By Abdiqani Haji Abdi

Introduction

U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s unexpected second-term focus on mediation marks a striking turn in American foreign policy. From Gaza to Syria, India and Pakistan and now potentially Somalia, Trump’s diplomacy suggests a recalibration of U.S. strategy — from interventionism to pragmatic conflict resolution. Nowhere is this shift more urgently needed than in the Horn of Africa, where state collapse, piracy, and terrorism threaten one of the world’s most vital maritime corridors: the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Indian Ocean.

In his second term, President Donald J. Trump has surprised both critics and allies by taking on the role of global mediator. Once associated with transactional diplomacy, Trump has recently been involved in quiet efforts to broker ceasefires or talks in Syria, Thailand – Cambodia, Pakistan – India and Gaza. His emerging peace-oriented posture has reignited interest in how the United States might reassert influence through negotiation rather than force — a reversal of Washington’s post-9/11 playbook.

One region that could test this new approach is the Horn of Africa. Somalia, long defined by insurgency and state fragility, has become the site of one of the world’s most protracted wars. The international community continues to fund both the African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission and billions in annual budgetary support for Somalia’s federal government and internally displaced persons — who now make up nearly one in four Somalis. Yet despite this investment, Somalia is sliding backward.

Mediation for Peace and Stability

Under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who returned to power in 2022, the federal system has collapsed, the army built by his predecessor, Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmaajo,” has been decimated, and vast areas once reclaimed from Al-Shabaab have fallen again under militant control. The 50,000-strong national force, once hailed as a symbol of Somali self-reliance, has disintegrated under logistical corruption, poor planning, and political favoritism. Worse still, the illegal sale of public land in Mogadishu has displaced an estimated 760,000 people — a humanitarian catastrophe with little international scrutiny.

Somalia’s crisis is not merely domestic; it is geostrategic. The country anchors the western rim of the Indian Ocean, a maritime region that includes the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea — the very arteries of global trade connecting Europe, Asia, and Africa. Over 12 percent of global maritime commerce, including much of the world’s oil and container traffic, passes through these waters. Renewed instability has reignited piracy, with incidents increasing off Somalia’s coast for the first time in nearly a decade.[1] This resurgence threatens not just shipping routes but also international counterterrorism efforts that rely on secure sea lanes for regional logistics.

If Trump’s foreign policy in his second term seeks to balance America’s strategic reach with fiscal restraint, Somalia presents a compelling test case. Unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, where U.S. troops were directly engaged, Somalia’s challenge is one of political mediation, not military intervention. The country’s dominant insurgent force, Al-Shabaab, controls most of the hinterland and functions effectively as a shadow state — collecting taxes, dispensing justice, and running local administrations. It remains designated as a terrorist organization, yet its structure and governance capacity mirror those of de facto authorities in conflicts the U.S. has since chosen to engage with diplomatically, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Trump’s earlier negotiation with the Taliban, culminating in the 2020 Doha Agreement, ended two decades of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and signaled a willingness to engage with non-state actors if doing so could secure American interests and regional stability. Applying a similar logic to Somalia — exploring indirect or conditional dialogue between Al-Shabaab, the Somali government, and the United States — could open new pathways toward de-escalation. Such an initiative would align with a growing recognition among counterterrorism scholars that absolute military solutions in asymmetric conflicts are illusory.[2]

A U.S.-facilitated dialogue would also intersect with maritime security policy. Piracy off Somalia’s coast has historically thrived in ungoverned coastal zones and amid economic desperation. Any durable settlement must therefore integrate coastal security, youth employment, and resource-sharing mechanisms tied to the country’s critical mineral potential and offshore economic zones. The Gulf of Aden, which links the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean, is not merely a shipping route; it is a geopolitical hinge connecting Africa’s mineral wealth to Asian manufacturing and European markets. Instability in Somalia reverberates from Djibouti to Oman, from Yemen’s war-torn shores to Kenya’s expanding ports.

Moreover, regional competition between external powers — including China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates — has turned Somalia into a proxy theatre of influence. Beijing’s hope of investment in port infrastructure, Ankara’s training of Somali troops, and Gulf states’ funding of political factions all shape the conflict’s trajectory. For Washington, reclaiming diplomatic relevance in this theater requires neither large-scale deployment nor economic overreach, but rather strategic mediation framed within a broader maritime security doctrine.[3]

Critics might argue that Trump’s mediation ambitions exceed his diplomatic bandwidth. Yet his transactional instincts — once derided as crude — may prove uniquely suited to breaking entrenched stalemates. By positioning the United States as an honest broker focused on trade security, counterterrorism, and regional stability, Trump could transform a seemingly peripheral crisis into an opportunity for constructive engagement.

If successful, such diplomacy would not only help stabilize Somalia but also strengthen freedom of navigation across the Red Sea and Indian Ocean — a cornerstone of the global economy. It would also demonstrate that American power can serve peace as effectively as it once pursued war.

Somalia’s tragedy is that its people are not short of resilience or hope; they are starved of leadership and vision. The international community’s fatigue, coupled with the Somali government’s corruption, has created a vacuum that militants, pirates, and foreign patrons eagerly fill. A serious U.S.-led mediation, one that speaks directly to both the government and its armed adversaries, could restore the balance between sovereignty and survival.

Trump’s second term may be remembered for many things — but if it brings even the prospect of peace to Somalia and stability to one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors, it could mark a rare moment when realpolitik and moral purpose align.

Abdiqani Haji Abdi
Email: Hajiabdi0128@gmail.com 
—————-
Footnotes

[1] International Maritime Bureau, Piracy and Armed Robbery Report, Q3 2025.

[2] Seth G. Jones, Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Somali Conflict (RAND Corporation, 2024).

[3] U.S. Department of Defense, Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy Report, April 2025.