A DW panel says Washington’s policy shift on Somalia could accelerate Somaliland’s strategic importance amid Red Sea competition, security challenges and new regional alliances.
Key Takeaways
-
Washington’s suspension of funding for the African Union mission has prompted debate about a broader strategic shift rather than a complete U.S. withdrawal.
-
Analysts believe the Horn of Africa is entering a period of intensified geopolitical competition.
-
Somaliland’s geographic position and relative stability are attracting increasing international attention.
-
Berbera Port continues to strengthen Somaliland’s economic and strategic relevance.
-
Turkey, Egypt, the UAE, Ethiopia, Israel and the United States are all recalibrating their regional strategies.
-
Somalia’s internal political divisions remain a major obstacle to long-term stability.
-
Maritime security in the Red Sea is becoming a central driver of international policy.
HARGEISA — As Washington reassesses its security commitments in Somalia, a growing number of regional analysts believe the Horn of Africa is approaching its most consequential geopolitical realignment since the end of the Cold War.
The immediate catalyst is the United States’ announcement that it will suspend financial support for the African Union mission in Somalia by the end of the year—a move that has fueled speculation over the future of Somalia’s fragile security architecture and intensified debate about whether Somaliland’s strategic importance is rising as Mogadishu struggles with mounting political and security crises.
Those questions took center stage during Deutsche Welle Arabic’s Evening News on July 10, where host Dima Tarhini convened three prominent Middle East and African affairs specialists to examine what many see as an emerging redistribution of influence across one of the world’s most strategically vital regions.
Framing the discussion around Washington’s evolving policy, Tarhini posed a question increasingly echoing through diplomatic circles:
“If the United States withdraws from this region, who will fill the void? Will Mogadishu fall to the rise of Somaliland? Are we witnessing the largest redistribution of influence in the Horn of Africa?”
While none of the guests predicted the imminent collapse of Somalia’s federal government, all agreed that American policy changes, intensifying regional rivalries and Somaliland’s growing strategic profile are reshaping calculations among global and regional powers.
The discussion came against a backdrop of renewed attacks by the al-Qaeda-linked militant group Al-Shabaab, persistent political divisions in Mogadishu, expanding competition over Red Sea shipping lanes and increasing international interest in Somaliland’s location along the Gulf of Aden.
Washington Reconsiders Two Decades of Policy
For more than twenty years, successive U.S. administrations have viewed Somalia primarily through the lens of counterterrorism.
“The United States may not be withdrawing, but rather searching for an alternative, a different intervention formula.”
— Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh
Washington has invested billions of dollars supporting Somali security forces, intelligence cooperation and international stabilization missions while maintaining military operations aimed at degrading Al-Shabaab’s capabilities.
The decision to halt financial support for the African Union mission therefore represents one of the most significant policy adjustments in recent years.
According to Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh, a Jordanian political analyst and strategic affairs expert participating from Amman, the move should not be interpreted as an American retreat.
Instead, he argued, it reflects a broader reassessment of partnerships that have failed to produce durable political stability.
“The United States may not be withdrawing, but rather searching for an alternative, a different intervention formula, different partnerships,” Al-Sabaileh said.
He suggested Washington is increasingly questioning whether the traditional architecture built around United Nations institutions and multinational missions has delivered measurable results.
“The lack of effectiveness, the failure to effect change, and the inability to deliver positive results,” he said, have prompted policymakers to reconsider long-standing arrangements.
Rather than abandoning Somalia altogether, Al-Sabaileh believes Washington is searching for regional partners capable of producing tangible security outcomes while advancing American strategic interests.
“The issue of combating terrorism remains paramount,” he added.
That distinction is important.
Although funding for the African Union mission may end, the United States has given no indication that it intends to terminate counterterrorism operations or military cooperation inside Somalia.
Instead, analysts increasingly view the policy as part of a broader shift toward more selective, interest-driven partnerships consistent with the Trump administration’s emphasis on burden-sharing and measurable returns.
A Region Too Strategic to Ignore
The Horn of Africa occupies one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical locations.
The Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, carrying a significant share of global maritime trade between Europe and Asia.
“Traditional alliances are over. The search today is for practical alliances.”
— Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh
Any prolonged instability along these waters has immediate implications for international shipping, global energy markets and military access to one of the busiest maritime corridors on Earth.
