عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Will Ethiopia Take Advantage of Sudan’s Unrest to Resolve Border Dispute?

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the president of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council Abdul Fattah al-Burhan during a previous meeting. (Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the president of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council Abdul Fattah al-Burhan during a previous meeting. (Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
TT
TT

Will Ethiopia Take Advantage of Sudan’s Unrest to Resolve Border Dispute?

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the president of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council Abdul Fattah al-Burhan during a previous meeting. (Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the president of the Sudanese Sovereignty Council Abdul Fattah al-Burhan during a previous meeting. (Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The border dispute between Addis Ababa and Khartoum over Al-Fashaga has returned to the fore, following Sudanese reports about “unusual” movement by the Ethiopian forces in the disputed area since the eruption of the recent unrest in Sudan.

Ethiopia’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, denied claims that his forces have entered the Sudanese border area, expressing confidence that the “Sudanese people will not listen to such allegations,” which he described as “false.”

The dispute between Sudan and Ethiopia over Al-Fashaga dates back to the colonial era, and several attempts to demarcate a 744-kilometer border between the two countries were unsuccessful. In 2008, negotiations between them reached a compromise, with Ethiopia recognizing the legal border, and Sudan allowing Ethiopians to continue living there without complications.

However, by the end of June 2022, tension returned again, after Sudan accused the Ethiopian army of capturing and killing seven Sudanese soldiers. According to Sudanese media sources, “Ethiopia took advantage of the bloody fighting in Sudan between the army and the Rapid Support Forces, and entered Al-Fashaga area,” pointing to intense reconnaissance operations carried out by Ethiopian troops in the region.

On the other hand, the Ethiopian prime minister accused some parties of “seeking to achieve political goals by publishing allegations that aim to distort the good-neighborly relations between Ethiopia and Sudan.”

In a statement, Abiy Ahmed said: “At this critical stage, in which the common identity and destiny of the Sudanese and Ethiopian peoples face many challenges, some parties are seeking to achieve their menial political goals by spreading false allegations.”

The border issue “will be resolved through dialogue and discussions,” he stressed, rejecting attempts to take advantage of the current situation in Sudan.

Dr. Abdel-Moneim Hamat, a Sudanese political analyst, ruled out an Ethiopian military intervention in the disputed region, amid the turmoil in Sudan.

In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat, he said: “Abiy Ahmed and his leadership will not adopt this approach in any way, at the present time, especially since he personally intervened more than once as a party to resolve Sudanese internal disputes, just as Sudan did in Ethiopia. Therefore, the Ethiopian government will not risk its reputation and surroundings for a cause that is not essential.”

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
TT
TT

Iran Faces Tough Choices in Deciding How to Respond to Israeli Strikes

This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)
This satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran's Khojir military base outside of Tehran, Iran, Oct. 8, 2024. (Planet Labs PBC via AP)

It's Iran's move now.
How Iran chooses to respond to the unusually public Israeli aerial assault on its homeland could determine whether the region spirals further toward all-out war or holds steady at an already devastating and destabilizing level of violence.
In the coldly calculating realm of Middle East geopolitics, a strike of the magnitude that Israel delivered Saturday would typically be met with a forceful response. A likely option would be another round of the ballistic missile barrages that Iran has already launched twice this year, The Associated Press said.
Retaliating militarily would allow Iran's clerical leadership to show strength not only to its own citizens but also to Hamas in Gaza and Lebanon's Hezbollah, the militant groups battling Israel that are the vanguard of Tehran's so-called Axis of Resistance.
It is too soon to say whether Iran's leadership will follow that path.
Tehran may decide against forcefully retaliating directly for now, not least because doing so might reveal its weaknesses and invite a more potent Israeli response, analysts say.
“Iran will play down the impact of the strikes, which are in fact quite serious,” said Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the London-based think tank Chatham House.
She said Iran is “boxed in" by military and economic constraints, and the uncertainty caused by the US election and its impact on American policy in the region.
Even while the Mideast wars rage, Iran's reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has been signaling his nation wants a new nuclear deal with the US to ease crushing international sanctions.
A carefully worded statement from Iran’s military Saturday night appeared to offer some wiggle room for Iran to back away from further escalation. It suggested that a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon was more important than any retaliation against Israel.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran's ultimate decision-maker, was also measured in his first comments on the strike Sunday. He said the attack “should not be exaggerated nor downplayed,” and he stopped short of calling for an immediate military response.
Saturday's strikes targeted Iranian air defense missile batteries and missile production facilities, according to the Israeli military.
With that, Israel has exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s air defenses and can now more easily step up its attacks, analysts say.
Satellite photos analyzed by The Associated Press indicate Israel's raid damaged facilities at the Parchin military base southeast of Tehran that experts previously linked to Iran's onetime nuclear weapons program and another base tied to its ballistic missile program.
Current nuclear sites were not struck, however. Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirmed that on X, saying “Iran’s nuclear facilities have not been impacted.”
Israel has been aggressively bringing the fight to the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah, killing its leader and targeting operatives in an audacious exploding pager attack.
“Any Iranian attempt to retaliate will have to contend with the fact that Hezbollah, its most important ally against Israel, has been significantly degraded and its conventional weapons systems have twice been largely repelled,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, who expects Iran to hold its fire for now.
That's true even if Israel held back, as appears to be the case. Some prominent figures in Israel, such as opposition leader Yair Lapid, are already saying the attacks didn't go far enough.
Regional experts suggested that Israel's relatively limited target list was intentionally calibrated to make it easier for Iran to back away from escalation.
As Yoel Guzansky, who formerly worked for Israel’s National Security Council and is now a researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, put it: Israel's decision to focus on purely military targets allows Iran "to save face.”
Israel's target choices may also be a reflection at least in part of its capabilities. It is unlikely to be able to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities on its own and would require help from the United States, Guzansky said.
Besides, Israel still has leverage to go after higher-value targets should Iran retaliate — particularly now that nodes in its air defenses have been destroyed.
“You preserve for yourself all kinds of contingency plans,” Guzansky said.
Thomas Juneau, a University of Ottawa professor focused on Iran and the wider Middle East, wrote on X that the fact Iranian media initially downplayed the strikes suggests Tehran may want to avoid further escalation. Yet it's caught in a tough spot.
“If it retaliates, it risks an escalation in which its weakness means it loses more,” he wrote. “If it does not retaliate, it projects a signal of weakness.”
Vakil agreed that Iran's response was likely to be muted and that the strikes were designed to minimize the potential for escalation.
“Israel has yet again shown its military precision and capabilities are far superior to that of Iran,” she said.
One thing is certain: The Mideast is in uncharted territory.
For decades, leaders and strategists in the region have speculated about whether and how Israel might one day openly strike Iran, just as they wondered what direct attacks by Iran, rather than by its proxy militant groups, would look like.
Today, it's a reality. Yet the playbook on either side isn't clear, and may still be being written.
“There appears to be a major mismatch both in terms of the sword each side wields and the shield it can deploy,” Vaez said.
“While both sides have calibrated and calculated how quickly they climb the escalation ladder, they are in an entirely new territory now, where the new red lines are nebulous and the old ones have turned pink,” he said.