By Sisay Mulu
Introduction
One of the regions most likely to undergo significant and maybe disruptive change as the world deals with the reality of Donald Trump’s comeback to the White House is the Horn of Africa. Rooted in a transactional approach, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy could destroy years of international cooperation and sour delicate alliances. Unlike other US presidents, Trump has shown minimal tolerance for multilateral commitments or international norms, choosing instead relationships that directly advance American interests. For geopolitally sensitive regions like the Horn of Africa, where decades-old alliances and careful balances are essential to preserving stability, this model has broad repercussions.
More than just a patchwork of countries with regional disputes and internal turmoil, the Horn of Africa is a vital center in the global geopolitical scene. Tucked at the junction of Africa and the Middle East and under control over important maritime trade routes like the Red Sea corridor, this area serves as both a focal point for regional and worldwide powers both now and going forward. This is not only a question of geography. From the United States and China to regional players like Egypt, UAE, Russia and Turkey, powerful countries have paid close attention to the Horn’s ongoing challenges—political instability, fierce resource competition, and ethnic conflicts.
Trump’s comeback would probably lead U.S. involvement in this sensitive area to change to a selective, America-first strategy, so posing hazards and adjustments. The stakes are never lower for Ethiopia, Sudan, or Somalia. The Horn of Africa is on a precipice, and Trump’s U.S. foreign policy could well decide whether it leans toward a precarious stability or farther into conflict and fragmentation.
Changing Tensions and Alliances Across the Region
Ethiopia’s recent cooperation with Somaliland for Red Sea access has brought fresh difficulties in the ever-complicated Horn of Africa that compromise the stability of the area and Somalia’s territorial integrity. This action has caused great disturbance in Somalia, which sees Somaliland as part of its sovereign land. Given the delicate dynamics involved, a Trump administration might well give Somaliland’s unification top priority rather than supporting its autonomy.
Trump’s View of U.S. Geostrategic Interests and Somali Unity
Given Trump’s past inclination for transactional diplomacy serving immediate U.S. interests, his government would probably lean toward endorsing Somalia’s territorial integrity. This posture would coincide with long-standing American policy supporting a unified Somali state, which supports Somalia’s claim to Somaliland and deters regional fragmentation. Trump’s strategy might see Ethiopia’s alignment with Somaliland as destabilizing, driving the nation toward conflict and running a more general, more expensive intervention risk. Prioritizing a stable, unified Somalia will help Trump to make sure that American interests in maritime security and regional stability remain unaltered without aggravating more conflict.
Rising Ethiopia-Somalia Tensions and the Danger of Proxy Conflict
Trump’s position on Somali territorial integrity and unity would create conditions for increased hostility between Ethiopia and Somalia. Supported by Turkey, Egypt, and maybe the UAE should it realign its interests, Somalia would be more confident to challenge Ethiopia’s expansion. Egypt, with its own interests in opposing Ethiopia because of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) conflict, might see Ethiopia’s isolation as a chance to strengthen its alliance with Somalia so increasing its influence in the Horn of Africa.
Under this situation Ethiopia might encounter strong opposition without trustworthy allies. Trump’s support of Somalia’s unification would not only impede Ethiopia’s access to other trade routes but also put the country in a vulnerable posture surrounded by well-supported neighbors. With Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and the UAE lining up either with or against each other depending on conflicting interests, Ethiopia’s aspirations could unintentionally turn the Horn of Africa into a proxy battlefield. Support for Somali unity by a Trump administration would thus restrict Ethiopia’s strategic choices, so directly opposing a coalition of regional players united by their support of a stable, territorially intact Somalia.
Should Trump give Somali territorial integrity top priority and align with allies like Turkey and Egypt top priority, Ethiopia’s strategic objectives in the area could be stifled and it would be forced to either review its regional alliances or risk being enmeshed in a protracted, destabilizing rivalry that could eat resources and reduce its influence. Under Trump, a dedication to Somali unity could change the power dynamics in the area: Ethiopia finds itself more isolated while Somalia, supported by strong allies, shows as a more unified and resilient state inside the Horn of Africa.
