How Saudi Arabia’s Investment Could Redefine the Berbera Port  and Horn of Africa’s Geopolitical Landscape.

Saudi Arabia is setting the stage for a profound strategic shift in the Horn of Africa through its planned multi-billion-dollar investment in Eritrea’s Assab port. This move not only positions Riyadh as a key player in the region but also challenges the existing dominance of other global powers such as the UAE, Turkey, and China within the crucial Red Sea trade corridor.

The investment in Assab port could significantly disrupt Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions. Given Ethiopia’s landlocked status, its government under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has long coveted access to the sea, viewing Eritrea’s ports as vital gateways. Secret reports suggest that Ethiopia might even consider military action to secure such access. However, Saudi Arabia’s involvement could deter such aspirations by enhancing Eritrea’s defensive capabilities and economic stability, making any aggressive move by Ethiopia both costly and politically untenable.

For Eritrea, aligning with Saudi Arabia could serve as a protective strategy against Ethiopian military ambitions, ensuring that its sovereignty over Assab remains unchallenged. This partnership would not only fortify Eritrea’s position but could also shift the regional power dynamics, potentially neutralizing Ethiopia’s influence over the Red Sea access points.

The potential Saudi investment in Assab port signifies more than just economic development; it reflects a strategic realignment in the Horn of Africa’s geopolitics. This realignment underscores a growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, aimed at safeguarding their interests along one of the world’s most vital maritime routes. Such a partnership could significantly alter regional power balances, offering Eritrea the backing needed to withstand Ethiopian pressures and enhancing Saudi influence in African geopolitics.

Furthermore, the move could recalibrate alliances and provoke reevaluations of strategic priorities among other regional players, including the UAE, Turkey, and China, all of whom have vested interests in the region’s maritime corridors. Each nation has been working to extend its influence through infrastructure investments and diplomatic engagements, and Riyadh’s new focus on Assab could prompt a rethinking of their strategies in response to the shifting sands of alliance and power.

For Somaliland, the developments surrounding Assab could have mixed implications. On one hand, a stronger Assab might divert some attention and resources away from Somaliland’s Berbera port, which has been backed by UAE investments. On the other hand, the geopolitical tensions and the strengthening of Assab could validate the strategic importance of having multiple allied ports along the Red Sea, potentially increasing the overall security and economic activity in the region.

The MOU signed between Somaliland and Ethiopia, which envisaged mutual recognition and economic cooperation, might also come under strain. Ethiopia’s potential isolation in the Red Sea arena could lead to a reevaluation of its foreign policy, especially towards its agreements with Somaliland.

Inconclusion, the anticipated Saudi investment in Assab is more than an economic venture; it is a strategic maneuver that could redefine regional alignments and power dynamics in the Horn of Africa. As the Red Sea becomes an increasingly contested geopolitical space, the actions of Saudi Arabia, coupled with the responses of other regional and global powers, will undoubtedly influence the future political landscape of this critical region.

Arab nations have united behind a $53 billion plan aimed at the comprehensive reconstruction of Gaza under the stewardship of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The plan, spearheaded by Egypt, received broad support at the Arab League summit in Cairo, highlighting a collective regional effort to restore and develop the war-torn area while promoting Palestinian statehood.

The initiative, endorsed on Tuesday, proposes rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure and economy, devastated by the prolonged 15-month conflict with Israel. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who announced the plan’s endorsement, framed it as an alternative to Trump’s vision, emphasizing the Arab world’s commitment to Palestinian governance and independence.

The summit, which convened a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his support for Trump’s plan, focused on outlining a “comprehensive Arab plan” for Gaza. Key aspects of the proposal include:

Administration and Governance: The plan supports the formation of a Gaza administration committee under the PA, aiming to foster stability and governance.

Funding and International Support: A trust will be established to manage and direct funds from global donors and financial institutions for reconstruction projects.

Political Track: The initiative also involves a political component, seeking to advance the cause of Palestinian statehood, which faces opposition from Israeli leaders.

Hamas has expressed support for the Arab summit’s proposals, particularly the establishment of a committee to manage reconstruction and governance efforts. This endorsement from Hamas indicates a willingness to collaborate on rebuilding efforts despite the group’s historical tensions with the PA.

Contrasting sharply with the Arab plan, President Trump’s proposal involves the U.S. taking control of the Gaza Strip to convert it into a luxury destination, dubbed the “Riviera of the Middle East.” This plan has been met with widespread criticism and has sparked global controversy, especially due to its suggestion that Palestinian residents relocate to neighboring countries like Egypt or Jordan.

