Israel is reportedly considering establishing a military base in Somaliland, a strategically significant territory in east Africa, to bolster its security interests in the region and counter threats from Yemen’s Houthi rebels. The Middle East Monitor, a Qatari state-funded outlet, first reported the development, suggesting that Israel’s presence in Somaliland would allow it to closely monitor activity in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a vital maritime chokepoint through which nearly one-third of the world’s cargo passes. This comes amid growing global concerns over Houthi attacks on shipping routes, which have disrupted trade and led to multinational naval responses.

The potential deal would involve Israel establishing formal relations with Somaliland, despite its lack of formal recognition, Somaliland holds strategic importance due to its 840 kilometers of coastline along the Gulf of Aden, placing it near the entrance to the Bab al-Mandab Strait and across from Yemen. Given its location, Somaliland could play a key role in securing the Red Sea and the Strait from piracy, terrorism, and smuggling activities, which have spiked in the wake of Yemen’s civil war and Houthi aggression.

Israel’s interest in Somaliland reportedly extends beyond military considerations. The report highlights potential economic opportunities, particularly in sectors where Israel has expertise, such as agriculture, energy, and infrastructure. Israel’s renowned agricultural innovation, including its kibbutz model, could be leveraged to develop Somaliland’s economy in exchange for access to the region’s strategic terrain. These investments could pave the way for deeper diplomatic ties between Israel and Somaliland.

The move is not without precedent in the region. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), was among the first countries to recognize Somaliland’s government and has invested heavily in the region. The UAE, a key player in the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, is reportedly acting as a mediator to facilitate Israel’s bid to establish a base in Somaliland. However, diplomatic sources have not confirmed this role, and the details remain speculative.

Somaliland’s geographical location offers Israel a critical vantage point to monitor the Bab al-Mandab Strait and deter Houthi attacks originating from Yemen. The Houthis, backed by Iran, have launched multiple attacks on maritime vessels, prompting the international community to heighten security measures around the waterway. The strait’s significance has led to the launch of Operation Prosperity Guardian, a multinational security initiative spearheaded by the U.S., UK, France, and Italy, aimed at safeguarding maritime routes in the region.

For Israel, establishing a military foothold in Somaliland would serve as a remote extension of its national security strategy. By maintaining a presence near Yemen, Israel could address concerns about the Houthis’ growing military capabilities, which have been seen as a direct threat to regional stability, including that of Saudi Arabia and UAE, Israel’s partners under the Abraham Accords.

Additionally, the base would bolster Israel’s position in the Red Sea, where international maritime trade and oil shipments are increasingly at risk due to geopolitical instability. Any disruption in this region, particularly in the Bab al-Mandab, can have wide-ranging implications on global trade, prompting many international shipping companies to consider alternative routes, such as traveling around Africa, which adds considerable time and cost to shipping operations.

While Israel has yet to formally recognize Somaliland, the prospect of a base could alter diplomatic dynamics, offering both sides a chance to benefit from increased security cooperation and economic development. Nevertheless, the proposal faces several hurdles, including Somaliland’s lack of international recognition and the broader geopolitical tensions involving Yemen, Iran, and other regional actors.

The establishment of a Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT) to enforce sanctions on North Korea has sparked concerns over its legitimacy, as it operates outside the auspices of the United Nations. Announced by the United States, South Korea, and Japan, the MSMT was introduced as an alternative to the U.N. panel of experts, which monitored North Korean sanctions violations until its dissolution in April due to a Russian veto at the Security Council.

The MSMT’s mandate is to rigorously investigate and publish findings on North Korea’s sanctions violations and attempts to evade enforcement, aiming to maintain pressure on Pyongyang as it deepens its military ties with Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. The newly formed body, backed by 11 nations, also includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Despite these efforts, some experts and former U.N. officials argue that the absence of a U.N. mandate may hinder the team’s global credibility and reach.

Former U.N. sanctions expert Aaron Arnold expressed doubts about the MSMT’s legitimacy, pointing out that without a Security Council mandate, it risks being viewed as illegitimate by many countries, particularly those most vulnerable to North Korea’s sanctions evasion efforts. Both China and Russia, permanent members of the Security Council and frequent blockers of stricter enforcement measures, have chosen not to participate in the MSMT. Their non-involvement raises further questions about the effectiveness of the new body, especially as these two nations are widely seen as crucial players in sanctions enforcement against Pyongyang.