Tarhini challenged Al-Sabaileh on precisely that point.
If Washington reduces its role in Somalia, she asked, wouldn’t it risk surrendering influence over both the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the wider Red Sea?
Al-Sabaileh rejected that interpretation.
Instead, he argued the United States is attempting to redefine—not relinquish—its regional strategy.
“Traditional alliances are over,” he said.
“The search today is for practical alliances.”
He suggested future American partnerships are likely to prioritize governments and actors capable of delivering concrete security and economic outcomes rather than relying on legacy diplomatic relationships.
That approach, he argued, reflects a broader transformation underway across American foreign policy.
“The United States has withdrawn from most initiatives related to the United Nations,” he observed, arguing that Washington increasingly favors direct bilateral relationships over multilateral frameworks.
Egypt Sees a Changing Balance of Power
Joining the discussion from Cairo, retired Major General Mohamed Abdelwahed, an expert on Egyptian national security and African affairs, largely agreed that Washington’s announcement should not be interpreted as military disengagement.
Drawing on decades of experience in Somalia during the country’s civil conflict, Abdelwahed argued that American logistical support may be changing, but its strategic interests remain intact.
“There is no actual withdrawal,” he said.
“What happened is a decision concerning logistical and financial support.”
He noted that American assistance to Somali security forces continues independently of funding provided through international organizations.
The suspension, he argued, should instead be understood within the framework of President Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine, which places greater emphasis on reducing financial commitments while preserving core strategic interests.
For Cairo, however, even limited changes carry significant implications.
Egypt has long viewed developments in the Horn of Africa through the interconnected lenses of Red Sea security, Suez Canal commerce and its broader strategic competition with Ethiopia.
Abdelwahed warned that any redistribution of influence around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait inevitably affects Egyptian national security.
“The United States is looking at geography,” he said.
“The Bab el-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden—these are critical.”
He suggested Washington increasingly views geography itself as a strategic asset, making maritime access and logistical positioning as important as traditional military alliances.
Somaliland’s Strategic Profile Continues to Rise
One of the discussion’s most notable themes was the repeated emphasis on Somaliland’s growing geopolitical importance.
“The interest in Somaliland is significant. Somaliland has more strategic importance than southern Somalia.”
— Maj. Gen. Mohamed Abdelwahed
When Tarhini asked whether American policy adjustments might ultimately strengthen Somaliland at Somalia’s expense, Abdelwahed offered a direct assessment.
“The interest in Somaliland is significant,” he said. “Somaliland has more strategic importance than southern Somalia.”
That assessment reflects a broader trend increasingly visible among regional analysts.
Although Somaliland remains internationally unrecognized as a sovereign state, it has attracted growing attention because of its relative political stability, expanding commercial infrastructure and strategic location overlooking the Gulf of Aden.
Its deep-water port at Berbera—modernized through substantial investment by UAE-based DP World—has become central to discussions surrounding regional logistics, military access and alternative trade corridors connecting East Africa to global markets.
The territory’s geographic position has also gained importance amid heightened international concern over maritime security following repeated disruptions to Red Sea shipping routes.
For several governments, Somaliland now represents more than an unresolved political question.
It has become an increasingly important component of broader regional security planning.
From Military Competition to Economic Competition
Throughout the first half of the discussion, participants repeatedly returned to one underlying theme: economics is increasingly driving geopolitical strategy.
Al-Sabaileh argued that the United Arab Emirates offers perhaps the clearest example of this transformation.
Rather than relying primarily on military deployments, Abu Dhabi has pursued influence through investments in ports, logistics networks and transportation infrastructure.
“The Emirati vision has been built on an economic foundation,” he said.
He pointed specifically to the global expansion of DP World’s port operations as evidence that commercial infrastructure now serves both economic and strategic purposes.
By securing positions along critical maritime routes, countries can expand influence without relying solely on traditional military power.
That model, he suggested, has helped transform previously overlooked locations—including Somaliland—into valuable strategic assets.
As competition intensifies across the Red Sea basin, analysts increasingly view ports, trade corridors and logistics hubs as instruments of geopolitical influence alongside conventional security partnerships.
