As Al-Shabaab steps up attacks, the UN seeks solutions to Somalia’s federal tensions and regional instability.

The United Nations Security Council is preparing to confront the uncomfortable truth about Somalia: the country’s fragile political order is fracturing, and Al-Shabaab is exploiting the chaos with lethal precision. As James Swan prepares to brief the Council, what’s at stake is more than just procedural governance — it’s the very future of a unified Somali state.

Clan rivalries, mistrust between the federal government and regional states, and a stalled constitution are creating the perfect vacuum for the al-Qaeda-linked terror group to reassert control. Al-Shabaab, designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., UN, EU, and African Union, has long capitalized on Somali fragmentation. But now, the group is becoming bolder, bloodier, and more strategic — targeting not just civilians but the very heart of the government, including direct attacks on President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

What the UN session signals is a mounting international alarm over two interconnected crises: Somalia’s internal political disarray and the resurgence of a terrorist group emboldened by federal paralysis. While the African Union’s new AUSSOM mission is a key pillar in stabilization efforts, it’s hampered by a lack of funding, political coordination, and clarity in command.

Meanwhile, Trump’s White House has revived U.S. airstrike campaigns in Somalia, a rare bright spot in terms of operational pressure on Al-Shabaab and IS-Somalia factions entrenched in Puntland. The Ethiopian Air Force, too, has taken initiative — but regional interventions cannot replace a functioning national strategy.

This upcoming Security Council session is less about reviewing blueprints and more about calling out dysfunction. Without a unified Somali political front, the country will remain a target-rich environment for extremist insurgents, and international support will continue to operate in a vacuum.

What Somalia needs is a political reckoning, not just military reinforcements. AUSSOM must be matched by constitutional clarity, inclusive governance, and a federal system that works — or else, as past decades have proven, terror will keep winning.

If this session ends in diplomatic platitudes and vague funding pledges, Al-Shabaab won’t just survive — it will thrive.

Vice President Aw Abdi Unifies Civilian Forces for National Strength.

Somaliland’s commitment to national unity and robust security, Vice President Mohamed Ali Aw Abdi led a crucial delegation today, overseeing the integration and nationalization of the Civilian Forces and their combat vehicles. This landmark event, prominently celebrated in Turka area, Gar-Adag District, symbolizes a strategic shift towards centralizing military strength under a unified national command.

Vice President Aw Abdi’s acknowledgment of the pivotal role played by the Turka community underscores the government’s emphasis on grassroots cooperation in achieving national security objectives. The move not only strengthens internal cohesion but also sends a clear signal of stability and preparedness to external observers and potential threats.

Further demonstrating the administration’s determination, the Vice President extended his mission to the Saraar Region’s capital, Caynaba, where another major ceremony marked the nationalization of additional forces transferred from Oog District. This transfer signifies the first batch in the region to be officially integrated, setting a precedent for future operations nationwide.

In a comprehensive address, Vice President Aw Abdi reinforced the Waddajir and Wax-Qabad Government’s ambitious strategy, emphasizing their commitment to a unified and robust Somaliland army. “Our vision is clear: one strong army, sufficiently capable of safeguarding Somaliland’s sovereignty and peace,” Aw Abdi declared.

This strategic nationalization represents a critical step toward strengthening Somaliland’s sovereignty claims and security apparatus. With regional tensions escalating, this consolidation ensures that Somaliland is not only internally cohesive but also strategically positioned to face external pressures and challenges confidently.

This initiative marks a transformative moment, promising increased national stability and showcasing the government’s proactive approach to defense and security. This pivotal development is likely to reverberate positively both domestically and in the broader geopolitical landscape of the Horn of Africa.

EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument could redefine global trade dynamics as Europe grapples with Trump’s economic warfare.

The European Union stands precariously at a critical juncture. With the U.S. imposing sweeping tariffs threatening €380 billion worth of EU exports, the question of Europe’s retaliation is not whether, but how forcefully it should strike back. Ursula von der Leyen offers diplomacy, proposing a “zero-for-zero” tariff scheme, yet behind this olive branch lies Europe’s ultimate weapon—the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI)—which, if deployed, could plunge the transatlantic relationship into uncharted turmoil.

