Perched along one of the world’s most strategic maritime corridors, Somaliland has suddenly found itself thrust into global geopolitics. Israel’s recognition of the breakaway region is less about Somaliland itself and more about what its geography offers access, leverage and strategic reach in a region already teetering on instability.
Geography as Instrument
The strategic attraction of Somaliland lies overwhelmingly in its geography, particularly the port of Berbera, situated along one of the busiest maritime routes linking the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. Control or influence in this corridor carries immense military and intelligence value, especially as tensions across the Gulf of Aden intensify. Israeli interest in security cooperation, intelligence access and potential basing is widely understood as an attempt to counter Houthi capabilities and expand surveillance reach near critical shipping lanes.
This is not diplomacy in pursuit of peace or partnership; it is geography weaponised for strategic depth. Somaliland, in this calculus, is reduced from a political entity with internal complexities into a forward operating space, a means to project power rather than a society to be stabilised.
Undermining Sovereignty and Regional Consensus
By recognising Somaliland, Israel has chosen to bypass African Union consensus, disregard Somalia’s territorial integrity, and inject an external security agenda into an already fragile region. Somaliland’s unresolved status has long been managed through cautious diplomacy precisely because unilateral recognition risks igniting wider fragmentation across the Horn of Africa.
Israel’s move erodes this delicate equilibrium. It normalises the notion that powerful external actors may selectively legitimise breakaway territories when it suits their security objectives. Such precedents are corrosive, particularly in post-colonial regions where borders however imperfect — remain central to preventing perpetual conflict.
Security Expansion as Strategic Myopia
In seeking advantage, Israel has once again chosen disruption. The Somaliland gambit reflects a broader pattern of strategic myopia, the persistent assumption that expanded military reach can substitute for political settlement. History offers little support for this belief.
From Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen, Israel’s expanding theatres of engagement have yielded diminishing returns. Rather than neutralising threats, such strategies have entrenched cycles of retaliation, hardened adversaries and widened zones of instability. Each new front has stretched resources, diluted deterrence and internationalised conflicts that might otherwise have remained containable.
The Horn of Africa risks becoming yet another chapter in this pattern.
Militarising the Horn of Africa
The Horn is already crowded with foreign interests, Gulf states, Western powers and regional actors competing for ports, bases and influence. Israel’s entry adds another layer of militarisation to an environment marked by weak governance, economic fragility and unresolved civil conflicts.
Turning Somaliland into an extension of Israel’s conflict architecture does not enhance regional security; it heightens volatility. Intelligence facilities, security cooperation agreements and potential military footprints invite countermeasures, making local communities collateral in strategic rivalries that are not of their making.
Local Costs, External Agendas
Lost amid geopolitical manoeuvring is the reality that Somaliland’s internal stability remains precarious. Economic underdevelopment, clan tensions and unresolved relations with Mogadishu demand political solutions, not external securitisation.
Israeli recognition risks distorting Somaliland’s internal politics by tethering its future to external security patrons rather than inclusive governance and regional reconciliation. What is framed as international validation may instead deepen isolation from African frameworks and expose the region to retaliation from actors opposed to Israeli expansion.
The Illusion of Strategic Gain
By projecting power into Somaliland, Israel may believe it is pre-empting threats emanating from the Red Sea corridor. Yet such moves often produce the opposite effect: drawing hostile attention, legitimising asymmetric responses and internationalising conflicts that thrive on provocation.
Strategic reach without political legitimacy is rarely sustainable. The illusion of control gained through bases and alliances tends to mask deeper vulnerabilities overstretch, diplomatic isolation and escalating resistance.
A Dangerous Precedent
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is not an isolated act; it is a symptom of a wider strategic impulse that privileges immediate security calculations over long-term regional stability. It weakens international norms, disregards African consensus and transforms fragile regions into arenas of proxy confrontation.
By choosing opportunism over restraint, Israel risks entrenching instability not only in the Horn of Africa but within its own security environment. History has repeatedly shown that security pursued through fragmentation and coercion seldom endures.
In Somaliland, as elsewhere, power projection masquerading as diplomacy may secure temporary advantage but it does so at the cost of lasting peace.
