Israel Versus Turkey in Africa

CrossFireArabia
Opinion
December 29, 2025

By Prof. Dr. Yahya Amir Hagi Ibrahim

The strategic waters of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have once again become a flashpoint, with recent actions suggesting a dangerous escalation that threatens to unravel fragile stability and deliberately target international investments. Israel has shifted toward a posture that uses access to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden as part of its broader regional strategy. At the same time, Türkiye is deepening its footprint in Somalia with long-term development projects spanning energy, infrastructure, and space technology. After Israel’s decision to recognize Somalia’s breakaway region, Somaliland, Somalian President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud pays a critical visit to Türkiye.

Houthis and Bab al-Mandab Strait

In response to Israel’s genocide on Gaza, Yemen’s Houthi rebels have launched drones, missiles, and maritime attacks targeting Israel and commercial shipping (toward Israel or flying the flag of Israel-supporting countries) in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and nearby waters. In response, Israel has conducted multiple airstrikes in Yemen.

More recently, Israel’s recognition of Somalia’s breakaway region, Somaliland, as an independent state in December 2025 marked a dramatic diplomatic shift. Israel became the first UN member state to formally recognize the breakaway region (situated near the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait), drawing strong objections from Somalia, Türkiye, Egypt, and others who view the move as a threat to regional stability.

Alarmingly, these actions appear to deliberately focus on areas where Türkiye has made significant investments in stability and capacity-building, signaling steps aimed not just at military objectives but at broader stabilization. This calculated targeting strikes at the heart of a pivotal and transformative partnership between Türkiye and Somalia. Over recent years, this alliance has moved far beyond diplomacy into tangible, nation-building projects designed to foster economic growth and regional security. To see them threatened is to see a blueprint for progress put at risk.

Over the past decade, Türkiye has built a deep, multi-layered partnership with Somalia, positioning itself as a key security and economic partner. Ankara’s long-term involvement began in earnest with high-level visits in 2011 and expanded through defense, economic, and development agreements.

Central to this is hydrocarbon exploration: under agreements granting rights across some 15,000 square kilometers of Somali offshore blocks, the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) has conducted seismic surveys and plans to begin oil drilling by 2026, potentially harnessing significant reserves.

Beyond energy, Türkiye desires to include cutting-edge technological infrastructure. Ankara is planning a space launch facility in Somalia, leveraging the country’s equatorial advantage for satellite launches and potentially missile testing. The project (part of broader cooperation agreements signed in 2024) is expected to strengthen Türkiye’s aerospace capabilities and deepen strategic ties.

Turkish capacity-building

Türkiye’s footprint also extends to security and capacity-building. The Turkish military operates Camp TURKSOM, its largest overseas base, which trains Somali forces and enhances naval and coastguard capabilities. Joint agreements signed in recent years include maritime security cooperation to patrol Somali waters for a decade, protecting both regional stability and economic activities. Additionally, Turkish infrastructure investments include modernization of airports, hospitals, fishery programs, and diplomatic compounds.

Türkiye’s strategy is structural, aimed at building Somali capabilities and mutual economic stakes. Whether through oil, space technology, or infrastructure, Ankara’s footprint in the Horn of Africa is designed for sustained impact.

The author who has contributed this piece to Anadolu, is the deputy chairman of RAAD Peace Research Institute, a Somaville University Mogadishu board member and lecturer on economic development.

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Opinion

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

Dr Khairi Janbek
May 10, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start. But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides. Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Opinion

How Trump Burned Western Friendships

CrossFireArabia
May 7, 2026

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.