The ACI, an untested measure crafted explicitly to counter economic bullying, would allow the EU to target U.S. service sectors, hitting American tech giants, banks, and corporations directly. Trump’s aggressive trade measures have galvanized leaders across the bloc, yet hesitation lurks beneath the EU’s facade of unity. The bloc’s internal divisions on wielding this potent weapon could undermine their stance, empowering Trump’s bullish trade tactics further.

Germany, France, and Spain push boldly for maximum leverage, signaling readiness to activate the ACI if necessary. German Minister Robert Habeck articulates a stark stance: no option should be ruled out, indicating a willingness to escalate if Trump persists. Yet, nations like Italy and Ireland, facing direct threats to their pharmaceutical and wine industries, urge caution, wary that firing the EU’s ultimate trade weapon may unleash uncontrollable economic chaos.

As trade ministers convene, the rift becomes clear: a majority stand prepared to respond forcefully, but critical voices counsel restraint. Irish Minister Simon Harris warns that triggering the ACI would mark a dangerous escalation—akin to pressing the nuclear button in trade warfare. Italy’s Antonio Tajani even proposes delaying immediate countermeasures, highlighting the precarious nature of Europe’s unity.

Meanwhile, Brussels is readying targeted counter-tariffs, with plans for 25 percent levies on key American exports like soybeans, steel, vehicles, textiles, and cosmetics—a direct, significant retaliation worth €22.1 billion. But this may only be the initial volley. The deeper fear gripping Europe’s leaders is the irreversible step of deploying the Anti-Coercion Instrument, potentially destabilizing global economic structures.

At stake is not merely trade but Europe’s strategic independence and global credibility. The longer Europe wavers, the more emboldened Trump’s aggressive posture becomes. EU trade chief Šefčovič emphasizes a cautious, gradual response to maintain negotiating leverage. Yet, Brussels faces a stark choice: continue to absorb blows from Trump’s economic assault or assertively stand its ground.

With pivotal decisions looming, Europe must decide whether to unleash its ‘trade bazooka,’ knowing full well the risk of triggering an unprecedented economic confrontation. Europe stands on the brink, where hesitation may be as perilous as action. The world watches to see if Europe will dare match Trump’s tariffs blow-for-blow, reshaping global economic power or succumbing to American coercion.

Unraveling the real reasons behind Somalia Prime Minister’s cancelled Lasanod visit amid rising security threats and historical tensions.

Somalia’s Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre abruptly cancels his Lasanod visit. Delve into intelligence threats, historical grudges, and Somaliland’s newfound military might reshaping the Horn of Africa’s geopolitics.

Hamza Abdi Barre, Prime Minister of Somalia, recently cancelled a planned visit to Lasanod, a city historically marked by political violence and unrest. This decision followed intelligence reports indicating severe threats against his life, escalating regional tensions, and shedding light on the fragile political landscape in the Horn of Africa.

The abrupt cancellation of Barre’s visit signifies deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Barre, facing backlash over recent extremist remarks and controversial support for Hamas, is increasingly isolated both domestically and internationally. Intelligence reports, citing potential threats from technologically advanced military operations in Somaliland—reportedly bolstered by foreign partnerships, including Israel—underscore Somalia’s growing security challenges.

Lasanod, historically significant and notorious for political assassinations, epitomizes the risks Barre faces. Somaliland’s significant advancements, particularly in drone and AI-assisted intelligence capabilities, suggest a strategic power shift, putting Somalia’s federal government on the back foot.

This incident highlights Somaliland’s rising influence and determination to protect its sovereignty, leveraging international partnerships to bolster its defense capabilities. Conversely, Barre’s government faces heightened scrutiny and internal vulnerabilities, exacerbated by divisive rhetoric and international isolation.

The Somaliland government’s silence on these threats points to internal anxieties, reflecting their precarious position between fostering national unity and confronting external threats transparently. Failure to openly address these issues could risk future stability.

Ultimately, Barre’s cancelled visit is not merely an isolated event but a significant indicator of broader regional instability. With geopolitical interests increasingly converging on the Horn of Africa, Barre’s administration must reassess its stance and diplomacy. The region’s future stability depends on the strategic choices made today.

Hamza Abdi Barre Canceled His Lasanod Visit: Are the Shadows of History Catching Up?

Why Somalia’s Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre Canceled His Visit to Lasanod?

