After collapsing live on-air, veteran journalist Rageh Omaar returns to the frontlines with powerful dispatch from West Africa.

A familiar voice has returned—and this time, it carries the weight of survival. Rageh Omaar, ITV’s respected international affairs editor, made a striking comeback on News at Ten with a pre-recorded foreign report from West Africa—his first since collapsing during a live broadcast last year.

The April 2024 incident left viewers stunned as Omaar, mid-broadcast, appeared visibly distressed and struggled to speak. ITV swiftly pulled the rerun, and he was rushed to hospital for undisclosed treatment. The silence that followed was deafening—but now, he’s speaking again.

And not just from a studio. Omaar’s return was marked by a high-stakes interview with Ivorian political heavyweight Tidjane Thiam, leader of Côte d’Ivoire’s main opposition. A bold move. A statement. A reminder that the journalist who gave the world frontline reporting from Baghdad in 2003 still knows how to command the screen.

For Omaar, this comeback wasn’t just professional—it was personal. “I was determined to finish presenting the programme,” he said after the collapse, a quiet warrior’s resolve beneath his composed tone.

Having slowly rebuilt his presence on ITVX and digital platforms, this new dispatch signals a full return to global reporting. It’s not just a journalist’s return—it’s the resurgence of a trusted voice in a fractured world.

As the news landscape grows noisier, Rageh Omaar’s calm fire feels needed now more than ever.

Tensions soar as Somalia’s Prime Minister dares to enter Las’anod—Somaliland vows decisive defense.

The Somaliland government issues a furious condemnation over the Somali PM’s planned Las’anod visit, calling it a dangerous breach of sovereignty that could ignite new regional conflict. 

The Republic of Somaliland has slammed Somalia’s provocative plan to send its Prime Minister to Las’anod—calling it not just a violation, but a blatant act of aggression against its sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs labeled the move a reckless escalation, with the power to shatter fragile regional peace and drag the Horn into renewed instability.

“This is not a visit—it’s an invasion,” one senior Somaliland official told WARYATV. “And if Somalia wants conflict, they’ll get a response.”

The timing is no accident. With peace in Las’anod already hanging by a thread, this incursion appears designed to provoke and distract from Somalia’s internal failures. But Somaliland, long hailed as a beacon of stability in a chaotic region, is refusing to be baited—at least not without sending a loud and clear message: we will retaliate if provoked.

The statement wasn’t just directed at Mogadishu. Somaliland is putting global bodies like the AU, IGAD, UN, and Arab League on high alert, warning them that Somalia’s destabilizing behavior could reopen the floodgates of migration, conflict, and terrorism. Inaction, it says, will cost the entire region dearly.

But beneath the diplomacy is a steel edge: Somaliland is ready to act militarily if necessary. “Our commitment to peace stands—but so does our resolve to defend our land,” the statement concluded.

The message is unmistakable: Las’anod is not up for negotiation. If Somalia tests the line, Somaliland is prepared to cross it—hard.

This is why WARYATV matters. The Pentagon listens. The UN listens. And now the White House listens.

WARYATV scoops NYTimes as U.S. counterterrorism team validates Somaliland-focused analysis in Somalia strategy shift.

WARYATV’s exclusive reporting on Operation Geel—urging international relocation to Somaliland—is now central to U.S. policy debates on Somalia. Trump’s security team echoes our warnings.

They followed our lead.

When WARYATV broke Operation Geel on March 31, exposing Somalia’s unraveling and the world’s bizarre fixation on a failed state while ignoring Somaliland’s unrivaled stability, we knew it would stir global intelligence and diplomatic circles. Now, just one week later, it’s confirmed: Trump’s top counterterrorism advisor, Sebastian Gorka, is using our very own reporting in shaping Washington’s Somalia exit strategy.

The NYTimes today echoes what our team already knew and published. This is not coincidence—this is recognition. WARYATV has become the region’s most trusted source for raw, unfiltered, and actionable geopolitical intelligence.

