US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has executed targeted strikes against ISIS positions in Somalia’s Puntland region, southeast of Bosaso. Conducted in coordination with Somalia’s government, this operation highlights the escalating threat ISIS poses to American forces and broader regional stability.

The March 29 strikes, as detailed in AFRICOM’s official statement, targeted militant positions deemed threatening to US military personnel and interests in the strategically critical Horn of Africa. While the US provided limited operational details, the timing and location underscore significant geopolitical maneuvers unfolding in the region.

Notably, these airstrikes occur just one day after a controversial diplomatic offer from Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to President Donald Trump was leaked. Mohamud proposed granting the US “exclusive operational control” over strategic assets—including Bosaso port and airbase and Somaliland’s Berbera port—in a desperate bid to bolster US involvement and counteract regional instability.

However, this diplomatic overture sparked immediate controversy, especially since these assets remain outside Mogadishu’s control. The recent US military actions, striking precisely near these contested sites, signify a robust American posture in response to ISIS threats while simultaneously underscoring the complex interplay between US strategic interests and Somalia’s fragile sovereignty.

Washington’s strikes and Somalia’s provocative diplomatic offers reveal the growing urgency in controlling critical Horn of Africa maritime routes against terrorist threats and international rivals.

Will intensified US military actions stabilize Somalia, or could they further inflame regional tensions, reshaping the strategic balance in this geopolitically sensitive corridor?

Hundreds of thousands of furious protesters poured into the streets of Istanbul on Saturday, escalating a wave of demonstrations triggered by the arrest and imprisonment of the city’s charismatic former mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu. The dramatic protests, among the largest seen in Turkiye in recent years, underline growing tensions over the state of democracy and judicial independence under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Imamoglu, considered Erdogan’s most formidable political rival, was arrested on corruption charges on March 23 after initial accusations of terrorism were dismissed by the courts. His imprisonment sparked immediate nationwide outrage, with protesters branding his arrest as politically motivated.

In a powerful message read aloud during the massive rally, Imamoglu declared defiantly: “I have no fear because the nation is united against the oppressor. They can jail me, they can put me on trial, but the people will crush their plots.”

The government continues to deny claims of political manipulation, insisting the judiciary remains independent. Erdogan has fiercely condemned the protests, branding demonstrators as threats to national stability. “Those who spread terror have nowhere to go,” Erdogan warned, calling the demonstrations a “dead end.”

Protesters passionately disagree, with many voicing fears about the erosion of freedoms and the future of democracy. One demonstrator told reporters, “I’m 25 and I’ve only ever known one government—I want change.” Another stated bluntly, “The judiciary is not independent.”

Ozgur Ozel, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), criticized the aggressive police response that has seen nearly 1,900 people detained since Imamoglu’s arrest. “They’ve detained hundreds, arrested thousands—trying to intimidate and terrify us into silence.”

Despite severe crackdowns, the scale of these protests sends a strong message: many Turks are unwilling to accept the suppression of political rivals and the erosion of their democratic rights.

Turkiye stands at a crossroads, facing a crucial test of its democratic resilience.

Poland has made an explosive declaration, announcing a dramatic military buildup amid mounting fears of a Russian invasion. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ambitious plan aims to prepare every adult male in the country for potential conflict, transforming Polish society into a battle-ready state virtually overnight.

In a provocative move, Tusk has declared that Poland will more than double its military force to an astonishing half-million troops and rapidly train millions of reservists. “We must be ready,” he warned, highlighting Poland’s vulnerable geographic position, sandwiched between Russia and its close ally Belarus.

The urgency behind Poland’s militarization underscores its deep historical distrust of Moscow—a sentiment intensified by Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. With Warsaw already spending 4.7% of its GDP—the highest defense budget within NATO—and rapidly acquiring advanced weaponry, the message is crystal clear: Poland is preparing to defend itself aggressively.

The ambitious training program seeks to rapidly equip civilians with combat skills, offering everything from short-term crash courses in basic military tactics and civil defense to comprehensive month-long training programs. Polish authorities plan to train at least 100,000 people by 2026, prioritizing younger, physically capable reservists.

But critics warn Poland’s preparation might still be insufficient, arguing that 100,000 reservists per year isn’t nearly enough. Retired military generals suggest bringing back compulsory conscription immediately, pointing to Russia’s substantial military build-up near NATO borders as evidence of imminent danger.