Since its inception in 2009, the U.N. panel had published biannual reports documenting North Korea’s violations of international sanctions, which were originally aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear and missile programs. However, with the dissolution of the U.N. panel, enforcement of these sanctions has become more fragmented, and the MSMT seeks to fill the gap left by the defunct body.

Despite operating outside of the U.N. framework, former U.N. expert Alastair Morgan remains optimistic about the MSMT’s potential effectiveness. He believes the new team can still generate informative reports on sanctions violations, although without the Security Council’s backing, its recommendations may not carry the same weight. Morgan notes that since 2018, the Council had not acted on any designations recommended by the U.N. panel, so the practical difference in enforcement may be limited.

The formation of the MSMT comes at a time of escalating military cooperation between North Korea and Russia. Both Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo have expressed “grave concern” over these developments, which include alleged arms transfers in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently claimed that North Korea was preparing to send 10,000 soldiers to support Russia in its war against Ukraine, further underscoring the urgent need for effective sanctions enforcement.

While some experts see the MSMT as a valuable tool for pressuring North Korea, others regard it as a “second-best solution.” George Lopez, another former U.N. panel member, notes that without the backing of the Security Council, the new team faces an uphill battle in achieving global legitimacy. Nonetheless, Lopez argues that the MSMT could still gain credibility through transparent and high-quality reporting, a capability well within reach of its 11 member nations.

Another potential avenue of influence for the MSMT lies in its ability to impact global financial systems. Katsuhisa Furukawa, who served on the U.N. panel from 2011 to 2016, highlights that even if certain countries refuse to cooperate with the MSMT, financial institutions in those nations may still comply with the body’s findings to avoid being targeted by sanctions from the U.S., EU, and other participating nations.

China, however, remains a formidable obstacle. In a statement to the Voice of America, a Chinese embassy spokesperson reiterated Beijing’s stance that sanctions alone will not resolve tensions on the Korean Peninsula and may instead exacerbate the situation. China has repeatedly been accused of enabling North Korea to evade sanctions, despite publicly insisting that it adheres to U.N. mandates.

Ultimately, while the MSMT represents a significant effort to maintain pressure on Pyongyang, it faces challenges in achieving global acceptance and enforcing sanctions without the legitimacy of a U.N. mandate. As Joshua Stanton, a Washington-based lawyer who helped draft the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enforcement Act of 2016, reminded, U.N. resolutions authorizing sanctions enforcement remain in place, and neither Russia nor China can unilaterally repeal them. Whether the MSMT can build the necessary credibility and effectiveness outside of the U.N. framework remains to be seen, but it will need strong international cooperation to succeed in its mission.

Nigeria’s intensifying crackdown on crude oil theft is yielding notable progress, as the country aims to curb the massive financial losses caused by illicit activities in its oil-producing regions. The concerted efforts, driven by Operation Delta Safe, have reportedly led to a 16.7% increase in oil output over the past year, marking a significant step forward in securing the nation’s key resource.

Security forces under the joint land and air command of officers like Jamal Abdussalam and Ali Idris have shut down illegal refineries, recovered millions of liters of stolen crude, and made numerous arrests. Abdussalam underscored the impact of military presence in deterring oil thieves, noting, “Once they see soldiers, they take to their hills.” He emphasized that security operations are not just focused on arrests but also on dismantling and destroying the infrastructure used for illegal refining.

The cooperation between Nigerian authorities and international oil companies (IOCs) has been crucial to the success of this campaign. Idris highlighted that the IOCs have been instrumental in providing intelligence on illegal pipeline connections, significantly improving the military’s ability to combat theft. This collaboration has helped Nigeria address a long-standing issue that has plagued its oil industry for years.

Technological advancements have also played a central role in Nigeria’s efforts. According to Chief of Defense Staff Christopher Musa, the use of drones, maritime surveillance systems, and helicopters has enhanced the monitoring and protection of oil pipelines across the difficult and swampy terrain of the Niger Delta. These tools, alongside traditional patrols, have allowed the security forces to target and dismantle illegal refineries more effectively.

The stakes are high for Nigeria, as oil theft continues to drain the nation’s economy. Estimates from the Senate suggest that in 2022, Nigeria lost $23 million daily due to theft, and a staggering $1.43 billion was lost in March 2023 alone. Operation Delta Safe is seen as a critical response to this crisis, with a production goal of 1.7 million barrels per day this year—a target that officials are optimistic can be met.