Sudan’s Civil Conflict
General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti) of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been pitted against each other in a brutal struggle for control amid the country’s ongoing civil conflict. Originally a power struggle in 2023, what started out as such has turned into general bloodshed with terrible effects on the population. This conflict has left Sudan dangerously split in important areas like Khartoum and Darfur, where humanitarian crises have reached startling proportions, causing unimaginable suffering and unrest.
The issue now is how the United States—with a Trump presidency—would affect the fragile terrain of Sudan.
Historically, Trump has favored “strongmen” allies—that is, leaders who provide some degree of stability even if that stability is obtained by authoritarian means. This inclination could very well show up in Sudan, where Trump might support a person like Burhan or Hemeti depending on perceived U.S. interests, independent of how Sudanese citizens aspirations are impacted.
Support for a strong military leader in Sudan by a Trump administration might tip the scales quite dramatically. Given U.S. interests in preserving regional security, backing Burhan—who is regarded as a conventional military figure—who has SAF support could fit Hemeti’s mastery of the RSF and control over Sudan’s economic resources—especially rich gold mines—present a strong counterpoint that would appeal to a Trump-led government’s transactional style, though. For Sudan, this inclination for alliances grounded on pragmatic self-interest instead of ideas of justice or governance has alarming consequences. It runs the danger of supporting authoritarianism at the price of democratic procedures, so undermining the already precarious attempts at civilian-led government.
Such a posture by the United States will not only change Sudan’s internal dynamics but also have resonance throughout the region. Should Trump support one faction, for example, nations already major players in Sudan’s conflict, such as Egypt or the UAE, could be empowered to increase their engagement. Egypt has a stake in helping Burhan and will match its backing to the more general geopolitical interests of the SAF. Alternatively, supporting Hemeti could draw the attention of other powerful players such as the UAE or Russia’s Wagner Group, which have expressed interest in Sudan’s resources and geopolitical orientation.
A U.S. intervention, especially in favor of a single military faction, may cause Sudan to veer dangerously. This could turn the conflict into a more extensive proxy fight involving not only local but also global participants fighting for control over Sudan’s riches and geopolitical significance. Such a result would undermine Sudan even more, damage its social fabric permanently, and maybe heighten regional rivalry.
Simply said, the engagement of a Trump presidency in Sudan might fundamentally change the balance of power and jeopardize the long-term stability of the area. Sudan would have a road out of its present situation if a measured approach giving civilian protection and support for democratic institutions top priority. Supporting authoritarian strongmen in the name of “stability,” however, would feed a cycle of strife and produce, at best, a brittle peace.
In conclusion, a Trump-led approach in the Horn of Africa, focused on transactional diplomacy and selective alliances, threatens to upend fragile balances and deepen conflicts across the region. By prioritizing short-term U.S. interests over long-standing multilateral commitments, this policy risks entrenching authoritarian regimes, undermining democratic efforts, and provoking regional tensions. The Horn stands at a critical juncture, where U.S. engagement could either stabilize or fragment its future.
Editor’s note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
To Publish an Article On borkena , please send submission to info@borkena.com for consideration.
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Borkena Business Listing/Business Directory Jobs
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter ) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian news updates regularly. Ethiopia To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com
Are you Abiy’s mouthpiece? As far as I understand it, Abiy decided to sign the controversial MOu without any consultation. So, the danger for the region is Abiy not Somalia’s unification. If a sane Ethiopian leader is in power, Ethiopia can have multiple sea access with all its neighbors because it brings mutual benefit to the Countries.
