Connect with us

News

The Mirage of Great-Power Protection: Lessons for the Sahel from Iran, Syria and Venezuela

Published

on

The Mirage of Great-Power Protection: Lessons for the Sahel from Iran, Syria and Venezuela

By Oumarou Sanou

The world appears once again on edge. Tensions in the Middle East involving Iran, Israel and the United States have revived familiar questions about the limits of power, alliances, and survival in an increasingly volatile global order. Yet beyond the immediate theatre of conflict lies a deeper lesson; one that Africa, particularly the junta-led states of the Sahel, would do well to reflect upon.

Recent events in Syria and the mounting pressures faced by countries like Iran and Venezuela demonstrate a hard geopolitical truth: reliance on great powers for protection can often prove illusory. When crises escalate or strategic calculations change, even the most vocal allies may offer little more than rhetorical solidarity.

This is a reality that resonates strongly in today’s Sahel, where Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, the core of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), have pivoted sharply toward Moscow while distancing themselves from traditional Western partners and regional institutions such as ECOWAS.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sovereign nations pursuing partnerships with global powers. States must engage the world pragmatically to advance their interests. The danger arises when such alignments become ideological crusades that corner countries into rigid geopolitical camps. History suggests that when great-power rivalries intensify, smaller states risk becoming pawns rather than partners.

The experiences of Iran and Venezuela offer a cautionary example. Both countries have positioned themselves as defiant challengers to Western influence, often invoking anti-imperialist rhetoric to consolidate domestic authority. Yet when sanctions tightened and internal crises deepened, the much-touted backing of powerful allies such as Russia and China proved limited in practice. Diplomatic statements and symbolic gestures rarely translate into decisive rescue when the strategic costs are high.

In many respects, the Sahel is becoming the newest chessboard in the unfolding rivalry between Russia and the West. The region’s fragile states, struggling with terrorism, economic distress, and weak institutions, now find themselves at the intersection of competing geopolitical interests.

For the juntas governing Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, the embrace of Moscow has been framed as a break from Western paternalism. Yet the strategic risks of relying too heavily on a single external partner are significant. Unlike Iran and Venezuela, which possess vast oil resources that cushion the impact of sanctions and economic isolation, the Sahelian economies lack such buffers.

The limits of anti-Western posturing are therefore far sharper in this context. Iran and Venezuela at least had economic leverage and decades of state infrastructure before confronting global pressure. The Sahel’s military regimes do not enjoy similar advantages. Betting national stability on geopolitical confrontation without economic resilience could prove far more destabilising.

The presence of Russian-linked security contractors, from Wagner’s earlier operations to successor entities such as Redut, illustrates another dimension of the challenge. These deployments offer short-term tactical support but rarely substitute for strong national armies, effective governance, and regional cooperation. Security outsourced to foreign actors tends to be transactional rather than transformational.

Yet the deeper issue goes beyond any single partnership. Africa’s geopolitical dilemma is not simply about Russia, the West, or China. It reflects a recurring pattern in which African states seek external protectors rather than invest in internal strength.

From colonial dependency to Cold War alignments and today’s renewed great-power competition, the continent has often oscillated between competing patrons. Rejecting Western influence only to embrace Russian or Chinese influence does not constitute genuine liberation; it merely replaces one form of dependency with another.

What Africa needs instead is strategic autonomy. For the Sahel, this moment of geopolitical turbulence could become an opportunity to rethink its development trajectory. Strengthening governance, rebuilding public institutions, and addressing the root causes of insecurity: corruption, marginalisation, and economic exclusion, would offer far more durable stability than reliance on external military support.

Coups, after all, are symptoms of governance failure, not solutions to it. The region’s demographic reality makes this urgency even greater. With one of the youngest populations in the world, the Sahel cannot afford the economic stagnation that often accompanies geopolitical isolation. If instability persists, the consequences will be felt not only within the region but across West Africa and beyond through migration, economic disruption, and expanding insecurity.

A stronger African security architecture is therefore essential. The limitations exposed in ECOWAS responses, the underutilisation of the African Union’s standby mechanisms, and the fragility of regional intelligence cooperation all point to the same conclusion: Africa must build more credible collective security systems.

Equally important is the need for an assertive but balanced African foreign policy. The Sahel’s pivot toward Russia is partly a reaction against perceived Western paternalism. Yet the answer to unequal partnerships is not to substitute one patron for another. It is to negotiate from a position of confidence and independence.

