Egypt Seeks to Contain Ethiopia’s ‘Threats’ through ‘Mogadishu Shipment’, Meeting in New York

The foreign ministers of Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea meet in New York. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
The foreign ministers of Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea meet in New York. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
TT
20

Egypt Seeks to Contain Ethiopia’s ‘Threats’ through ‘Mogadishu Shipment’, Meeting in New York

The foreign ministers of Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea meet in New York. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)
The foreign ministers of Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea meet in New York. (Egyptian Foreign Ministry)

Egypt is seeking to contain “potential threats from Ethiopia” over their disputes about the Grand Renaissance dam on the Nile River with the tensions already spilling over into the region.

Somalia accused Ethiopia of smuggling weapons on Tuesday amid fears that arms going into the conflict-riven Horn of Africa nation could end up in the hands of insurgents.

The neighbors traded barbs a day after an Egyptian warship unloaded heavy weaponry in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, the second shipment since a security pact in August.

Landlocked Ethiopia, which has thousands of troops in Somalia to fight al-Qaeda-linked insurgents, has fallen out with the Mogadishu government over its plans to build a port in the breakaway region of Somaliland in exchange for possible recognition of its sovereignty.

The spat has drawn Somalia closer to Egypt, which has quarreled with Ethiopia for years over Addis Ababa's construction of the vast hydro dam on the Nile River.

Last week, Somalia accused Ethiopia of shipping arms to the semi-autonomous state of Puntland. Somalia has threatened to expel Ethiopia's troops by the end of the year if the port deal was not scrapped.

In New York, the Egyptian, Somali and Eritrean foreign ministers met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly to coordinate “on the highest levels” given the tensions.

Experts told Asharq Al-Awsat that the growing cooperation between Egypt and Somalia and the New York meeting have effectively formed a “coalition” against Ethiopia’s threats in the Horn of Africa.

They said these developments are “messages to Ethiopia and a preemptive step” that would prevent it from imposing any form of status quo.

They did express their concerns that Ethiopia would increase its support to separatists to spark a new crisis in the region.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry said on Monday the shipment to Mogadishu aims to support Somalia and help it in its efforts “to achieve security and stability, fight terrorist and consolidate its territorial integrity.”

The shipment is in line with a military cooperation protocol that was signed with Somalia in August, it stressed.

Egypt will continue to play a “pivotal role in supporting Somalia develop national capabilities to achieve the aspirations of its people for security and stability,” added the ministry.

On Monday’s meeting in New York, it said it “reflected the joint coordination” between Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea and the “political will of their three countries to achieve joint goals and interests, preserve regional stability and respect Somalia sovereignty.”

The FMs agreed to continue close coordination and cooperation on all issues of common concern.

International relations expert Nabil Najmeddine noted that the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, not the army, made the announcement about the arms shipment.

“This is a message to the outside that Egypt will continue to support Somalia, that it is committed to the defense protocol and that it will not tolerate any threat to its national security,” he said.

“Egypt has the right to send the shipment to protect its national security,” he added, noting that Ethiopia’s agreement with Somalia’s breakaway region of Somaliland to lease its main port could in the future undermine global trade and the Suez Canal. The agreement was signed in January and rejected by Somalia.

“Egypt’s growing cooperation with Ethiopia’s neighbors carries several messages,” he remarked.

Landlocked Ethiopia has for years sought access to sea channels to meet its economic ambitions. Currently, it relies on neighboring Djibouti’s port for 95 percent of its marine trade.

Ethiopia has in the past sought to complete agreements with Eritrea, Sudan and Kenya over the use of their seaports. All failed for various reasons, such as war and coups in Sudan.

The agreement grants Ethiopia 20-km access to the Red Sea, specifically in the Berbera port, for a 50-year period. In return, Ethiopia will recognize Somaliland as a republic. The region has not been internationally recognized since it broke away from Somalia in 1991.



Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
TT
20

Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 

Following a series of intensified Israeli airstrikes on Damascus and the airports in Homs and Hama, as well as a ground incursion into the city of Nawa near Daraa, Israeli officials on Thursday escalated their rhetoric, issuing fresh threats to the Syrian leadership and warning of further military action—this time citing concerns over Turkish military activity in the region.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar voiced particular alarm over Türkiye’s growing role in Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said: “They are doing everything they can to turn Syria into a Turkish protectorate. That is clearly their intention.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed this sentiment, stating that Israel “will not allow Damascus to become a security threat” to Israel.

Rising Concern Over Türkiye’s Military Footprint in Syria

Military officials in Tel Aviv confirm that Israel sees Türkiye’s growing military presence in Syria as a serious concern. Their fear stems from two key issues: first, Ankara’s reported efforts to rebuild the Syrian army along the lines of its own modernized military model; and second, its apparent goal of establishing a long-term military foothold inside Syrian territory.

Israeli defense sources point out that Türkiye’s armed forces operate based on a traditional ground warfare doctrine, featuring large-scale armored divisions and well-equipped infantry units—similar in style to the Russian military. This stands in contrast to the Israeli military, which relies heavily on air superiority and has long underinvested in ground forces.

Given this disparity, any significant Turkish deployment in Syria could pose a direct challenge to Israeli operations and raise the risk of confrontation.

While the recent Israeli airstrikes targeted mostly long-defunct Syrian military sites—many of which have been hit repeatedly over the years—the attacks signal a broader strategic shift.

In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on southern Israel, the Israeli military has moved away from a defensive posture of deterrence and containment. In its place, the army has embraced a more aggressive doctrine built around preemptive action.

This shift was further underscored by the appointment of a new chief of staff from the Armored Corps—the first in three decades—signaling a renewed emphasis on ground operations and offensive initiatives.

Not Just a Message to Türkiye

Despite the messaging around Türkiye’s presence, analysts say the recent wave of Israeli military action also serves broader geopolitical aims.

After failing to persuade Washington to pressure Ankara to scale back its involvement in Syria, Israel now appears determined to assert its own red lines militarily. The airstrike on the Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus—a facility already destroyed multiple times since 2018—was widely viewed as symbolic.

Israeli officials say the intended audience for that particular strike was Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, whom Israeli intelligence continues to refer to by his former nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. By launching the attack during the Eid al-Fitr holiday, Israel aimed to send a clear message: there will be no return to normalcy in Syria without accounting for Israeli interests.

Among those interests is normalization. Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his desire to see Syria and Lebanon join the Abraham Accords and establish formal diplomatic ties with Israel.

Hardline figures within Netanyahu’s coalition believe Israel currently holds a strategic upper hand. As right-wing think tank head Meir Ben-Shabbat recently wrote: “Israel is in its strongest position ever. It is transforming the Middle East, expanding its military capabilities, and pushing back the Iranian axis—while Syria is at its weakest.”

For many in Israel’s ruling right, this is an ideal moment to push for a peace agreement with Syria, possibly even one involving Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights.

The Real Audience: Domestic Israel

Still, perhaps the most significant message behind the military campaign is directed not at Ankara, Damascus, or even Tehran—but at Tel Aviv.

As protests against Netanyahu’s leadership have grown louder in recent months, military escalation has served as a convenient political shield. The wars in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon dominate public attention and have largely sidelined anti-government demonstrations.

“Netanyahu’s government must go, but we won’t take to the streets while our sons are fighting,” has become a common refrain among many Israelis who oppose his leadership but remain reluctant to protest during wartime.

By maintaining a state of conflict, Netanyahu is not only securing his coalition’s survival but also enabling his allies to advance a hardline agenda—particularly on the Palestinian issue—that would have faced greater resistance in peacetime.

Critics warn that this strategy, while politically expedient, comes at a steep cost to Israel’s democratic institutions, its judiciary, and the long-term stability of the region.