Consult who? very courageous wish, Yelij neger, but no one is qualified to be consulted from the political field that exists in Ethiopia beside the Ruling party! let me remind you, Medium size politician like yourself lol or large size politicians never talked about Ethiopia going back to red sea, they gave up, they even got offended like you when the genius leader of Ethiopia Dr Abiy triggered the issue in a way that guarantee Ethiopia will definitely get access to Red Sea. 1000 % ! We need to learn how to be nice and fair to ourselves to make sure we give credit when it is necessary. Please give him the credit immediately :)
Some people used to oppose the construction of GERD
I know some of them. They used to say Freedom Freedom Freedom, now relatively we got freedom compared to TPLF colonization period, they still ask for Freedom while they live with it. I am confused, what are you guys eating?
The regional power and stable Tigray has close cooperation and bilateral relation with the USA. The government of Tigray should send a message of congratulation and good will to president elect Donald Trump.
Mr. Comedian,
My Trump hated TPLF! I wish he was in power the past 3 plus years, TPLF could have been eliminated by now. Go back and check a few words from Trump, when TPLF fired a few stolen missiles to Amhara region and Eritrea. Fast forward, our king Dr. Abiy did what is necessary to eliminate TPLF to the point they can’t even bite anymore. guraa bichaa
I wish Tigray people understood TPLF was satanic, dureyee and it will eat Tigray before it eats other regions. To your point Tigray never been stable and I don’t think it will be unless Tigray people eliminate TPLF once and for all, and get rid of that thought which says Tigray is Gold and bla bla bla, but Tigray never secured its food and water? come onnnnnn….
Excellent presentation. But the author did not mention where Eritrea will lie in the new landscape after January 20, 2025 which tells me or at least think the well written article was prepared and posted here not by an independent individual but a group delegated for such task. The Egypt-Eritrea-Somalia troika was a huge headline, for crying out loud! But that was ignored in this article. Was that an honest oversight? I doubt it.
Now, regarding Somaliland, it will take a miracle to convince its citizens to go back to the old days. It will take a massacre of millions to put it back in the pockets of those in Villa Mogadishu. I am not making this up. Try to talk to someone from Somaliland and you will get an ear full about reunification. Remember the current Somalia leaders ambition does not stop with Somaliland. They have Ogaden, Northern Territories in Kenya and Djibouti itself in their short and long term sight. So, those Siad Barre incarnate fat cats at Villa Mogadishu can muster all the support they can muster about Somaliland but that support will not go beyond lip sucking sympathy except, may be, Egypt. USA will never send its long range B52’s to bomb the living daylight of Hargeisa and at the same time defending Taiwan to the death. That ain’t gonna happen.
What I would like to see is Good Ole USA putting pressure on all warring factions including the ruling party in Ethiopia and force them to come to a negotiating table and stop the bloodshed. At the same time it should caution the orphans in Cairo not to even think about to go ‘funny’ on the dam. It is a proven fact that the dam has not negatively affected the flow of water to either Sudan or Egypt even by a spoonful. USA should remind the Superpower wannabes in Cairo that if they try to harm the dam, they may kiss and say goodbye to the waters from the Blue Nile forever.
Peace y’all!!!
The US & Co.: Should Ethiopia really care whether Democrats or Republicans rule the US? Isn’t the West all about White Supremacy, Black Slavery, and Double Standards?
Ethiopia & Somaliland: Ethiopia should have recognized Somaliland as a State in 1960. Didn’t British colonial rule in Somaliland end in 1960?
West’s Eritrea-Somaliland Double Standard: Why did the West fast-track Eritrea’s statehood in 1991 while denying Somaliland the same for 64 years running?
Invasion-and-Occupation of Ethiopia: In 1991, Egypt’s Proxy Secessionists from Eritrea [EPLF] & Tigray [TPLF] invaded-and-occupied Ethiopia & co-looted Ethiopia till 1998.
EPLF-TPLF’s Ethiopia [1991-1998]: In 1991, EPLF held a phony Referendum for Secession: Red Card for Slavery [with Ethiopia] & Green for ‘Independence (99.99 %)’.
NB: In 1952, the UN also held another referendum in Eritrea where ≥90% voted to stay with Ethiopia. Why hadn’t the UN also asked Ethiopians if they wanted Eritrea(ns) back?