However, challenges remain. Emeka Onumajuru, Delta Safe’s defense training and operations chief, acknowledged that while progress has been made in securing pipelines and reducing theft, the region’s rough terrain and lack of effective community engagement continue to pose significant hurdles. The Niger Delta, characterized by its dense forests and difficult swampy environment, makes it difficult for security forces to operate efficiently. Moreover, weak relationships between oil companies and local communities contribute to tensions, increasing the risk of sabotage and theft.

Musa emphasized the importance of fostering strong ties with local communities, recognizing that their cooperation is essential for long-term success. “We’re going to work with them to ensure that whatever is due for them, they get,” he stated, underscoring the government’s commitment to ensuring equitable distribution of oil revenues. This approach, officials hope, will reduce the likelihood of community grievances that often fuel illegal activities.

While Operation Delta Safe is being hailed as a major achievement in Nigeria’s ongoing battle against oil theft, experts caution that sustaining these gains will require continued collaboration among security forces, government agencies, and local stakeholders. Without an enduring framework for cooperation and engagement, the illicit trade that has undermined Nigeria’s oil industry for decades could resurface, potentially eroding the progress made thus far.

The future of Nigeria’s oil production, and indeed the stability of the region, hinges on this delicate balance of military enforcement, technological advancements, and meaningful community engagement.

U.S. President Joe Biden announced a new $425 million security package for Ukraine on Wednesday, underscoring the U.S. commitment to bolster Ukraine’s defenses as the country continues its fight against Russian aggression. This latest aid includes vital air defense capabilities, air-to-ground munitions, armored vehicles, and other critical military supplies.

In a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Biden reaffirmed U.S. support, with additional equipment set to arrive in the coming months. This includes hundreds of air defense interceptors, dozens of tactical air defense systems, artillery, and armored vehicles. Biden also plans to host a virtual meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group next month to further coordinate international assistance for Kyiv.

Zelenskyy has been pushing for deeper Western support, particularly regarding NATO membership. In a speech to the Ukrainian parliament, he outlined a “victory plan” that includes a call for an unconditional invitation to join NATO and for stronger security guarantees to deter Russian aggression. Zelenskyy emphasized that the war must end on Ukraine’s terms, with Russia withdrawing its troops and restoring territorial borders, including Crimea, annexed by Moscow in 2014.

NATO membership, however, remains a complex issue. While NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte affirmed that Ukraine’s path to membership is “irreversible,” he stressed that Kyiv cannot join the alliance while it is still at war. Rutte noted that difficult decisions lie ahead but refrained from offering a timeline for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Zelenskyy is expected to press Ukraine’s case further during meetings with EU leaders in Brussels on Thursday.

Moscow has strongly criticized Zelenskyy’s proposals, accusing him of risking a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova suggested that Zelenskyy’s plan pushes NATO members toward open confrontation with Russia. The Kremlin has dismissed the Ukrainian president’s vision as unrealistic, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov calling it an “ephemeral peace plan.”

On the battlefield, drone warfare continued to escalate. Ukraine reported successfully intercepting 51 out of 136 drones launched by Russia overnight, with the attacks targeting regions across the country, including the capital, Kyiv. Ukraine’s air defenses managed to neutralize all drones in the Kyiv area without causing casualties or damage, according to Serhii Popko, head of the Kyiv City Military Administration. Meanwhile, Russia claimed its air defenses had destroyed three Ukrainian drones targeting the Belgorod and Voronezh regions.

As the conflict grinds on, the Biden administration’s latest aid package aims to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses ahead of a potentially harsh winter, while Zelenskyy’s diplomatic push underscores the need for sustained international support. However, the road to peace remains uncertain, with Russia and Ukraine locked in a deadly and protracted conflict, and the international community grappling with how best to support Kyiv’s quest for a resolution.

The United States launched airstrikes on Houthi weapons storage sites in Yemen on Wednesday, in a move aimed at countering the Iran-backed militant group’s yearlong campaign of attacks on shipping routes in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. According to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the strikes, carried out by B-2 bombers, targeted weapons systems used by the Houthis to disrupt major maritime corridors vital to global trade.