The starkly different visions for Gaza’s future presented by Trump and the Arab League highlight ongoing geopolitical tensions in the region. The Arab plan’s focus on rehabilitation and political sovereignty reflects a broader regional effort to assert Arab leadership in Middle Eastern affairs, particularly concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As international discussions continue, the effectiveness of the Arab initiative will depend largely on global support and the cooperation of key stakeholders, including Israel and the international community. The coming months will be critical in determining whether the Arab world can successfully challenge Trump’s controversial plans and effectively aid Gaza’s path to recovery and political stability.

The U.S. is intensifying its campaign to squeeze Iran, reimposing “maximum pressure” with a new round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil exports. This move marks a fresh attempt by the Trump administration to tackle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it’s far from a straightforward operation. On February 24, 2025, the U.S. sanctioned 16 entities and vessels tied to Iran’s oil industry, underscoring the global web that keeps Tehran’s revenue flowing. From oil brokers in the UAE to tanker operators in China, the sanctions stretch far beyond Iran’s borders, demonstrating the complexity of targeting Iran’s economic lifeline.

But, as always, there are loopholes. Ships can turn off transponders and engage in ship-to-ship transfers, making enforcement an uphill battle. Iran has adapted to sanctions over the years, becoming adept at sidestepping restrictions. Even with this new initiative, it remains a daunting task for the U.S. to choke off Iran’s oil exports entirely, especially with countries like China, India, and the UAE reluctant to join the confrontation.

The Trump administration, while aiming for an agreement, is prepared to up the ante if necessary. Yet, the sanctions alone might not be enough to curb Iran’s ambitions. It’s a high-stakes game of cat and mouse on the global stage, with every move scrutinized for signs of tension or cooperation, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Israel and Hamas continue their hostage swap under a tense ceasefire, with three Israeli hostages freed in exchange for 369 Palestinian prisoners. Uncertainty looms over the truce’s future.

The tense ceasefire between Israel and Hamas remains intact—for now. In a high-stakes exchange, Hamas released three Israeli hostages on Saturday, handing them over to the Red Cross in Khan Younis before Israeli forces secured them. In return, Israel freed 369 Palestinian prisoners, welcomed in Ramallah with national flags and cheering crowds. This marks the sixth such exchange under the fragile truce agreement brokered in January.

Among the released were Israeli-American Sagui Dekel Chen, Israeli-Russian Sasha Troufanov, and Israeli-Argentinian Iair Horn—all from Kibbutz Nir Oz, one of the hardest-hit communities in Hamas’s October 7 attack. While families rejoiced at their return, concerns grow over the well-being of those still held captive. The last batch of hostages arrived home looking emaciated, raising alarms about conditions in Hamas custody.

Tensions spiked earlier in the week as Hamas threatened to halt releases, accusing Israel of ceasefire violations through continued airstrikes and aid blockades. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed these claims, warning that military operations would resume if hostages were not released by Saturday noon. The ultimatum appears to have worked, but the situation remains volatile.

In New York, the U.N. Secretary-General called for a permanent ceasefire, citing the urgent need for humanitarian relief, as over 600 aid trucks entered Gaza. Meanwhile, Arab nations rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal for a forced Palestinian displacement, denouncing it as a violation of international law.

Despite Hamas’s insistence on upholding the truce, the road ahead is uncertain. With the ceasefire’s first phase set to last six weeks, Israel demands the release of more captives, while Hamas maneuvers for leverage. Any misstep could shatter the deal, plunging the region back into full-scale conflict.

Israel rejects France’s plan to replace IDF forces with UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, prolonging its military presence in five key locations amid tensions with Hezbollah.

Israel has flatly rejected a French-backed plan to replace IDF forces with United Nations peacekeepers, choosing instead to maintain a prolonged military presence in five critical positions inside southern Lebanon. The proposal, which included French troops under UNIFIL’s mandate, was intended to facilitate Israel’s withdrawal under a ceasefire deal brokered by Washington in November.

With Hezbollah still entrenched in the region, Israel is unwilling to cede strategic positions without ironclad security guarantees. The original withdrawal deadline of January 26 was already pushed to February 18, but Israeli officials are now requesting an additional 10-day extension, signaling deep skepticism about Lebanese and UN forces securing the area.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, speaking after a Paris conference on Syria, insisted that France’s plan meets Israel’s security needs. “It is now up to us to convince the Israelis that this solution allows a complete and final withdrawal,” Barrot said. But Tel Aviv remains unconvinced, wary of repeating past mistakes where UNIFIL forces failed to prevent Hezbollah’s expansion.

US officials appear to be backing Israel’s cautious approach. Reports suggest Washington has authorized a “long-term” Israeli presence in the area, implicitly recognizing the IDF’s strategic necessity in countering Hezbollah. The delay underscores the broader regional chessboard—any premature withdrawal could embolden Iran-backed forces and shift the balance of power along the northern border.