Africa should engage with all global actors: East and West alike, in line with clear national and regional interests. Trade, investment, technology transfer, and security cooperation are welcome from any partner that respects African sovereignty. What should be avoided is ideological alignment that turns African states into frontline proxies in someone else’s strategic contest.

The Sahel today stands at a crossroads. Its choices will shape not only its own future but also the broader trajectory of governance and security across West Africa. If there is one lesson from Iran, Venezuela, Syria and other states caught in great-power rivalries, it is this: external patrons may offer support, but they rarely guarantee salvation. Therefore, Africa’s long-term stability will depend less on the promises of distant powers and more on the strength of its own institutions, leadership, and collective resolve.

Oumarou Sanou is a social critic, Pan-African observer and researcher focusing on governance, security, and political transitions in the Sahel. He writes on geopolitics, regional stability, and African leadership dynamics.

Contact: sanououmarou386@gmail.com

The Mirage of Great-Power Protection: Lessons for the Sahel from Iran, Syria and Venezuela

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

One killed, five injured during violent clash at peace meeting in Plateau

Published

on

One killed, five injured during violent clash at peace meeting in Plateau

By: Zagazola Makama

A peace meeting between local residents and Fulani community members in Pankshin Local Government Area of Plateau State turned violent on Thursday, leaving one person dead and five others injured after youths allegedly attempted to disarm soldiers deployed to maintain security during the engagement.

Security sources told Zagazola Makama that the incident occurred at about 3:00 p.m. on May 7 at Mier village, where troops of Sector 8 under Operation Enduring Peace (OPEP), deployed at Fier guard post, had organised a stakeholders’ meeting aimed at easing tensions between locals and Fulani residents in the area.

The sources said the meeting was part of ongoing confidence-building and peace restoration efforts by security forces following recent incidents of communal violence, cattle rustling, reprisal attacks, and growing mistrust between farming and pastoral communities across parts of Plateau State.

According to the sources, the meeting was progressing peacefully before a group of agitated youths reportedly became hostile and attempted to forcefully seize the rifles of two soldiers providing security at the venue.

“The situation suddenly turned violent when some youths moved aggressively toward the troops and attempted to disarm two soldiers,” a security source said.

The source added that amid the struggle and confusion, one of the soldiers discharged his weapon in self-defence to prevent the mob from overpowering the troops.

Following the incident, one local resident sustained fatal injuries and was later confirmed dead, while four other civilians and one soldier were injured during the confrontation.

The injured persons were immediately evacuated to nearby medical facilities for treatment, while the corpse of the deceased was deposited at the General Hospital morgue in Pankshin.

Security operatives subsequently reinforced the area to prevent further breakdown of law and order, while efforts were intensified to calm tensions among residents.

The four youths who attacked the soldiers were arrested.

The latest violence occurred amid heightened security concerns and recurring communal clashes across Plateau State, where troops of Operation Enduring Peace have continued to conduct patrols, peace engagements, arrests, and intelligence-driven operations to contain reprisals and attacks involving armed militias, bandits, and cattle rustlers.

Military and community leaders have repeatedly urged residents to avoid taking the law into their hands and to cooperate with security agencies to sustain peace efforts across the state.

One killed, five injured during violent clash at peace meeting in Plateau

Continue Reading

News

ISWAP suffer losses after failed attack on Buni Gari

Published

on

ISWAP suffer losses after failed attack on Buni Gari

By: Zagazola Makama

ISWAP terrorists suffered heavy losses in the early hours of Thursday after troops of Operation HADIN KAI repelled an attack on Headquarters 27 Brigade, Buni Gari, and a nearby checkpoint in Yobe State.

The terrorists had launched a coordinated assault at about 2:00 a.m. from multiple directions but were stopped by troops who held their ground and responded with superior firepower.

The Media Information Officer of the Joint Task Force North East, Operation HADIN KAI, Lt.-Col. Sani Uba, said the attackers were forced to retreat after coming under intense resistance.

He said several of the terrorists were neutralised during the encounter, while others fled with injuries.

“Exploitation of the general area confirmed the recovery of terrorist corpses and weapons in bushes and along withdrawal routes,” Uba said.

He added that traces of blood were found along escape routes, indicating that the fleeing attackers sustained significant injuries.

Uba explained that air support from the Air Component Command provided surveillance coverage during the operation, helping troops track movement of retreating fighters.