Why Israel Is Drawn to Somaliland
Perched along one of the world’s most strategic maritime corridors, Somaliland has suddenly found itself thrust into global geopolitics. Israel’s recognition of the breakaway region is less about Somaliland itself and more about what its geography offers access, leverage and strategic reach in a region already teetering on instability.
Geography as Instrument
The strategic attraction of Somaliland lies overwhelmingly in its geography, particularly the port of Berbera, situated along one of the busiest maritime routes linking the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. Control or influence in this corridor carries immense military and intelligence value, especially as tensions across the Gulf of Aden intensify. Israeli interest in security cooperation, intelligence access and potential basing is widely understood as an attempt to counter Houthi capabilities and expand surveillance reach near critical shipping lanes.
This is not diplomacy in pursuit of peace or partnership; it is geography weaponised for strategic depth. Somaliland, in this calculus, is reduced from a political entity with internal complexities into a forward operating space, a means to project power rather than a society to be stabilised.
Undermining Sovereignty and Regional Consensus
By recognising Somaliland, Israel has chosen to bypass African Union consensus, disregard Somalia’s territorial integrity, and inject an external security agenda into an already fragile region. Somaliland’s unresolved status has long been managed through cautious diplomacy precisely because unilateral recognition risks igniting wider fragmentation across the Horn of Africa.
Israel’s move erodes this delicate equilibrium. It normalises the notion that powerful external actors may selectively legitimise breakaway territories when it suits their security objectives. Such precedents are corrosive, particularly in post-colonial regions where borders however imperfect — remain central to preventing perpetual conflict.
Security Expansion as Strategic Myopia
In seeking advantage, Israel has once again chosen disruption. The Somaliland gambit reflects a broader pattern of strategic myopia, the persistent assumption that expanded military reach can substitute for political settlement. History offers little support for this belief.
From Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen, Israel’s expanding theatres of engagement have yielded diminishing returns. Rather than neutralising threats, such strategies have entrenched cycles of retaliation, hardened adversaries and widened zones of instability. Each new front has stretched resources, diluted deterrence and internationalised conflicts that might otherwise have remained containable.
The Horn of Africa risks becoming yet another chapter in this pattern.
Militarising the Horn of Africa
The Horn is already crowded with foreign interests, Gulf states, Western powers and regional actors competing for ports, bases and influence. Israel’s entry adds another layer of militarisation to an environment marked by weak governance, economic fragility and unresolved civil conflicts.
Turning Somaliland into an extension of Israel’s conflict architecture does not enhance regional security; it heightens volatility. Intelligence facilities, security cooperation agreements and potential military footprints invite countermeasures, making local communities collateral in strategic rivalries that are not of their making.
Local Costs, External Agendas
Lost amid geopolitical manoeuvring is the reality that Somaliland’s internal stability remains precarious. Economic underdevelopment, clan tensions and unresolved relations with Mogadishu demand political solutions, not external securitisation.
Israeli recognition risks distorting Somaliland’s internal politics by tethering its future to external security patrons rather than inclusive governance and regional reconciliation. What is framed as international validation may instead deepen isolation from African frameworks and expose the region to retaliation from actors opposed to Israeli expansion.
The Illusion of Strategic Gain
By projecting power into Somaliland, Israel may believe it is pre-empting threats emanating from the Red Sea corridor. Yet such moves often produce the opposite effect: drawing hostile attention, legitimising asymmetric responses and internationalising conflicts that thrive on provocation.
Strategic reach without political legitimacy is rarely sustainable. The illusion of control gained through bases and alliances tends to mask deeper vulnerabilities overstretch, diplomatic isolation and escalating resistance.
A Dangerous Precedent
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is not an isolated act; it is a symptom of a wider strategic impulse that privileges immediate security calculations over long-term regional stability. It weakens international norms, disregards African consensus and transforms fragile regions into arenas of proxy confrontation.
By choosing opportunism over restraint, Israel risks entrenching instability not only in the Horn of Africa but within its own security environment. History has repeatedly shown that security pursued through fragmentation and coercion seldom endures.
In Somaliland, as elsewhere, power projection masquerading as diplomacy may secure temporary advantage but it does so at the cost of lasting peace.
News Desk