“This was a unique demonstration of the United States’ ability to target facilities that our adversaries seek to keep out of reach, no matter how deeply buried underground, hardened, or fortified,” Austin said. The Houthis have escalated attacks on vessels using boats, missiles, and drones, framing their actions as solidarity with Palestinians amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

The strikes are part of broader efforts by the U.S. and Britain to protect international shipping from the Houthis’ attacks. These assaults have forced many commercial vessels to reroute via longer, more expensive paths around the African continent, significantly impacting global commerce. Austin emphasized the gravity of the situation, highlighting the threat posed by the Houthis to international trade, environmental safety, and the lives of both civilians and military personnel in the region.

“The Houthis’ illegal attacks continue to disrupt the free flow of international commerce, threaten environmental catastrophe, and put innocent civilian lives and U.S. and partner forces’ lives at risk,” Austin added.

The operation underscores the growing international concerns about the strategic maritime routes around Yemen, which serve as critical arteries for global trade, including oil shipments.

Maher al-Assad, the younger brother of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has long been an enigmatic yet influential figure within Syria’s power structure. As commander of the elite Fourth Division, Maher not only oversees one of the regime’s most loyal military units but also plays a pivotal role in Iran’s growing influence in Damascus. His connections to Tehran and Hezbollah have drawn international scrutiny, especially given his division’s involvement in drug smuggling, arms trafficking, and its role in Syria’s brutal civil war.

On September 29, 2024, Israeli forces reportedly launched an airstrike targeting a villa in Yafour, a suburb of Damascus, believed to be frequented by senior officials of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The villa, allegedly linked to the Fourth Division, reflects the deepening military ties between Syria’s ruling apparatus and Iran’s regional ambitions. While Maher al-Assad was reportedly not present during the attack, the incident underscores his central role in facilitating Iranian influence in Syria. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Assad had previously been warned that any weapons transfers from the Fourth Division to Hezbollah would invite Israeli retaliation—a threat that seems to have materialized in subsequent Israeli airstrikes near Damascus.

Maher’s prominence within Syria’s regime has evolved over the years. Born in 1967 as the youngest son of former President Hafez al-Assad, Maher initially appeared poised for leadership following the death of his older brother, Bassel, in a car accident in 1994. However, Maher’s reportedly volatile temperament, marked by ruthlessness and fiery outbursts, led to Bashar being chosen as their father’s successor. Despite this setback, Maher carved out his own sphere of influence, eventually rising to command the Fourth Division, which has become both a military and economic powerhouse.

Under Maher’s leadership, the Fourth Division is not only known for its fierce loyalty to the Assad regime but also for its involvement in Syria’s burgeoning drug trade. The division is widely reported to oversee the production and trafficking of Captagon, an illicit stimulant, which has become a major export from Syria to the broader region. This lucrative drug trade has cemented Maher’s position as a key figure within the regime, providing both financial resources and strategic alliances with Iran and Hezbollah.

Despite his loyalty to Bashar, Maher has not escaped criticism from within his own family. His sister-in-law, Majd Tawfiq Jadaan, who has aligned herself with the Syrian opposition, has accused him of playing a central role in the atrocities committed against the Syrian people. She has publicly denounced him as equally culpable in the destruction of Syria, comparing him to their father, Hafez al-Assad, whom she described as being steeped in “malice, cunning, and crimes.”

Maher’s close ties to Iran and Hezbollah have drawn attention from foreign governments, particularly Israel, which views the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia as one of its most significant regional threats. Israel has regularly targeted arms depots and military facilities in Syria associated with Hezbollah, seeking to disrupt the supply lines that funnel weapons from Syria to Lebanon. These airstrikes, often targeting areas under Maher’s control, reflect Israel’s broader strategy of limiting Iran’s reach in the region.

The international community has also taken action against Maher al-Assad. In 2011, the U.S. imposed sanctions on him as part of a broader set of measures aimed at the Assad regime for its violent crackdown on the peaceful protests that ignited Syria’s civil war. These sanctions targeted several of Bashar al-Assad’s relatives, including Maher and their cousin, Atef Najib, as well as Syria’s intelligence apparatus. While these measures have increased pressure on the regime, they have done little to deter Maher or his division from playing an active role in Syria’s war economy and its alignment with Tehran.

As Syria’s civil war grinds on, Maher al-Assad remains a powerful, albeit shadowy, figure within the regime’s inner circle. His military position, control over key revenue streams, and close ties to Iran place him at the heart of Syria’s strategic alliance with Tehran. Yet, this role also makes him a prime target in the region’s ongoing geopolitical conflicts, particularly in the eyes of Israel, which continues to launch preemptive strikes against Syrian and Hezbollah positions.