Explore the critical implications behind the Somali Prime Minister’s fear amid rising military tensions and historical echoes.

Just when the complex political narrative in the Horn of Africa appears to be taking a new turn, perturbing developments have emerged regarding Somalia’s Prime Minister, Hamza Abdi Barre. His intended visit to Lasanod was abruptly canceled amid unsettling intelligence reports, citing fear for his security. The implications of this decision lay bare the profound tensions that exist not just within Somalia, but also in the broader context of geopolitical rivalries that could reshape the region’s future.

Sources have confirmed to WARYATV.com that Barre’s cancellation was no mere political maneuver. High-stakes intelligence indicated credible threats against his life, potentially stemming from the rapid advancements in Somaliland’s military capabilities. The integration of cutting-edge technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced drone operations, supported by collaborations with foreign powers, has reshaped the strategic landscape. Such developments have not just concerned Barre; they have sent ripples of apprehension across Mogadishu.

The Somali Prime Minister’s fear is compounded by relative isolation in a world teetering on the brink of chaos. With Somalia’s historical traumas, such as the Isaaq genocide during the Barre regime, still echoing in the hearts of its populace, Barre’s recent rhetoric and support of groups like Hamas have raised eyebrows, drawing ire both locally and internationally. Today, Barre’s declaration that “Israelis and Jews are children of pigs and monkeys” reveals a veiled hypocrisy. While striving for international recognition, his comments risk alienating Somalia from crucial Western allies, jeopardizing aid that is essential for national recovery.

Somaliland, empowered by its new military capabilities, has established itself as a formidable regional player. The reports suggest that the Somali government is aware that Lasanod—an area that has historical ties to past conflicts—may not be a safe haven during Barre’s visit. Intelligence from former Israeli operatives and other sources indicates that there were plans to neutralize Barre in Lasanod, playing into the long-standing history of political assassinations in that city. The poisonous atmosphere of mistrust in Lasanod—a place marked by the tragic assassination of Somalia’s second president—creates a perfect storm of danger for Barre.

What makes this situation more precarious is the burgeoning collaboration between Somaliland and Israel, which promises to enhance intelligence capabilities. This strategic partnership not only empowers Somaliland militarily but also operationalizes the transfer of technology that could heighten the stakes for Somali politicians who would dare to encroach upon Somaliland’s sovereignty.

In the wake of these tensions, it raises important questions regarding the Somaliland government’s reticence about the imminent threats. While they have mobilized resources for defense and intelligence, why is there a lack of communication with their own populace concerning these risks? It could be argued that there exists an anxiety within the Somaliland elite about exposing their citizens to these realities, yet information is the bedrock of effective governance.

Somaliland has moved beyond survival; it is actively working towards recognition and self-determination. As foreign influences shape the geopolitical dynamics of the Horn of Africa, maintaining open channels of communication and fortifying civilian understanding is essential. By failing to do so, the government risks creating a populace ill-prepared for the eventuality of conflict or geopolitical shifts that could affect them directly.

Somalia’s political landscape may be fraught with the opportunism of its leaders, but it is also rife with genuine danger. With Barre’s recent remarks aligned with extremist views and the failure to address key local issues—such as the ongoing violence in Lasanod—the Prime Minister not only gambles with his political capital but also the well-being of the Somali people.

Should Barre’s government continue in its current trajectory, it risks further destabilization as external forces seek to exploit internal divisions. This developing conundrum should serve as a critical reminder to both the government and citizens of Somaliland of the larger conflicts that could soon come knocking at their door.

In conclusion, the cancellation of Hamza Abdi Barre’s visit to Lasanod reflects a broader crisis of governance, self-awareness, and regional stability. As Somaliland positions itself strategically in an era of technological warfare and geopolitical wrangling, the need for clarity, reassurance, and collective action from its leaders has never been more urgent. The stakes are too high for silence or complacency.

A Sudden 25% Tariff on Aluminum Sends Shockwaves Through Global Beer Markets.

Trump’s surprise aluminum tariff hits beer drinkers hard. European brewers panic, drinkers furious, and confusion reigns—here’s why your beer just got expensive.