Simultaneously, Polish citizens’ reactions are fiercely divided. While many express readiness and eagerness to defend their homeland against perceived Russian aggression, fueled by visceral hatred towards Russian President Vladimir Putin, others question whether the country truly deserves their sacrifice, citing socio-economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and steep mortgage rates.

Meanwhile, Tusk’s administration is rolling out incentives to attract citizens into military training programs, offering practical civilian benefits such as cybersecurity and medical training, alongside financial incentives and tax breaks.

With Poland firmly stepping onto a war footing, waryatv.com readers must ask: Is this rapid militarization a prudent precaution or a dangerous provocation? Only time—and Russia’s next move—will tell.

Boualem Sansal sentenced to five years under anti-terrorism laws after questioning Algeria-Morocco borders, drawing fierce criticism from France.

Renowned French-Algerian writer Boualem Sansal has been sentenced to five years in prison by an Algerian court under contentious “anti-terrorism” laws, further inflaming diplomatic tensions between Algeria and France. Sansal, an outspoken critic of the Algerian government, was charged with “undermining national unity” after remarks he made questioning colonial-era border divisions with regional rival Morocco.

The verdict, delivered on Thursday in Dar El Beida near Algiers, stemmed from an interview Sansal gave to French far-right outlet Frontieres last October. Sansal argued that France had unfairly redrawn Algeria’s borders during colonial times, incorporating Moroccan territory—remarks seen as incendiary by Algerian authorities.

French President Emmanuel Macron swiftly condemned the decision, publicly appealing to Algeria’s sense of “good sense and humanity,” citing Sansal’s reported battle with cancer. The imprisonment of the celebrated author, winner of the 2011 Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, has added fuel to already strained Franco-Algerian relations, following France’s recent diplomatic shift to support Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Sansal, who represented himself in court, denied that his comments violated Algerian law or intended harm to national unity. Legal experts suggest his sentence, half of what prosecutors initially sought, still reflects severe judicial overreach and may serve as political leverage amid Algeria’s diplomatic feud with France.

Human rights advocates warn that Algeria continues to misuse stringent anti-terrorism laws to silence critical voices, raising fears over the broader implications for freedom of speech. As international pressure mounts, speculation grows that Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune could grant Sansal a presidential pardon during an upcoming national holiday, attempting to defuse escalating tensions with Paris.

Rising military tensions and unresolved grievances push Ethiopia and Eritrea closer to renewed conflict in the Horn of Africa.

Less than seven years after peace was declared, Ethiopia and Eritrea appear to be on a dangerous collision course once again. Rising military mobilizations, inflamed rhetoric, and historical grievances have raised fears that these longtime adversaries could soon reignite conflict, destabilizing an already fragile Horn of Africa.

Tensions flared in recent months as Eritrea reportedly ramped up military conscription and Ethiopia deployed troops along its northern border. Ethiopian Airlines, a symbolic link reopened during the 2018 peace deal, abruptly suspended flights after Eritrea froze its bank accounts without explanation—a troubling diplomatic signal.

Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, insists that his country’s quest for maritime access—cut off after Eritrea’s independence—is peaceful. Yet, Eritrean officials, including Foreign Minister Osman Saleh, condemn Ethiopia’s ambitions as “misguided” and provocative. Addis Ababa’s persistent talk of regaining sea access, particularly the strategic port city of Assab, fuels mistrust in Asmara.

Central to the escalating tensions is Ethiopia’s embattled Tigray region, recently torn apart by civil war. Although Eritrea joined Ethiopia against Tigray’s rebel TPLF, the subsequent peace negotiations excluded Asmara, stoking resentment. The situation worsened when a splinter faction of TPLF seized key Tigrayan cities and was accused of collaborating covertly with Eritrea—charges that Eritrea vehemently denies.

The threat of renewed war has prompted urgent calls from international observers, former envoys, and regional bodies like the African Union, warning that current hostilities represent “dry tinder waiting for a match.” Amid this tense environment, residents of Tigray queue desperately at banks, seeking cash to flee what many fear is an inevitable conflict.

Ethiopia’s diplomatic friction extends further, angering Somalia over a separate port deal with Somaliland, while Eritrea aligns with Ethiopia’s rivals, Somalia and Egypt, increasing regional polarization.

As both Ethiopia and Eritrea edge closer to confrontation, only robust international mediation can defuse the ticking time bomb threatening to plunge the Horn of Africa into another catastrophic war.

Russian leader suggests placing Ukraine under temporary UN-led administration with involvement from North Korea and BRICS countries.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has outlined a provocative and controversial peace proposal aimed at ending the ongoing three-year war in Ukraine, calling for Ukraine’s placement under a “temporary administration” overseen by the United Nations, with mediation from North Korea and BRICS countries, including China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.