In a country ravaged by over a decade of war, Maher’s future remains uncertain. Though often rumored to have been injured or killed in previous attacks, he has consistently resurfaced, cementing his reputation as a key enforcer for the Assad regime. However, his deep involvement in drug smuggling and military operations, combined with his pivotal role in advancing Iran’s interests, means that Maher will likely remain a focal point of regional tensions for the foreseeable future.

In a new report released by Microsoft, cybercriminal networks in Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly collaborating with authoritarian governments to launch cyberespionage and hacking campaigns against adversaries, including the United States. This emerging alliance between state actors and criminal organizations is raising alarms among national security officials and cybersecurity experts, who warn that it signals a growing convergence of financially motivated cybercrime and politically driven state-sponsored activities.

The report, which examines cyber threats from July 2023 to June 2024, sheds light on the sophisticated tactics employed by these criminal-state partnerships. The operations include hacking, spear phishing, and the use of malware to gain access to sensitive systems. In some cases, such actions appear to be motivated by dual objectives: sowing political discord or extracting valuable intelligence while pursuing financial gain.

One example highlighted in the report involved a criminal hacking group with ties to Iran, which infiltrated an Israeli dating site. The hackers sought to sell or ransom the stolen personal information, but Microsoft analysts concluded that the operation was also designed to embarrass Israelis—a dual motive combining political and financial interests.

In another case, a Russian criminal network compromised over 50 devices used by the Ukrainian military in June. Investigators found no clear financial motive behind the attack, suggesting that the operation was likely aimed at aiding Russia’s military efforts in Ukraine, with potential payment from the Russian government as compensation.

A Symbiotic Relationship

This blending of criminal and state-sponsored cyber activities benefits both parties involved. For governments like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, it expands their cyber capabilities without incurring additional costs. For the criminal organizations, working with state actors offers lucrative opportunities and a degree of protection from legal consequences.

“We’re seeing in each of these countries this trend toward combining nation-state and cybercriminal activities,” said Tom Burt, Microsoft’s vice president of customer security and trust. He added that this shift reflects how far these countries are willing to go in leveraging private cyber “mercenaries” to wage digital warfare.

While Burt acknowledged that there is no current evidence of collaboration between Russia, China, and Iran, he noted that the increasing reliance on criminal networks demonstrates a shared willingness to weaponize the internet against geopolitical rivals.

A Global Campaign of Cyber Operations

Russia’s cyber operations, according to Microsoft’s findings, have largely focused on Ukraine. Russian-backed hackers have targeted military and government systems in an effort to weaken Ukraine’s defenses and spread disinformation designed to erode international support for Kyiv. In response, Ukraine has mounted its own cyber efforts, including a recent operation that disrupted Russian state media outlets.

Beyond Ukraine, Russian, Chinese, and Iranian cyber operations have also targeted the U.S., with a particular focus on influencing the 2024 presidential election. Microsoft analysts agree with U.S. intelligence assessments that Russian networks are targeting Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign, while Iran is reportedly focused on undermining former President Donald Trump.

Iran has gone as far as hacking into Trump’s campaign and attempting to offer stolen materials to Democrats—an effort that was rebuffed. Iran has also been accused of covertly supporting American protests against the war in Gaza, adding another layer to its growing cyber engagement with U.S. political processes.

As election day draws closer, experts warn that Russia and Iran will likely escalate their cyber efforts. China, meanwhile, has focused its disinformation campaigns on down-ballot races, particularly targeting Congressional and state elections, and continues to direct attention toward its regional adversaries, including Taiwan.

Denials and Diplomatic Tensions

In response to the report’s findings, the Chinese Embassy in Washington rejected accusations of partnering with cybercriminals. “Our position is consistent and clear. China firmly opposes and combats cyberattacks and cybertheft in all forms,” said embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu. He further accused the U.S. of spreading “disinformation about the so-called Chinese hacking threats.”

Russia and Iran have also denied any involvement in cyberattacks against the U.S. or its allies. Messages seeking comment from representatives of Russia, Iran, and North Korea went unanswered.

A Complex Battle Against Disinformation

Efforts to counter foreign cyber threats have intensified, but the anonymous and decentralized nature of the internet presents significant challenges for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals. U.S. authorities recently announced plans to seize hundreds of web domains used by Russia to spread disinformation and to target former U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Yet, these efforts are often undermined by the ease with which new websites can be created.

