart Taxation Policies: Introduce heavy taxes on unhealthy imported goods to discourage consumption and protect public health.

Campaign for Public Awareness: Educate the public about the dangers of consuming these products and promote the benefits of local alternatives.

Strengthen Health Systems: Invest in healthcare systems to handle the increase in diseases linked to these products and ensure that health experts are empowered to make recommendations that serve the public good.

The issue at hand is about more than just beverages; it is about the wind of change that must blow through the halls of our government. Somaliland can no longer allow negligence regarding health and local economic survival. We must demand that our leaders prioritize the safety of our citizens and the future of our homegrown industries.

How Toxic Imports Are Fueling Disease and Undermining Local Industry

Somaliland’s Crackdown: Yemeni Nationals Arrested for Repackaging Expired Medicine