Nile River in Turmoil Again: The Geopolitical Game Behind Trump's Resumption of Mediation
19/01/2026
January 16, 2026, Washington. A letter released via social media has thrust the long-dormant dispute over Nile River water resources back into international headlines. U.S. President Donald Trump wrote to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, announcing preparations to restart U.S. mediation between Egypt and Ethiopia to responsibly resolve the "Nile water sharing" issue once and for all. This is not the first U.S. intervention, but the timing, context, and reactions from all sides outline a geopolitical landscape far more complex than mere water allocation.
Ethiopia officially inaugurated the $50 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) last fall. As Africa's largest hydropower station, with a designed installed capacity exceeding 5,000 megawatts, it is sufficient to double Ethiopia's power generation capacity. For Ethiopia, it represents a project of hope for national development and illuminating millions of households; for downstream Egypt, however, it poses an existential threat hanging over the Nile—the source of 97% of the country's freshwater. Sudan, caught in the middle, is both concerned about the dam's impact on its own water infrastructure and anticipates potential electricity benefits.
Trump's proposal quickly gained welcome from downstream countries. Sisi called the Nile River the lifeline of the Egyptian people, and General Burhan, Chairman of Sudan's Sovereignty Council, also praised the move as a step toward seeking a sustainable and satisfactory solution. However, Ethiopia, the core party in the dispute, maintained a meaningful silence. This asymmetrical response itself reveals the deep-seated contradictions and power imbalance in this dispute.
Historical Grievances and Present Deadlock: Beyond Water
The Nile River dispute is far from being a matter of a single day. Its roots can be traced back to the unequal water agreements established during the colonial era, as well as the irreconcilable conflicts among riparian nations over sovereignty, development, and the right to survival.
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: Ethiopia's National Ambition and "Unilateral Action"
For Ethiopia, an East African nation with over 120 million people yet long plagued by electricity shortages, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam carries significance far beyond energy. It is a symbol of national pride, an engine for economic takeoff, and a landmark showcasing the country's rising ambitions to the region. The Ethiopian government maintains that, as an upstream country, it has the right to utilize water resources within its sovereign territory for development purposes. The dam is a run-of-the-river hydropower station, which theoretically does not consume water resources, with the main disputes centering on the rules for water storage and operation.
However, Egypt and Sudan have accused Ethiopia of unilateral actions in the construction process. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tamim Khalaf sharply pointed out last September, before the dam's commissioning, that Ethiopia's construction of the dam without prior notification, proper consultation, or consensus with downstream countries constitutes a serious violation of international law. This accusation of unilateral action touches on the most sensitive nerve in international river law—the obligation of prior notification and the principle of cooperation. Ethiopia, in response, argues that it has engaged in years of communication and negotiations, and that downstream countries are clinging to historical privileges, obstructing its right to development.
Egypt's "Survival Red Line" and Legal Weapons
Egypt's stance is rooted in profound existential anxiety. This desert nation relies almost entirely on the Nile for its freshwater, sustaining a population of over 110 million and its agricultural lifeline. Any significant impact on the water flow could trigger social unrest and economic disaster. Hence, Sisi has declared Egypt's share of the Nile as untouchable. Cairo's legal claims are based on historical agreements from 1929 and 1959, which, during the colonial and post-colonial eras, granted Egypt and Sudan the vast majority of the Nile's water rights, while excluding upstream countries.
Egypt insists on a legally binding agreement regarding the dam's water storage and operation to ensure its water flow security, while Ethiopia prefers non-binding guidelines. This slight difference in wording reflects a fundamental divergence between the two sides regarding the reliability of commitments. The current technical disputes are specifically focused on: the annual water storage schedule of the dam reservoir, the amount of water Ethiopia would release downstream during prolonged droughts, and the mechanism for resolving future disputes.