For Somaliland, whose strategic value has historically been tied to geography, those evolving priorities may be creating opportunities unimaginable only a decade ago.
While the panelists differed on the motivations behind Washington’s policy review, they converged on one broader conclusion: the Horn of Africa is no longer defined solely by counterterrorism. Instead, it has become the focal point of an increasingly complex contest involving maritime trade, military access, infrastructure investment and regional influence.
The Red Sea, they argued, has evolved from a commercial shipping corridor into one of the world’s principal geopolitical theaters.
For Somaliland, whose coastline stretches more than 850 kilometers along the Gulf of Aden, that transformation has elevated its strategic relevance far beyond the question of diplomatic recognition.
Israel, the UAE and the New Strategic Calculus
Al-Sabaileh argued that economic statecraft is increasingly shaping political alliances throughout the region.
He pointed to the United Arab Emirates’ decades-long investment in ports and logistics infrastructure as evidence that influence is increasingly measured not simply by military deployments, but by control over trade routes and commercial gateways.
“The Emirati vision has been built on an economic foundation,” he said.
Rather than pursuing conventional geopolitical competition, Abu Dhabi has invested heavily in maritime infrastructure capable of supporting both commercial and strategic objectives.
That approach, he suggested, explains growing international interest in Somaliland.
The expansion of Berbera Port and its associated transport corridor has transformed Somaliland from a peripheral territory into a critical node connecting East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and global shipping networks.
Al-Sabaileh also linked Israel’s growing interest in Somaliland to broader concerns about Red Sea security.
“The large Israeli investment in the Somaliland issue is related to the Red Sea.”
He argued that Israeli policymakers have become increasingly focused on ensuring maritime security following repeated disruptions to commercial shipping from Yemen.
“The Red Sea will become one of the next points of contention.”
In his assessment, the security of sea lanes now carries strategic importance comparable to traditional military alliances.
Turkey Says Its Somalia Policy Is Unchanged
From Istanbul, Professor Samir Salha, an expert in international relations and international law, challenged suggestions that Turkey’s long-standing engagement in Somalia was likely to diminish.
“Turkey has always had a consistent policy in dealing with the Somali file.”
— Dr. Samir Salha
Instead, he argued Ankara continues to regard Somalia as a central pillar of its African strategy.
“Turkey has always had a consistent policy in dealing with the Somali file.”
Over the past decade, Turkey has become one of Somalia’s most significant foreign partners through humanitarian assistance, infrastructure development, diplomatic engagement and military cooperation.
Ankara operates its largest overseas military training facility in Mogadishu, where thousands of Somali soldiers have received instruction.
Salha said that investment remains unchanged.
What has evolved, he argued, is Turkey’s regional diplomacy.
“Turkey is now coordinating with several countries in the region with which it was previously at odds.”
That shift, he suggested, reflects broader efforts to reduce tensions while preserving Turkish influence across the Horn of Africa.
At the same time, Salha acknowledged that Israel’s expanding engagement with Somaliland has become an increasingly important factor in Ankara’s strategic calculations.
“Israeli actions…are the point that Turkey is focusing on.”
He suggested future American policy would likely have to account for Turkey’s enduring role inside Somalia while balancing new partnerships emerging elsewhere in the region.
Somalia’s Greatest Challenge May Be Internal
Despite extensive discussion of external powers, the panel repeatedly emphasized that Somalia’s future ultimately depends on domestic political stability.
Abdelwahed pointed to constitutional disputes, political polarization and deteriorating security conditions as evidence that Somalia’s most serious vulnerabilities originate from within.
He argued that disagreements surrounding electoral reforms and governance have weakened national cohesion precisely as Al-Shabaab has regained momentum across parts of southern and central Somalia.
Those internal divisions, he suggested, create opportunities for militant groups to exploit local grievances despite years of international assistance.
The host repeatedly returned to a question that has long puzzled policymakers.
After nearly two decades of foreign military support, international funding and extensive security cooperation, why has Al-Shabaab remained resilient?
Abdelwahed offered a controversial interpretation.
“Terrorism is employed to achieve political goals.”
He suggested that extremist organizations increasingly function within broader geopolitical struggles involving both state and non-state actors.
Although he acknowledged this reflected his own assessment rather than established fact, he argued the persistence of militant violence has benefited multiple competing interests across the region.