Mogadishu is collapsing. Al-Shabaab militants are surrounding the capital. The Somali federal government is fractured, unpopular, and teetering on the brink of collapse. Western embassies and UN agencies are preparing emergency evacuations.

And yet, the international community continues to ignore Somaliland—a nation with democratic institutions, peaceful transitions of power, and strategic coastal access. Why? What more must Somaliland do to be treated like a real partner in stabilizing the Horn of Africa?

President Trump’s advisers are now openly debating whether to move U.S. operations to Somaliland. Gorka’s call to expand airstrikes and resist a full withdrawal mirrors our earlier analysis warning that a vacuum in Somalia will be filled by terror groups—and that the only stable launchpad is in Hargeisa, not Mogadishu.

Even the Somali president’s desperate plea to let U.S. forces use bases in Somaliland—a region he doesn’t even control—shows how far detached the federal government has become from reality.

This is exactly why Operation Geel matters. This is why WARYATV matters. The Pentagon listens. The UN listens. And now the White House listens.

While Somalia burns and international actors stumble, Somaliland is ready—ready to be the staging ground for peace, security, and serious counterterrorism.

The world must now catch up to what WARYATV readers already know: Somaliland isn’t just part of the solution—it is the solution.

UN Security Council Targets Somalia’s Growing Divisions and Al-Shabaab’s Exploitation

Airlines Halt Flights Amid Rising Terror Threats in Somalia

Mortar Mayhem in Mogadishu: Al-Shabaab Strikes Expose Somalia’s Vulnerabilities

Terror and Diplomacy: Navigating Somalia’s Security Maze

Al-Shabaab’s Growing Threat and International Response

Alarm Bells Ring Over Al-Shabaab’s Territorial Ambitions in Somalia

France may recognize Palestine by June, sparking new geopolitical fault lines and reshaping Europe’s role in the Middle East.

French President Emmanuel Macron just fired a diplomatic missile into the heart of the Middle East debate. During a trip to Egypt, he announced that France would likely recognize a Palestinian state by June—just months after the deadliest phase of the Gaza war. It’s not a symbolic gesture. It’s a tectonic shift that could crack open long-standing alliances and force Israel and Europe to confront a new geopolitical reality.

Macron is not freelancing. He’s aligning France with a growing bloc—nearly 150 countries, including EU heavyweights like Ireland, Spain, and Norway, have already recognized Palestine. But unlike those countries, France is a UN Security Council member and a nuclear power. When it speaks, it echoes.

Macron is playing a dangerous game. On one hand, he wants to force momentum toward a two-state solution by leveraging European credibility. On the other, he’s walking a tightrope over his relationship with Israel—a nation he insists he supports, especially in fighting antisemitic regimes like Iran. This isn’t just about Palestine. It’s about Macron trying to position France as the kingmaker in a multipolar world reshaped by war.

Israel’s leadership is already furious. Netanyahu has rejected any move toward Palestinian statehood, especially after the October 7 massacre orchestrated by Hamas—an organization designated as a terrorist group by the U.S., EU, and many others. From his perspective, recognition now isn’t peace-building—it’s rewarding terrorism.

But Macron is betting big on realpolitik. He’s banking on the idea that global security can no longer wait for Israeli consensus. He wants to isolate Iran, pull moderate Arab states deeper into Europe’s orbit, and challenge Trump’s growing sway over Israel with a “European solution.” Macron is staking France’s credibility on a gamble that he can talk the world into peace—while holding a lighter near the powder keg.

If France proceeds with recognition in June, it will light a firestorm of debate across NATO, the UN, and even within the EU.

 As the U.S. downsizes at Poland’s Jasionka base, questions rise over NATO cohesion, Trump’s intentions, and Europe’s defense future. 

The U.S. military’s quiet exit from the Jasionka logistics hub — the lifeline of Ukraine’s war effort — is more than just a “streamlining” of operations. It’s a seismic signal: Washington is pulling back from the frontlines of European defense, and the implications are explosive.