Sudan's ambivalence and the unsuccessful record of third-party mediation
Sudan's position is more complex and nuanced. On one hand, it fears that the uncoordinated operation of the dam could endanger the safety of its own water projects, such as the Roseires Dam on the Blue Nile. On the other hand, it also covets access to cheap electricity from Ethiopia and may benefit from more regular river management. Therefore, Sudan's demands focus on coordination and avoiding unintended impacts, attempting to strike a balance between risks and opportunities.
Over the past decade, this dispute has witnessed multiple rounds of external mediation attempts and failures. The United States, the World Bank, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and even the African Union have all intervened, yet none have succeeded in reaching a final agreement. In particular, the mediation led by the United States during Trump's first term effectively collapsed in 2020 when Ethiopia withdrew. Since then, negotiations have primarily shifted to the framework of the African Union, but have similarly reached a deadlock. These records of failure indicate that if external forces fail to deeply understand and balance the core demands of all parties, their efforts can easily be perceived as biased or coercive, thereby exacerbating distrust.
Trump's Return: Peacemaker or Troublemaker?
Trump's high-profile announcement to restart mediation this time must be examined in the context of his personal political narrative and the shift in U.S. foreign policy strategy, considering his motives, style, and potential impact.
The "War Terminator" Narrative and the Nobel Prize Complex
In the letter, Trump emphasized that my team and I understand the importance of the Nile River to Egypt and its people, but this is not purely altruistic. Trump frequently boasts about ending eight wars in the world, although this claim is widely considered exaggerated. Interestingly, he has already included the dispute between Ethiopia and Egypt on this list of resolved wars. He even told Fox News that due to the renewed conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, his record should be eight and a quarter wars. This quantification of complex international disputes as personal political capital reveals the strong personalization behind his mediation initiatives.
Analysis reveals that Trump has always harbored an obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize, viewing diplomatic mediation as a pathway to obtaining this honor. He claims to have resolved the Nile River dispute, which is part of this narrative. However, the reality is that the conflict never escalated into a hot war, and previous U.S. mediation efforts were abandoned midway. This contradictory logic of declaring a resolution while proposing to re-address it undermines his credibility as an honest intermediary.
Past Controversial Remarks and Special Relationship with Sisi
Trump is not the first time to make shocking remarks about the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. During his first term, he publicly predicted that if the issue remained unresolved, Egypt would eventually blow up the dam. He said at the time, "They will blow up that dam. They have to do something." These remarks shocked both Ethiopia and Egypt at the time, with both countries summoning the U.S. ambassador for clarification, and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed vowing not to yield to any form of aggression. Such inflammatory rhetoric remains fresh in memory.
Meanwhile, Trump maintains an exceptionally close relationship with Egyptian President Sisi. He publicly praised Sisi as "my favorite dictator." After coming to power through a coup in 2023, Sisi implemented a repressive rule domestically, but in regional affairs, particularly in mediating the Gaza ceasefire, he became an ally Trump relies on. This special relationship inevitably influences external perceptions, especially in Ethiopia, regarding the fairness of U.S. mediation. Ethiopia may worry that Washington's stance naturally leans toward Cairo.
The newly proposed framework and the unresolved trust deficit.
Trump outlined a seemingly balanced framework in his latest letter: a successful plan would guarantee Egypt a predictable water release while allowing Ethiopia to generate substantial electricity. He even mentioned the hope of finding a solution that provides predictable water supply for Egypt and Sudan, and enables Ethiopia to sell or transmit electricity to these two downstream countries.
This vision sounds promising, but lacks a concrete implementation path. The core of the issue has never been a disagreement over the ultimate goal, but rather a mutual distrust regarding how to get there. Will Ethiopia accept a strong U.S. role in overseeing and coordinating the parties, especially after the unsuccessful U.S. mediation in 2020 that ended in discord? Will Egypt be satisfied with non-binding power purchase commitments, abandoning legally enforceable water security guarantees? Trump's proposal did not answer these critical questions; instead, due to his past record and personal style, it may have deepened the existing trust deficit.
Region and the Global Chessboard: Strategic Gameplay Beyond Water Disputes
The Nile River dispute has long transcended the mere issue of water resources, embedding itself into the broader narratives of geopolitics in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, great power competition, and climate change.
