OPINION: When The New World Disorder Arrives on Our Shores
On 26 December 2025, Israel announced its recognition of what it calls “Somaliland.” What had long circulated as speculation is now a declared political act. This was not a misunderstanding, a rumour, or diplomatic ambiguity. It was deliberate. Thanking the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence agency) in the Israeli PM’s declaration letter was not merely a passing statement; it is significant.
But it must be stated clearly from the outset: this concerns the north-west region of Somalia, not a sovereign state. Every reference to “Somaliland” must be understood in that context.
This moment represents the first real shock of what I warned about; how the Somali government and the people are so unprepared – about in Surviving the New World Disorder, a chapter in my book The Idea of a State, a world in which global rules are weakening, power is increasingly transactional, and states that fail to discipline themselves are tested by external actors.
That world has now reached Somalia.
What This Recognition Is and What It Is Not
Israel’s recognition of “Somaliland” is politically provocative and significant but legally hollow. Even if other countries were to follow Israel—and that possibility cannot be ruled out—such recognitions would still violate international law, African Union principles, and the United Nations system that recognises Somalia as a single, sovereign state within its internationally agreed borders.
Recognition by individual states does not manufacture legality. It does not create a lawful international personality. It does not override Somalia’s UN membership, nor does it dissolve the principle of territorial integrity that underpins the post-colonial international order.
This is why the move, while serious, is not decisive. Momentum can be staged. Noise can be amplified. But legal statehood does not emerge from provocation alone—unless the parent state collapses politically or morally.
The real danger, therefore, is not Israel’s action in isolation. It is Somalia’s response.
Regional Fire Risk and the Wider Stakes
This development must be understood within a much larger regional context.
The Red Sea is already one of the most militarised and volatile corridors in the world. Any perception—real or exaggerated—of an Israeli political or strategic footprint on the African side of Bab al-Mandab will reverberate far beyond Somalia. For actors such as the Houthis, perception is sufficient to justify escalation.
Major regional stakeholders, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, will read this move through the lenses of Red Sea security, regional balance, and precedent. The Horn of Africa is not insulated from Middle Eastern conflicts; it is increasingly entangled in them.
Somalis must therefore prepare themselves honestly: pressures may intensify before they subside. Economic risk, security risk, and political pressure may all increase.
Yet history is clear on one point: nations that meet such moments with coherence emerge stronger. Those who panic, fragment, or retreat into political theatre do not.
Somalia Must Accept Its Share of Responsibility
A serious national response requires honesty without surrender.
Somalia’s unity did not weaken by chance. Historical atrocities committed by the military regime in the north left deep scars. Long years of marginalisation, distrust, and failure to reconcile compounded those wounds. These grievances are genuine and must be acknowledged.
But Somalia’s responsibility did not end with history.
For more than three decades, successive governments failed to treat the north-west as a strategic national priority. There was no sustained policy to bring northern citizens back into a shared constitutional future. The state drifted—assuming time would heal divisions, believing the issue would resolve itself, mistaking neglect for patience.
It did not.
Over time, legitimate grievances were exaggerated, politicised, and weaponised, transforming a call for justice into a permanent secessionist narrative sustained by external opportunity and internal complacency.
Still, one fact remains immutable: the Isaaq are proud Somalis and Muslims. They are not a separate people waiting to be reassigned geopolitically. Many among them carry deep moral and religious reservations about engagement with Israel—particularly at a moment when Israel stands accused, globally and morally, of grave crimes in Gaza. Thus, they would not entertain the Israeli’s ambition to dumb the Palestinians into their territories.
This contradiction—between elite geopolitical manoeuvring and popular moral sentiment—undermines, rather than strengthens, the secessionist project.
My concern—indeed my fear—is that if this moment is mishandled, it could create a dangerous vacuum. The anger and humiliation felt by Somali nationalists, including among the Isaaq themselves, may seek an outlet if no credible state actor leads with clarity and resolve. In such a scenario, extremist groups like Al-Shabaab could attempt to exploit the convergence of religious outrage and nationalist frustration, presenting themselves as the only force willing to confront what is framed as foreign aggression.
History shows that when the state hesitates or fails to deliver meaningful results, some otherwise non-violent nationalists may drift toward militant actors—not out of ideology, but out of despair. This is precisely the outcome Somalia must prevent through leadership, unity, and disciplined statecraft.
Mogadishu Still Has the Cards
Despite the shock, Somalia is not powerless. But leverage only matters if it is exercised with discipline.
The first duty of the Somali state now is unity of purpose—not performative outrage, not fragmented messaging, and not business as usual.
This begins at home.
Somalia must urgently end the exhausting political quagmire of endless electioneering theatre. Yes, Somalia needs elections. But it needs them through consensus, not confrontation. The President must bring the opposition into a serious agreement on a clear, rapid pathway to elections and an orderly transfer of power.
While that process unfolds, the country must remain united around one overriding objective: defending sovereignty and preventing external manipulation.
The next political chapter—whoever leads it—must be built around national unity, seriousness, and statecraft. Without that, no diplomatic card will matter.
Final Word
Israel’s recognition of “Somaliland” does not determine the future of Somalia’s north-west. But it brutally exposes the cost of strategic complacency.
In the new world disorder, sovereignty is not protected by sympathy—it is protected by seriousness. No external actor can divide a nation that governs itself with clarity. And no international principle can save a state that refuses to discipline its politics.
Beware, things may get worse before they get better. But they will only get better if Somalis rise to meet this moment.
The test has arrived. What matters now is whether we respond as a people—or drift as usual.
Goobjoog News is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor or any other article of interest to our readers. We’d be glad to hear what you think about this article or any other article in our opinion sections.
Hussein Sheikh Ali served as the National Security Advisor for Presidents Mohamed Farmaajo and Hassan Sheikh Mohamud before he stepped down in July 2025. He has also served variously in counter-terrorism and intelligence in Somalia. You can follow his Substack, where this article was originally published.