Since 2022, Jasionka has been ground zero for NATO’s weapons pipeline to Ukraine. It’s no exaggeration to say 95% of lethal aid has passed through this Polish corridor. And who ran it? U.S. forces — until now. As of this week, the baton has been handed to Norway, Germany, the U.K., and Poland. But the question looms: Why now — and at what cost?

The Pentagon calls this a long-planned realignment. But that’s spin. The real driver is Donald Trump’s shifting doctrine: America First, Europe second — if at all. His disdain for NATO has morphed from rhetoric into reality. His threats to abandon allies and his backdoor dealings with Russia aren’t whispers anymore; they’re warnings. With his trade war and open hostility toward Canada and Greenland, the unraveling of post-WWII Western alliances is already in motion.

Poland — NATO’s new poster child for military spending — isn’t the problem. With 4.7% of GDP going to defense, it’s more committed than most. Warsaw is doing its part. The real issue is what this U.S. drawdown means: America is testing the limits of alliance dependency, gauging how far it can push Europe into standing on its own.

What’s being quietly set up in the background is NATO’s Security Assistance and Training Command for Ukraine, a move to shift operational control from the U.S. to a broader — and perhaps weaker — European leadership model. Sure, this spreads the burden. But it also diffuses accountability and fractures unity.

Let’s not sugarcoat this: the removal of U.S. troops from a critical war zone logistics hub during a hot war is not efficiency. It’s a red flag. And it may be the first of many.

Europe must now face a hard truth: Trump’s America is no longer the bulwark it once was. And if NATO crumbles, the chaos that follows won’t stop at Ukraine’s borders. It will creep into the heart of Europe — and into the balance sheets, war rooms, and borders of every allied state that let its guard down.

This isn’t just a logistics shuffle. It’s a strategic withdrawal. And it should terrify every Western policymaker.

Sheegow Ahmed Ali’s death in custody ignites controversy amid denials of foul play.

The sudden death of Somali military officer Sheegow Ahmed Ali, who passed away Monday night at Mogadishu’s Digfeer Hospital after complications from Hepatitis B and liver failure, has reignited complex tensions and suspicions within Somalia’s political and military landscape. While authorities swiftly dismissed claims of foul play, asserting medical transparency, the incident nonetheless highlights deeper systemic vulnerabilities within Somali state institutions.

Sheegow, who was sentenced last year following violent clashes between his forces and government troops, held significant operational roles, including combating the al-Shabaab insurgency in Lower Shabelle. His incarceration alone had already polarized opinion, and his untimely death in custody only amplifies existing distrust towards federal authorities, especially among his Jareerweyne clan community.

Despite firm denials by Minister of Health Dr. Ali Haaji Aden and public acceptance from Sheegow’s family regarding the official medical findings, widespread rumors of potential poisoning illustrate the pervasive distrust between the state and certain clan communities. This undercurrent of suspicion is symptomatic of a broader crisis: a fragile relationship between the Somali government and various clan-based factions.

For the administration of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, handling this sensitive case transparently and effectively is imperative to maintaining stability. Any perception of foul play, regardless of official denials, risks undermining government credibility, particularly at a moment when Mogadishu seeks to bolster domestic legitimacy and strengthen security forces amid persistent al-Shabaab threats.

The Somali authorities must do more than merely deny wrongdoing. Comprehensive transparency, independent verification, and open channels of communication are crucial. The case of Sheegow Ahmed Ali isn’t just about one individual’s tragic demise; it’s a litmus test for the credibility of Somalia’s military justice system and governance institutions.

With the nation’s stability already precarious, this incident underscores the urgent need for reform in military custody practices, improved medical oversight for detainees, and greater governmental accountability. The Somali people will undoubtedly watch closely as this story unfolds, determining whether it represents a turning point toward justice and transparency—or another missed opportunity that deepens divisions.

Beijing Battles Trump’s Tariffs, Seeks to Reshape Global Trade.

China has boldly declared it will not bow down to American “bullying.” This defiant posture underscores a calculated gamble by Beijing, poised not just to endure the trade war but also to exploit it as an opportunity to rewrite global trade rules.