He said precision air interdiction was also carried out on confirmed fleeing elements, further increasing the losses suffered by the attackers.

Recovered items include AK-47 rifles, machine guns, RPG tubes, ammunition, magazines and other military-grade weapons used in the failed assault.

He said troops, working with hybrid forces, are continuing clearance operations in the area to prevent regrouping of the attackers.

Uba also confirmed that two soldiers died during the encounter, while wounded personnel are receiving treatment and are in stable condition.

He said Operation HADIN KAI remains committed to sustaining pressure on terrorist groups and denying them freedom of action in the North-East.

ISWAP suffer losses after failed attack on Buni Gari

Continue Reading

News

Cuba Slams New US Sanctions as ‘Economic Warfare,’ Warns of Deepening Humanitarian Crisis

Published

on

Cuba Slams New US Sanctions as ‘Economic Warfare,’ Warns of Deepening Humanitarian Crisis

By: Michael Mike

The government of Cuba has accused the United States of escalating economic warfare against the island nation following a sweeping new executive order and fresh sanctions that Havana says could worsen an already severe humanitarian and economic crisis.

In a strongly worded statement issued Thursday in Havana, Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the May 1, 2026 Executive Order signed by the White House, describing it as one of the harshest measures imposed against the communist nation in decades.

The Cuban government also denounced a subsequent decision by the United States Treasury Department on May 7 to place Cuban conglomerate Gaesa and mining company MoaNickel S.A. on the List of Specially Designated Nationals, effectively cutting them off from the American financial system and exposing foreign businesses dealing with them to possible secondary sanctions.

Havana described the move as a “ruthless act of economic aggression” aimed at tightening the long-standing United States blockade against Cuba and isolating the country from global trade and financial networks.

According to Cuban authorities, the latest measures threaten to deepen the island’s economic hardship at a time when the country is already battling chronic shortages of fuel, food, medicine and foreign exchange.

The Foreign Ministry argued that the sanctions go beyond bilateral relations between Washington and Havana by attempting to punish foreign companies, banks and governments that maintain economic ties with Cuba.

“The sovereign right of all states that have or wish to maintain economic, commercial and financial relations with Cuba is being explicitly attacked,” the statement declared.

Cuba accused senior United States officials, particularly the Secretary of State, of using intimidation and political pressure to force the international community into compliance with the blockade policy.

The statement further alleged that the new measures were intended to provoke economic collapse and social unrest within Cuba.

Havana warned that worsening economic pressure could create conditions for instability and potentially serve as justification for more aggressive actions against the island.

The Cuban government also accused Washington of attempting to manufacture a humanitarian crisis capable of triggering political upheaval.

The latest confrontation marks another sharp downturn in relations between the two Cold War-era adversaries whose ties have fluctuated between cautious engagement and hostility over the last six decades.

The United States first imposed trade restrictions on Cuba in the early 1960s following the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro and the subsequent nationalisation of American-owned assets on the island. Relations deteriorated rapidly after Cuba aligned itself with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

In 1962, Washington formalised a broad economic embargo against Cuba, arguing that the measures were necessary to pressure Havana toward democratic reforms and respect for human rights.

Over the decades, the sanctions evolved into one of the world’s longest-running economic blockade regimes, affecting trade, banking, investment and travel.

Although there were signs of rapprochement during the administration of former President Barack Obama — including the restoration of diplomatic relations and the easing of some restrictions — many sanctions were later reinstated and expanded under subsequent administrations.

In recent years, Cuba has faced mounting economic difficulties caused by declining tourism revenues, inflation, fuel shortages and limited access to international credit markets.

The Cuban government has consistently blamed the United States embargo for worsening living conditions on the island, while Washington maintains that Havana’s centrally controlled political and economic system is primarily responsible for the country’s struggles.

The renewed sanctions are expected to intensify debates within the international community, where many countries and global organisations have repeatedly called for an end to the embargo.

For more than 30 consecutive years, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted in favour of resolutions urging the United States to lift its economic blockade against Cuba, describing the measures as harmful to ordinary citizens and contrary to international law.

Despite the growing pressure, both governments remain firmly entrenched in their positions, raising fears that tensions between Havana and Washington may continue to escalate in the coming months.

Cuba Slams New US Sanctions as ‘Economic Warfare,’ Warns of Deepening Humanitarian Crisis

Continue Reading

Trending

Verified by MonsterInsights