Speaking to servicemen in Russia’s northern port city of Murmansk, Putin suggested the establishment of an international interim government to oversee Ukraine until new elections could establish a “capable and trusted” administration. Under this arrangement, Ukraine would be guided toward signing key peace accords with Moscow.

Yet, Putin’s call to involve North Korea—widely viewed as a rogue state by Western powers—has triggered immediate skepticism and controversy. His emphasis on participation from BRICS nations, many of whom have maintained neutrality or hesitancy regarding Russia’s invasion, signals Moscow’s attempt to reshape diplomatic alliances and legitimize its geopolitical strategy in Ukraine.

“We support resolving these issues peacefully,” Putin claimed, but insisted that “original causes” of the war must first be addressed—a reference often made by Moscow to justify its February 2022 invasion.

Critics argue Putin’s peace plan is a thinly-veiled attempt to impose Russia’s will through international channels, particularly by involving allies known for their alignment or neutrality toward Moscow’s actions. With North Korea’s inclusion, the proposal becomes politically charged, undermining its acceptance by Western nations and Ukraine itself.

This bold move indicates Russia’s ongoing effort to realign international diplomacy around its war objectives, rather than signaling genuine readiness for a negotiated settlement that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Signal offers strong encryption but isn’t foolproof—here’s what to consider when choosing a secure messaging app. 

When White House officials reportedly discussed sensitive Yemen attack plans on the messaging app Signal, it triggered widespread concerns about national security—and raised critical questions about whether Signal is truly secure enough for sensitive communications.

Signal has become popular among government officials, journalists, and activists due to its robust end-to-end encryption, meaning not even Signal itself can read intercepted messages. But encryption alone isn’t enough—particularly when operational security and recordkeeping requirements are involved.

Signal Fallout: Trump Defends Waltz, But Fallout Spreads Beyond One Chat Thread

As a cybersecurity professional with decades of experience, I caution that Signal isn’t the solution for top-secret communications. Instead, users must consider multiple factors beyond encryption:

First, standard messaging protocols like SMS lack encryption altogether. Carriers or authorities can easily access messages and metadata (sender, recipient, timestamps).

Apps like Apple’s iMessage and Google Messages offer end-to-end encryption but limit privacy due to metadata access, which companies could share with governments.

Popular messaging services like WhatsApp, owned by Meta, also offer cross-platform end-to-end encryption but similarly provide metadata access to their parent companies.

For greater privacy, independent apps such as Signal, Telegram, Session, and Threema offer enhanced features: disappearing messages, open-source code transparency, decentralized servers, and minimal user-data collection.

However, even secure apps have vulnerabilities—human errors. Ukrainian troops, for instance, were tricked by Russian operatives into handing over Signal access, and U.S. officials mistakenly added the wrong people into sensitive group chats.

No single messaging app provides absolute security, but by carefully weighing encryption, metadata handling, and usability, you can significantly enhance your personal privacy. Signal might not be suitable for top-secret communications, but it remains a strong choice for everyday secure messaging—provided users understand its limitations.

Tamir Pardo condemns Israel’s return to war, warns hostages now face deadly consequences. 

Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo issued a scathing rebuke on Thursday, declaring Israel’s recent decision to resume war against Hamas has effectively opened the “gates of hell,” particularly endangering the 59 Israeli hostages still held captive by the terror group.

Speaking at the Meir Dagan Conference at Netanya Academic College, Pardo sharply criticized the Netanyahu government’s choice to continue military operations, highlighting its perilous consequences: “The gates of hell might have opened on the Gazans, but for sure they have opened on the 59 hostages, and there is no savior.”

Pardo emphasized that this government’s actions have dangerously compromised both human lives and national security. He went further, asserting that internal threats—specifically the controversial judicial overhaul—present a far graver danger to Israel’s democracy and Zionist foundations than even the combined military threats from external enemies such as Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthis.

At the same event, former IDF Air Force Chief Eliezer Shkedy provided insights into efforts to integrate the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community into the military. Shkedy projected a fundamental shift by 2030, stating that the IDF is already prepared to draft all eligible individuals by 2026, marking a significant cultural and operational shift within Israel’s defense forces.

Yet, overshadowing these domestic debates remains the stark reality underscored by Pardo: Israel’s resumed offensive against Hamas has placed hostages in a perilous position, with little hope of rescue, raising profound ethical and strategic questions about the government’s ongoing tactics in Gaza.