As diplomatic maneuvering continues, Israel’s refusal to abandon its positions sets the stage for further clashes. Hezbollah’s next move will determine whether this standoff leads to another escalation or forces a new security realignment on Israel’s terms.

Amid regional instability, Syria’s first EU visit since Assad’s fall signals a push for economic aid and political stability.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shibani is making history with his first European Union visit, attending a Paris conference aimed at securing a smooth transition for the war-torn nation. Days after President Emmanuel Macron extended an invitation to Syria’s new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, global powers are stepping in to prevent further destabilization.

The high-stakes meeting brings together Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Lebanon, and key Western allies to coordinate aid, discuss transitional justice, and weigh potential sanctions relief. However, the United States is keeping its involvement at a minimum, raising questions about Washington’s long-term stance on Syria’s future.

With the humanitarian crisis worsening—especially in the northeast due to U.S. aid cuts—donor nations are assessing how to maintain stability without emboldening rival factions. Tensions between Turkey and Syria over Kurdish forces loom large, with Ankara vowing to eradicate “terrorist elements” from the region.

While the EU is considering easing sanctions, internal divisions—particularly from Cyprus and Greece over maritime disputes—could stall progress. Yet, with the region in flux and Western influence waning, Syria’s diplomatic reintegration may be inevitable.

As global players recalibrate their Syria strategy, one question remains: Can this fragile transition withstand both internal and external pressures?

Cairo warns of consequences if Trump follows through on halting American aid over Gaza refugee resettlement.

The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty is now on shaky ground. Cairo has issued a stark warning that if U.S. President Donald Trump makes good on his threat to cut aid over Egypt’s refusal to accept displaced Palestinians from Gaza, the decades-old peace deal with Israel could be in jeopardy.

The fallout is already escalating. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has indefinitely suspended his meeting with Trump amid what is now the worst U.S.-Egypt diplomatic crisis in 30 years. Trump’s attempt to pressure Egypt and Jordan into taking in Palestinian refugees as part of his controversial Gaza reconstruction plan has backfired, strengthening Arab resistance rather than forcing compliance.

Egypt, the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid, has already begun preparing emergency measures to counteract the potential financial shock of losing its $2.1 billion annual package. Meanwhile, Jordan—another key U.S. ally and major aid recipient—is openly defying Washington’s demands. King Abdullah II has secured a strategic partnership with the European Union and continues to rally regional opposition to any forced Palestinian displacement.

Trump’s approach risks unraveling longstanding Middle Eastern alliances. Egypt and Jordan remain vital partners in regional stability, but their patience is wearing thin. If the U.S. withdraws aid, it could push Cairo and Amman toward alternative partnerships—potentially with adversaries of Israel and the West.

For Israel, the silence is deafening. While Netanyahu welcomes Trump’s vision, he risks destabilizing Israel’s two closest Arab allies. If Egypt follows through on its threat to reconsider its peace treaty, the entire regional security structure could be upended, with severe implications for Israel’s security and U.S. influence in the region.

Will Trump push forward with his ultimatum, or will Washington backtrack to prevent an irreversible geopolitical shift?

Trump Declares U.S. Control Over Gaza, Plans to Transform It into “Middle East Riviera”

Donald Trump just dropped a geopolitical bombshell—the U.S. will take ownership of Gaza. No half-measures, no diplomacy games. Standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump declared that Washington is moving beyond relocation plans and will directly control the war-ravaged territory, promising a future where Gaza is transformed into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

This is more than just another bold statement from Trump—it’s a seismic shift in Middle Eastern power dynamics. The U.S. has historically played kingmaker in the region, but outright ownership of Gaza? That’s next-level empire-building. Trump envisions a full-scale economic development project, claiming that “everybody loves the idea” of the U.S. taking charge, developing infrastructure, and creating jobs. Forcing Hamas into irrelevance, breaking Palestinian resistance, and cementing Israel’s regional dominance—that’s the endgame.

Trump didn’t rule out U.S. military deployment to enforce this vision. “If it’s necessary, we’ll do that,” he said, reinforcing his long-held belief in force over negotiation. This move directly challenges the Arab League, the Palestinian Authority, and even U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, who previously rejected Trump’s relocation plan for Gazans. But for Trump, diplomacy is dead—power is seized, not negotiated.

The timing couldn’t be more strategic. As Israel weighs its next steps against Hamas, Trump is simultaneously escalating his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, ordering aides to strangle Tehran’s oil exports and cripple its nuclear ambitions. The message is clear: Iran and its proxies—like Hamas and Hezbollah—will be crushed, and the U.S.-Israel alliance will dominate.

Trump’s vision for Gaza is nothing short of an American outpost in the Middle East, a permanent bastion of U.S. influence. Whether the world likes it or not, Gaza is now on Trump’s chessboard, and he’s making moves that could redraw the entire region’s future.