While Saudi Arabia sits at the negotiating table as a mediator, it also features on conflict maps as a military ally, financier, and patron of regional power blocs.

Between these two roles lies a striking paradox in Saudi policy across the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. By day, Riyadh calls on warring parties to cease fire; by night, it chooses its allies and backs them politically and militarily, leveraging its financial and security clout to reshape the balance of power in ways that serve its own interests.

From Port Sudan to Mogadishu, by way of Yemen and Eritrea, the question is no longer limited to whether Saudi Arabia can mediate between adversaries. It now extends to the kingdom’s position within the conflicts themselves, and then to its control over the balance of power around the Red Sea and its securing of ports and strategic corridors. Thus the image of the neutral mediator recedes in the face of the reality of a state seeking to build an axis of influence spanning both shores of the Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia sponsored the Jeddah talks between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces in 2023, presenting itself as a party working to end the war and protect civilians. But its subsequent political stance showed a growing bias toward the army led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.

In January 2026, Reuters revealed negotiations over a $1.5 billion Pakistani arms deal for the Sudanese army, covering aircraft, drones and air defense systems, with a Saudi role in mediating it.

In April, the agency reported that Pakistan had suspended the deal after a Saudi objection and Riyadh’s withdrawal of its funding, according to security and diplomatic sources. On the same day, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received al-Burhan in Jeddah. Here the glaring paradox emerges: how can a mediator maintain an image of neutrality while being tied to a track of military support for one party to the conflict?

If Sudan reveals the overlap between mediation and partisanship, Yemen offers the clearest picture of Saudi military intervention. Since March 2015, Riyadh has led a military coalition, carried out air operations, and supported government forces and local armed groups, in addition to providing economic aid to the internationally recognized government.

Its presence has not been limited to confronting the Houthis. Saudi Arabia has become an influential party in the conflicts within the anti-Houthi camp, particularly as its dispute with the Southern Transitional Council has escalated. In early January 2026, Saudi aircraft struck Transitional Council positions in Hadramawt, while Riyadh-backed forces advanced to retake control of southern areas.

This came at a time when Saudi Arabia was calling on Yemeni parties to engage in dialogue, which reveals the duality of the tools in use: military pressure to alter the balance of control, followed by a political track to arrange the outcomes.

Riyadh’s relationship with the Yemeni Islah Party reveals a further paradox. The Carnegie Center documented Saudi Arabia’s reliance on forces linked to the party in confronting the Houthis, and its provision of military and financial support to them, despite Riyadh’s declared position toward the Muslim Brotherhood, to whose political current Islah belongs.

So in Yemen the picture is clear: Saudi Arabia does not appear to be an observer of the course of the war, but one of the forces that helped shape it, determine its allies, and influence its maps of control.

On the African shore of the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia has built close security ties with Eritrea that date back to the years of the war in Yemen, when Eritrean territory and ports were used within the coalition’s military arrangements. Political and security coordination between Riyadh and Asmara continued through 2025 and 2026, coinciding with rising tensions between Eritrea and Ethiopia over access to the Red Sea. Regional analyses report that Saudi Arabia and Egypt lean toward supporting the Eritrean position against Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions, while Addis Ababa views the rapprochement between Riyadh, Cairo and Asmara with concern.

The irony is that Saudi Arabia had sponsored the 2018 peace agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea, before its own regional security relationships became part of the balancing calculations between the two sides. This reveals Riyadh’s shift from sponsoring reconciliation to building strategic partnerships with one of the two parties to the tension.

In Somalia, the Saudi presence took a more explicit course during 2026. After Riyadh announced its support for Somalia’s territorial integrity and its rejection of Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, Saudi Arabia and Mogadishu signed a military cooperation memorandum in February, alongside continued Saudi development and humanitarian assistance.

The agreement comes in a region witnessing escalating competition over ports and military influence, especially near Bab al-Mandab, where the interests of Gulf states, regional powers and international powers intersect. Regional studies read the Saudi-Somali rapprochement as part of Riyadh’s efforts to strengthen its security presence on the African shore of the Red Sea.

However, the military agreement in itself does not mean Saudi participation in Somalia’s internal war. Its political significance lies in adding Mogadishu to the network of Saudi security partnerships and strengthening Riyadh’s ability to influence the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.

Any reading of Saudi policy is incomplete without pausing at the historical controversy over the financing of extremist groups through Saudi donors and institutions. Diplomatic cables from the U.S. published by WikiLeaks in 2010 revealed Washington’s concerns about financial flows from Saudi donors to extremist groups. The UN Security Council also placed branches of the Al-Haramain Foundation on sanctions lists linked to al-Qaeda, while Saudi Arabia and the United States took part in measures targeting specific institutions and financiers.

In Syria, we should read the lawsuits brought by the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks with the same eyes. Judicial developments have allowed accusations concerning individuals linked to Saudi Arabia to continue to be heard. The importance of this file is that it keeps past Saudi policies and the financing networks tied to individuals and institutions under continuing scrutiny, even as Riyadh seeks to present itself as a partner in counterterrorism and regional stability.

It is true that Saudi Arabia’s tools differ from one arena to another, but a political thread runs through them all: one meant to secure allies capable of protecting Riyadh’s interests in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.