Power Restructuring in the Horn of Africa and the "African Solution".
Ethiopia is a traditional heavyweight in the Horn of Africa, but in recent years, it has faced post-Tigray conflict reconstruction, economic challenges, and complex relations with neighboring countries Eritrea and Somalia. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is a key project for revitalizing national prestige and rallying public support. Insisting on sovereign control over the dam is crucial for national dignity and government legitimacy.
As the primary regional organization, the African Union has consistently sought to promote African solutions. However, its mediation capabilities are constrained by diverging interests among member states. The renewed high-profile involvement of the Trump administration may be perceived by some African nations as undermining the principle of Africans resolving African issues. Ethiopia's silence perhaps reflects its cautious balancing act between leveraging external support and safeguarding its autonomy.
The Shadow of Great Power Competition: The United States, China, and Middle Eastern Countries
Under Trump's administration, the renewed focus on the Nile dispute must also be viewed within the context of great power competition. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has made substantial infrastructure investments in Ethiopia and across Africa, including involvement in Ethiopia's power grid construction. The U.S. return is partly intended to enhance its influence in key regions and balance China's impact.
Meanwhile, Middle Eastern countries are also deeply involved. The UAE has participated in mediation, while Egypt maintains close relations with Gulf states. Water resource security is a core concern for Middle Eastern nations, and Egypt's predicament may resonate more broadly across the Arab world. The Trump administration's close alliance with Saudi Arabia and the UAE inevitably imbues its mediation efforts with the perspective of its Middle Eastern allies.
Climate Change: An Imminent Common Threat
All analyses cannot overlook a fundamental variable: climate change. The East African region is experiencing more frequent and severe droughts and floods. Hydrological uncertainties in the Nile River basin are increasing. Under these circumstances, a Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam operation plan lacking robust cooperation and emergency mechanisms poses significant risks to all three countries. Water allocation during drought years is precisely one of the most challenging technical issues in the current negotiations. A truly permanent solution must be built on a scientific foundation and political mutual trust for jointly addressing climate risks, which is exactly what is most scarce at present.
Where Lies the Path Ahead: The Fragility of Peace and the Price of War
Trump's proposal opened a new window, but beyond the window, the path remains shrouded in mist.
The welcoming attitude of downstream countries reflects their anxiety about the current situation and their expectations for the United States to pressure Ethiopia. However, placing all hopes on a mediator perceived as biased toward the other side may further weaken the foundation of negotiations. Ethiopia's national sentiment has been highly mobilized by the dam, and any concession seen as yielding to external pressure would be political poison domestically for the Abiy government.
The shadow of military options always looms. Both Egypt and Sudan have hinted that they do not rule out taking military steps to protect their interests. Experts have consistently warned that a breakdown in negotiations could lead to conflict. However, a military conflict over the dam would have catastrophic consequences, with no winners. It could destroy regional stability, trigger a large-scale humanitarian crisis, and completely eliminate any possibility of cooperation.
Therefore, the most realistic path may still be a difficult, slow, and technically-based negotiation process. It requires compromise from all parties: Ethiopia may need to provide more solid guarantees on data sharing and drought emergency mechanisms; Egypt may need to accept a legally binding and verifiable document that does not fully align with its initial wishes; Sudan could become a key coordinator and hub for power cooperation. The role of external mediators should not be to impose solutions, but to build bridges, provide technical expert support, and help establish the necessary trust for implementation and verification.
Trump's restart proposal is less of a solution and more of a new variable. It refocuses international attention on the Nile River and once again reveals the extreme complexity of resolving this dispute. Ultimately, whether the Nile's waters can transform from a source of conflict into a stream of cooperation does not depend on a letter from Washington, but on whether Cairo, Addis Ababa, and Khartoum can find that small yet crucial intersection between survival, development, and dignity. Time, along with the river under climate change, is ticking away by the second.
Reference materials
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/trump-offers-egypt-to-mediate-on-ethiopia-dam-10767437
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-offers-restart-us-mediation-222157982.html