The observation sparked further discussion about whether Somalia’s instability has become intertwined with wider geopolitical competition.
A Conflict Increasingly Defined by Influence
Al-Sabaileh agreed that modern militant organizations have evolved beyond purely ideological movements.
Instead, he argued they increasingly operate through pragmatic relationships involving criminal networks, regional actors and informal economic systems.
“The belief that these organizations are bound only by ideological ties is completely mistaken.”
Years of conflict, he said, have allowed armed groups to establish networks extending well beyond Somalia itself.
Consequently, restoring stability has become far more complicated than defeating insurgents on the battlefield.
The discussion broadened into whether major powers genuinely seek a fully stabilized Somalia or have instead adapted to managing chronic instability.
While none of the panelists claimed governments deliberately encourage conflict, several suggested that competing regional interests often undermine coherent long-term strategies.
“There is no declared desire for collapse,” Al-Sabaileh observed.
“But if it were to occur, we would find everyone adapting to the new reality.”
His comments reflected a recurring theme throughout the program: that geopolitical competition often prioritizes strategic positioning over comprehensive conflict resolution.
The Emerging Balance of Power
The discussion repeatedly returned to the growing competition between overlapping regional coalitions.
Abdelwahed described one grouping centered around the United States, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia, while another increasingly includes Egypt, Turkey and Gulf partners supporting Somalia’s federal institutions.
Although these alignments remain fluid rather than formal alliances, they illustrate the increasingly multipolar nature of Horn of Africa politics.
The Red Sea, participants argued, has become the intersection where commercial investment, military access, energy security and diplomatic competition converge.
For Washington, the challenge lies in balancing counterterrorism priorities with an evolving regional landscape in which traditional partnerships no longer guarantee strategic influence.
Could Somaliland Become the Principal Beneficiary?
As the discussion drew to a close, Tarhini asked perhaps the program’s most consequential question.
If Somalia continues to weaken while international partnerships evolve, who stands to benefit?
Abdelwahed warned that reductions in international financial support could unintentionally strengthen separatist movements across Somalia’s federal system.
“Somaliland is emerging as a more dynamic and productive player.”
— Dr. Amer Al-Sabaileh
He cited Somaliland alongside Puntland and Jubaland as political entities that could gain leverage if Mogadishu’s authority continues to erode.
“This might encourage separatist regions.”
He also suggested that growing international engagement with Somaliland could further reshape regional political dynamics.
Al-Sabaileh reached a similar conclusion from a different perspective.
Rather than focusing on Somalia’s weaknesses, he emphasized Somaliland’s strengths.
“Somaliland is built on the idea of appearing as a state…capable of implementing a vision.”
He argued that international actors increasingly seek reliable partners capable of delivering political stability, security cooperation and economic opportunity.
“It is emerging as a more dynamic and productive player.”
For countries prioritizing access to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, that combination may become increasingly attractive.
An Uncertain Future for the Horn of Africa
The Deutsche Welle discussion offered no consensus on whether Washington’s decision represents a temporary funding adjustment or the beginning of a more profound strategic transformation.
Nor did the panel suggest Somalia’s federal government faces imminent collapse.
What emerged instead was a picture of a region undergoing accelerated geopolitical change.
The Horn of Africa is becoming a theater where infrastructure rivals military power, where ports compete with air bases, and where economic partnerships increasingly shape diplomatic alignments.
In that environment, Somaliland’s strategic significance continues to grow—not solely because of its decades-long pursuit of international recognition, but because of its geography, relative stability and expanding role in Red Sea commerce.
Whether those advantages ultimately translate into broader diplomatic recognition remains uncertain.
What appears increasingly clear, however, is that policymakers across Washington, Ankara, Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Addis Ababa and Jerusalem are viewing Somaliland through a different strategic lens than they did only a few years ago.
As the United States recalibrates its engagement and regional powers compete to shape the future security architecture of the Horn of Africa, the question posed at the beginning of the Deutsche Welle program remains unresolved.
It is not simply whether Mogadishu can overcome its political and security challenges.
It is whether the shifting balance of power across the Red Sea will accelerate Somaliland’s emergence as one of the region’s most consequential strategic actors in the years ahead.
Watch the panel:
