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.

Small in area and population and rich in natural gas, Qatar plays an outsize role in the Middle East. While its support keeps Hamas in business, it also has vital relations with Israel that are much better than those enjoyed by many other Arab countries. Doha’s relationship with Washington, though more complex, isn’t so different. Yoel Guzansky offers a comprehensive examination of Israel’s Qatar dilemma:

At first glance, Qatar’s foreign policy seems filled with contradictions. Since 1995, it has pursued a strategy of diplomatic hedging—building relationships with multiple, often competing, actors. Qatar’s vast wealth and close ties with the United States have enabled it to maneuver independently on the international stage, maintaining relations with rival factions, including those that are direct adversaries.

Qatar plays an active role in international diplomacy, engaging in conflict mediation in over twenty regions worldwide. While not all of its mediation efforts have been successful, they have helped boost its international prestige, which it considers vital for its survival among larger and more powerful neighbors. Qatar has participated in mediation efforts in Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and other conflict zones, reinforcing its image as a neutral broker.

Israel’s stated objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza is fundamentally at odds with Qatar’s interest in keeping Hamas as the governing force. In theory, if the Israeli hostages would to be released, Israel could break free from its dependence on Qatari mediation. However, it is likely that even after such a development, Qatar will continue positioning itself as a mediator—particularly in enforcing agreements and shaping Gaza’s reconstruction efforts.

Qatar’s position is strengthened further by its good relations with the U.S. Yet, Guzansky notes, it has weaknesses as well that Israel could exploit:

Qatar is highly sensitive to its global image and prides itself on maintaining a neutral diplomatic posture. If Israel chooses to undermine Qatar’s reputation, it could target specific aspects of Qatari activity that are problematic from an Israeli perspective.