The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab reported that within one day of the U.S. Department of Justice seizing several domains in September, at least 12 new websites were created to replace them. These sites continue to operate, highlighting the difficulties in permanently dismantling such networks.

As the U.S. and its allies prepare for another election cycle, the growing convergence of state-sponsored cyber operations and criminal activity underscores the evolving nature of digital warfare, where the lines between financial crime and political sabotage are increasingly blurred. The cyber landscape has become a battleground where governments and criminals alike exploit vulnerabilities, leaving national security at heightened risk.

The longstanding dispute over the Nile River has deepened, as Egypt and Sudan rejected the recently ratified Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), raising tensions with upstream countries. The CFA, which officially came into force on October 13, following ratification by six Nile Basin states, has widened the rift over water rights in the region, with Cairo and Khartoum voicing strong opposition.

In a joint statement following a meeting of the Egyptian-Sudanese Permanent Joint Technical Commission for the Nile Waters (PJTC) on October 11-12, the two countries criticized the CFA as a threat to the region’s delicate balance. They underscored the need for a more inclusive framework, calling for the restoration of the 1999 Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and opposing what they described as the unilateral actions of upstream nations. “The six-state commission based on the incomplete CFA cannot represent the interests of the entire Nile Basin,” the statement declared, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the new Nile River Basin Commission established by the agreement.

The CFA’s ratification by Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda marks a significant shift in regional dynamics. The agreement aims to promote equitable water sharing through the new commission, but Egypt and Sudan view it as a direct challenge to their historical rights over the Nile’s waters, which were enshrined in colonial-era treaties from 1929 and 1959. Those treaties granted Egypt and Sudan the lion’s share of the Nile’s flow, and both countries continue to assert that these agreements remain binding under international law.

Egypt’s resistance to the CFA is tied to its heavy dependence on the Nile, which supplies 98% of the country’s water needs. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, speaking at the recent Cairo Water Week, reiterated that water security is Egypt’s top priority. “We cannot afford to lose a single drop of water,” he emphasized, alluding to the existential threat posed by Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), a massive hydropower project that has raised alarms in both Egypt and Sudan. While Ethiopia regards the dam as crucial for its development, Egypt views it as a threat to its control over a river it has relied on for millennia.

Sudan shares many of Egypt’s concerns, particularly over the potential impact of the GERD on water flow. The two downstream nations argue that the dam and the CFA undermine the principle of consensus among all riparian states, which they see as critical to managing the river’s resources.

For upstream nations like Ethiopia, however, the CFA represents a step toward more equitable development. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has hailed the agreement’s ratification as a milestone in efforts to share the Nile’s resources fairly, stating, “We stand united in our vision for sustainable development, where all Nile Basin countries benefit.” Yet, his words have done little to alleviate concerns in Egypt and Sudan, where the prospect of diminished water control is fueling broader geopolitical tensions.

The ratification of the CFA is not only about water but also about shifting alliances and strategic interests in the region. Egypt, in response to Ethiopia’s rising influence, has been bolstering its ties with other African nations, particularly Somalia. In August, Cairo and Mogadishu signed a military cooperation agreement aimed at countering Ethiopia’s growing regional power. Egypt has also committed to sending peacekeepers as part of the African Union Mission to Support Stabilization in Somalia (AUSSOM), following the conclusion of the ATMIS mission later this year. This agreement came on the heels of a trilateral summit in Asmara, Eritrea, where Egyptian, Somali, and Eritrean leaders pledged closer security cooperation.

Egypt’s increased military presence in Somalia, including arms shipments and peacekeepers, is viewed as part of a broader strategy to check Ethiopia’s influence, especially in light of Ethiopia’s efforts to secure a naval base in Somaliland. Ethiopia has voiced concerns over Egypt’s deepening role in the Horn of Africa, fearing that Cairo’s actions could destabilize the region and threaten Ethiopia’s own strategic interests, including its access to the Red Sea and the GERD project.

As the Nile waters debate escalates, the broader geopolitical landscape in the Horn of Africa and beyond is becoming increasingly fraught. The division over the CFA not only highlights the enduring complexities of water politics in the region but also the intertwining of security, development, and strategic interests that are shaping alliances and rivalries across East Africa. With no immediate resolution in sight, the dispute over the Nile’s waters is poised to remain a focal point of tension, influencing both regional stability and international diplomatic efforts in the years ahead.