The recent coup in Niger, and the prospect of a Russian intervention in the country along the lines of that in neighboring Mali, make clear that Africa is an important arena of global competition. So too does a recent visit by the Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi to Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. For precisely these reasons, Israel’s cultivation of diplomatic ties on the continent is critical, as Irit Tratt explains:

Kenya’s role as a member of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes it an attractive ally to Iran. Raisi was feted by Kenya’s President William Ruto with a red-carpet welcome and concluded his visit by signing five memoranda of understanding in which the two leaders pledged cooperation in areas ranging from communication technology to animal health. Iran also enhanced relations with Uganda, which has discovered a trove of uranium deposits.

Furthermore, Iran is using its relationship with eastern Africa in order to maximize its presence on the region’s waterways. In particular, Iran is seeking to restore ties with Sudan, a crucial access point to the Red Sea.

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s anticipated trip to Morocco is a necessary step towards broadening Israel’s diplomatic relations with the region. By delineating shared areas of understanding, Israel can enable Africa to view an alliance with the Jewish state through the prism of partnership rather than paternalism.

Historically, Israel has adjusted its relations with Africa in alignment with U.S. policy, but this has failed to yield strategic dividends. . . . An autonomous Israeli policy of cementing African alliances will foil Iran’s attempts to enter Africa and help reverse anti-Western sentiments rising on the continent.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.