Trump’s sweeping tariffs, including a staggering 54% duty on all Chinese imports, have shaken markets worldwide. Yet, China’s swift countermeasures—including matching tariffs and restrictions on rare earth minerals vital to U.S. technology—signal it is playing a longer game. The Chinese Commerce Ministry called Trump’s threats a “mistake upon a mistake,” emphasizing China’s readiness for prolonged confrontation rather than capitulation.

China’s leaders are banking on their ability to endure short-term economic disruptions, leveraging internal messaging to galvanize nationalist sentiment and resilience. The state-run People’s Daily framed the trade war as a trial that will ultimately strengthen China. “The more pressure we get, the stronger we become,” it declared, underscoring confidence in the Communist Party’s leadership and institutional resilience.

Beijing’s strategy extends beyond mere resistance; it actively seeks diplomatic and economic alliances as nations worldwide scramble for stability. With Trump indiscriminately targeting friends and foes alike, China is positioning itself as the dependable guardian of globalization. High-level discussions with South Korea, Japan, and the European Union underscore China’s intent to realign global trade networks, potentially isolating the U.S.

However, Beijing’s diplomatic charm offensive comes with risks. Countries wary of China’s economic coercion might hesitate to fully embrace Beijing’s overtures. Nonetheless, Trump’s disruptive tariffs may leave them little choice but to deepen ties with the world’s second-largest economy.

Domestically, China faces immense economic challenges—its property market woes, local government debt crisis, and lingering pandemic scars complicate its economic recovery. Yet, unlike Western democracies accountable to voter opinion, China’s authoritarian model allows it more latitude to weather economic storms without immediate political fallout.

The escalating tariff battle raises fears of prolonged conflict, potentially trapping both nations in an economic quagmire from which escape becomes increasingly difficult. Yet Beijing appears resolved: China’s defiant stance signals not just a reactionary posture, but a bold bid for strategic dominance in a shifting global order.

In the face of Trump’s economic offensive, China’s message is clear: it’s ready not only to compete but to emerge as a formidable architect of the new world economy.

New bombshell testimony exposes King Charles and Prince Andrew’s secretive China connections, shaking Buckingham Palace.

Explosive allegations involving King Charles III and Prince Andrew in a Chinese espionage scandal raise alarming questions about royal judgment and national security. 

Dominic Hampshire, Prince Andrew’s former senior adviser, dropped bombshell testimony at a UK immigration tribunal, revealing deep and troubling connections between the royals and the alleged Chinese operative. Yang, banned from the UK since 2023 over espionage suspicions, reportedly maintained close ties with Prince Andrew, offering him crucial support during his public disgrace following associations with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

These disturbing revelations detail a covert communication channel used by Andrew to exchange birthday greetings and maintain friendly diplomatic gestures toward Chinese President Xi Jinping. More alarmingly, Andrew empowered Yang as a key adviser and operative seeking Chinese investors for the Eurasia Fund, directly implicating royal influence in potential espionage activities.

King Charles’ involvement, once assumed peripheral, now sits center stage. Hampshire explicitly states that Charles was briefed at least twice on Andrew’s ventures, including the controversial Eurasia Fund. Buckingham Palace acknowledges meetings between Charles, Andrew, and advisers but vehemently denies any knowledge of Yang’s role. Their swift denial has done little to quell growing suspicion.

This scandal significantly intensifies scrutiny on the royals’ decision-making and national loyalty, posing a serious threat to Buckingham Palace’s reputation. Prince Andrew, already a deeply compromised figure, now drags King Charles into murky waters, potentially damaging trust in royal leadership.

The implications are chilling: Did King Charles knowingly allow Britain’s highest-profile diplomatic and security interests to be manipulated by foreign espionage efforts? The public and security experts alike demand answers as Britain grapples with this scandal’s alarming implications.

Buckingham Palace now faces an urgent need for transparency amid spiraling speculation and public outrage, as this espionage scandal threatens to undermine both royal credibility and national security at its highest levels.