In Sudan, there is political backing for the army and a role attributed to Saudi Arabia in arranging its armament. In Yemen, the intervention takes a direct military form. In Eritrea, the relationship rests on security partnership and regional alignment. As for Somalia, it represents an expansion of the Saudi military cooperation network.

None of these facts mean that Saudi Arabia is fighting five direct wars, but they undermine its portrayal as a neutral party in all of these conflicts. Mediation can coexist with interests, but it loses its claim to neutrality when the mediator becomes part of the balance of power it is trying to manage.

Here the mask of the neutral mediator falls, not because Riyadh has stopped hosting negotiations, but because in a number of arenas it has become an influential party in determining who negotiates, who holds power, and who keeps the territory. From Port Sudan to Mogadishu, Saudi Arabia appears less concerned with standing outside the conflicts and more engaged in shaping their outcomes. A mediator who takes part in making the balance of war cannot ask others to treat him as a mere referee between the disputants.

Main Image: By BroadArrow at the English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14683526

A new war of words has broken out between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). It comes as renewed fighting in northern Ethiopia pulls the country’s long-running disputes with its neighbors back into the open.

Ethiopia’s government has blamed neighboring states for the escalating conflict in the north. The government has accused Eritrea, Sudan, and Egypt of backing armed opposition groups, raising fears that the conflict could expand regionally. Birhanu Jula, Ethiopia’s army chief, stated that the Tigray People’s Liberation Front has clearly needed outside support and supplies from Egypt, Sudan, and other foreign powers to sustain its campaign. 

Cairo rejected the claim. Foreign Ministry spokesman Nader Zaki said Egypt’s foreign policy rests on respect for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of other states and on staying out of their internal affairs, adding that claims to the contrary had no basis in fact. 

Tension over Ethiopia minister’s remarks

The dispute quickly returned to the Nile. On Saturday, Ethiopia’s minister of Water and Energy, Habtamu Itefa, published a social media post, later deleted, comparing the GERD to Egypt’s Aswan High Dam. “Before criticizing Ethiopia, Egypt should explain why it built the Aswan High Dam without Ethiopian consent.”

Cairo responded the same day. A source at the Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation called the post “shameful” and said it reflected political confusion.

“Responding to such nonsense and the political confusion reflected in the post would be nothing more than a waste of time,” the source said. The source called the post “a desperate attempt to divert attention from the core dispute: Ethiopia’s continued unilateral actions over its illegal dam, which violate international law.”

Habtamu made the same argument. He said it was shameful to hear Egyptian politicians demand that Ethiopia obtain their consent for dams that do no significant harm, and argued that Egypt had not consulted Ethiopia when it built Aswan. He described Cairo’s insistence on prior consent as an outdated approach rooted in colonial-era arrangements. 

The $5 billion GERD sits on the Blue Nile, about 14 kilometers from the Sudanese border. It is 1.8 kilometers wide and 145 meters tall, with a design capacity of 5,150 megawatts. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed inaugurated it on September 9, 2025. Egypt and Sudan, the downstream states, have long demanded a legally binding agreement on how it is filled and operated. The United States has also stepped back, in a January 2026 letter to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, US President Donald Trump offered to restart US-led mediation between Egypt and Ethiopia on Nile water-sharing. 

The El Alamein declaration

The leaders of Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Somalia met in El Alamein and issued a joint declaration covering both the Red Sea and the Nile, and among other things. On the question of the Red Sea, the four states affirmed “the principle of freedom of navigation and that the governance of the Red Sea is the exclusive responsibility of the littoral states.” 

Regarding the Nile, the declaration emphasized “the importance of respecting international law regarding transboundary rivers including the Nile River particularly the principle of ‘no harm’ and the obligation to cooperate through prior notification, consultation, and consensus.” It also categorically rejected “any unilateral measures that harm the existing water uses of the two downstream Nile states.” The four countries pledged to keep strengthening “consultation and coordination among the four countries and other sisterly African nations.”

“Realities cannot be altered by political rhetoric”

Ethiopia issued its own statement in response to the El Alamein declaration, arguing, “Ethiopia is the source of the Abay River, commonly known as the Blue Nile. Virtually all of the Blue Nile originates in the Ethiopian highlands, and the Abay contributes about 85% of the Nile River’s total flow. Any discussion concerning the utilization and management of the Abay River should be informed by these fundamental realities.”

Insisting that, “Despite changes in political boundaries over time, Ethiopia remains closely connected to the Red Sea, with its nearest border lying barely 30 miles from the coast. Accordingly, any serious discussion of regional maritime affairs and security architecture must account for Ethiopia’s legitimate interests and its enduring connection to the Red Sea.”

It added, “These geographic and historical realities cannot be altered by political rhetoric, coercive measures, or acts of destabilization. Actions taken through proxies or acts of aggression will not change the facts on the ground, nor will they diminish Ethiopia’s legitimate interests, role, and responsibilities in the region.”

Reaffirming that it “stands ready to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and core national interests,” Ethiopia urged regional actors to pursue “constructive dialogue, partnership, and adherence to the principles of good neighborliness rather than confrontation and zero-sum approaches.”

With fighting is spreading in Ethiopia’s north and rival blocs are forming along the Red Sea, the Nile dispute could be tied into a wider regional confrontation.

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.