President Donald Trump has once again ignited controversy by imposing an unexpected 25 percent tariff affecting beer imports into the United States, ostensibly targeting aluminum but inadvertently hitting beer drinkers directly. While Trump’s intent might have been to curb reliance on foreign aluminum, the collateral damage is clear: consumers are facing higher beer prices, and brewers across the globe are left scrambling.

Trump’s abrupt tariff decision has blindsided European breweries, including global giants like Guinness and Heineken, who now find themselves in an uncertain limbo. The confusion stems from ambiguous language in customs documentation, initially suggesting a blanket tariff on all beer imports. Although the U.S. Commerce Department later clarified that tariffs apply strictly to the aluminum content in beer cans rather than the beer itself, this clarification arrived late, intensifying the chaos and deepening market uncertainty.

The economic ripple effect is profound. European beer exports to the U.S. totaled €1.1 billion last year alone, with a significant portion packaged in aluminum cans. Mexican breweries, responsible for 60 percent of U.S. beer imports, face equally devastating financial impacts. These tariffs, ironically meant to protect American industry, threaten domestic businesses dependent on imported aluminum, primarily sourced from Canada, further illustrating the shortsightedness of this measure.

But beyond economics, Trump’s tariff gamble has stirred intense backlash among American beer drinkers. Social media platforms erupted with outrage and disbelief, epitomized by one succinct Reddit comment: “A massive sales tax on beer? What a fucking asshole.” This public resentment highlights the stark disconnect between Trump’s protectionist rhetoric and the immediate pain felt by ordinary citizens.

European trade bodies have voiced diplomatic yet pointed criticisms. Julia Leferman of The Brewers of Europe captured industry frustrations succinctly, questioning why beer—deeply embedded in Western culture—was suddenly classified merely as “a derivative product of aluminum.”

Trump’s unpredictable tariff regime not only undermines consumer trust but risks significant long-term economic repercussions. European and Mexican brewers may reconsider American markets altogether, potentially depriving U.S. consumers of beloved international brands. Meanwhile, the brewing industry must navigate costly disruptions, jeopardizing jobs and businesses already strained by prior tariff battles.

Trump’s latest tariff maneuver is more than just a trade policy—it’s a direct attack on everyday consumer pleasures, leaving the world questioning his true economic priorities.

New insider account reveals Obama’s damaging legacy on the Democratic Party, Harris-Obama tension, and the Clintons’ power plays after Biden’s exit.

A new political bombshell book, Fight, reveals Barack Obama’s fraught relationship with the Democratic Party, his reluctance to support Kamala Harris, and internal chaos following Trump’s 2024 re-election.

Inside the Democratic Implosion: How Obama’s Post-Presidency May Have Helped Trump Win Again

A bombshell political tell-all is ripping open the deep wounds inside the Democratic Party, exposing Barack Obama not as the party’s savior, but as one of the architects of its fragmentation. In Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes paint a stark portrait of a once-united coalition now crumbling under the weight of internal divisions, elite gatekeeping, and a rising tide of populist right-wing backlash.

One quote from a Black Democratic operative delivers the thesis bluntly: “Obama destroyed that s—.”

While the Clintons, Joe Biden, and others scrambled to “rebuild” party infrastructure post-2016 and keep the far-left at bay, Obama was focused on Organizing for Action, a parallel political machine that siphoned power and money away from the traditional Democratic establishment. Far from being the unifier many hoped for, the book describes Obama as disconnected, disinterested in internal party mechanics, and wary of a new Democratic vanguard rising from the grassroots.

Nowhere is this clearer than in his hesitant, almost reluctant backing of Kamala Harris in 2024. Despite Michelle Obama’s glowing support at the DNC, the book claims Obama delayed his endorsement until five days after Biden bowed out of the race — a slight that stung Harris and required behind-the-scenes “mending.” His reason? He didn’t think Harris could beat Trump.

That gamble proved catastrophic. Trump, fueled by economic backlash, populist messaging, and continued Democratic miscalculations, stormed back into office. And according to Fight, Obama still doesn’t grasp why.

The implications are enormous. As Democratic strategists scramble to find a post-Obama vision, the Clintons’ old-school machine politics are quietly reasserting control, leaving progressives sidelined and the party’s future increasingly uncertain.

Fight isn’t just a book. It’s a post-mortem for a political movement that once promised hope and change — and now finds itself rudderless, fractured, and outmaneuvered by Trump’s populist juggernaut.