Can Peace Last While Proxy Armies Remain? Why Long-Term Stability Requires More Than Diplomatic Signatures

 

When world leaders negotiate ceasefires, the immediate objective is simple: stop the shooting. But history has repeatedly shown that ending gunfire is not the same as securing peace.

The recent Trump-backed ceasefire efforts involving Iran have generated optimism in diplomatic circles. The agreement seeks to reduce tensions, reopen critical trade routes, and prevent a wider regional war. Yet one critical question remains: can there be lasting peace if the issue of Iranian-backed militia groups remains unresolved?

For Israel, the answer is often no.

Israeli leaders have long argued that groups such as Hezbollah represent a direct security threat. Hezbollah possesses a substantial missile arsenal and has engaged in repeated confrontations with Israel over the years. From the Israeli perspective, a ceasefire that leaves such organizations intact risks becoming merely a pause between conflicts rather than a genuine peace settlement.

This helps explain why some Israeli officials remain skeptical of ceasefire arrangements that focus primarily on state actors while paying less attention to non-state armed groups.

Supporters of a tougher approach argue that any comprehensive agreement with Iran should include stronger commitments regarding funding, training, and arming regional militias. Their reasoning is straightforward: if armed proxy networks remain active, the underlying sources of instability may persist regardless of what governments sign on paper.

Critics of the current framework point out that while recent agreements address issues such as regional tensions and economic restrictions, questions surrounding proxy groups remain only partially resolved. Some provisions reportedly call for restraint by Iran's regional allies, but opponents contend that restraint is not the same as disarmament or disengagement.

At the same time, others caution that the issue is more complicated than simply ordering militias to disband. Hezbollah is deeply embedded in Lebanon's political and social landscape, and any attempt to dismantle such organizations requires cooperation from local governments, regional actors, and international partners.

The challenge for diplomats is therefore balancing immediate peace with long-term security.

 

A ceasefire can stop today's fighting. A political settlement can reduce tomorrow's tensions. But lasting peace often requires addressing the structures that make conflict possible in the first place.

Whether one agrees with Israel's position or not, the concern it raises is a strategic one: if armed groups retain the ability to launch future attacks, can any ceasefire truly be considered permanent?

That question will likely remain at the center of Middle Eastern diplomacy long after the latest ceasefire negotiations have concluded. The success of any future agreement may ultimately depend not only on what Iran promises, but also on whether the region can establish a framework that reduces the role of armed proxies and strengthens the authority of sovereign states.

For the Middle East, the goal should not simply be a pause in conflict. The goal should be a peace that endures.

Starlink’s Rise and the Nigerian Telecom Dilemma: When Competition Plays by Different Economics

 

The telecommunications industry has long been one of Nigeria's greatest economic success stories. For more than two decades, local operators invested billions of dollars in towers, fibre networks, spectrum licenses, customer service infrastructure, and thousands of direct and indirect jobs. They helped connect millions of Nigerians, expanded digital inclusion, and became major contributors to government revenue through taxes, levies, and regulatory fees.

Today, however, the industry faces a new challenge one that is not arriving through traditional competition but through a fundamentally different business model.

Enter Starlink.

The satellite internet service, developed by SpaceX, is rapidly expanding across Africa and is now available in numerous countries on the continent. Its proposition is simple but disruptive: deliver high-speed internet directly from low-Earth orbit satellites, bypassing many of the infrastructure limitations that have historically constrained connectivity.

For consumers and businesses frustrated by network congestion, inconsistent broadband speeds, and service disruptions, the appeal is obvious. Starlink offers an alternative that does not depend on extensive terrestrial infrastructure and, in many cases, delivers faster and more reliable service.

Yet the emergence of satellite broadband raises difficult questions for incumbent telecommunications operators.

Traditional telecom companies operate under a heavy cost structure. They purchase expensive spectrum licenses, construct and maintain base stations, invest in fibre-optic networks, power thousands of sites with generators and alternative energy systems, and comply with multiple taxes, fees, and local regulatory requirements. These costs are significant and ongoing.

Starlink, while complying with licensing requirements and paying applicable taxes in markets where it operates, functions under a different economic model. Its infrastructure is largely space-based, allowing it to avoid many of the recurring costs associated with terrestrial network deployment. The result is a leaner operating structure that can target premium customers without carrying the same infrastructure burden.

This creates a growing concern for local operators.

Across Nigeria, telecom firms are already navigating rising energy costs, foreign exchange pressures, inflation, and growing capital expenditure requirements. Profit margins have come under increasing strain despite strong demand for data services. Many companies have resorted to debt financing to maintain network expansion and service quality.

If high-value corporate customers, technology firms, financial institutions, and affluent urban consumers increasingly migrate toward satellite-based alternatives, local operators may find themselves losing their most profitable customer segments while still bearing the enormous cost of maintaining nationwide infrastructure.

This phenomenon, often described as "cream skimming," occurs when new entrants capture the most lucrative parts of a market while established operators continue serving less profitable areas and carrying the bulk of infrastructure responsibilities.

The implications extend beyond corporate balance sheets.

Telecommunications networks are strategic national assets. They support banking systems, government services, education, healthcare, and digital commerce. If the financial sustainability of local telecom operators weakens significantly, investment in network expansion and maintenance could slow, potentially affecting long-term digital development.

This does not mean innovation should be resisted. Competition is healthy. Consumers benefit when companies are forced to improve services, lower costs, and adopt new technologies. Starlink's presence may ultimately push local operators to innovate faster and improve customer experiences.

The challenge for policymakers is ensuring that competition remains fair and sustainable.

Regulators must strike a careful balance between encouraging technological innovation and maintaining a level playing field. The objective should not be to protect incumbents from competition, but to ensure that market participants contributing significantly to national infrastructure are not placed at a structural disadvantage.

Nigeria's digital future will likely involve both terrestrial and satellite networks working side by side. Fibre, mobile broadband, and satellite internet each have unique strengths and will play important roles in expanding connectivity.

The question is not whether Starlink should compete. The question is whether the economic and regulatory framework can evolve quickly enough to ensure that all players compete on terms that promote long-term investment, innovation, and sustainable growth.

 

As satellite broadband gains momentum across Africa, Nigeria faces a defining policy challenge: how to embrace technological disruption without undermining the industries that built the country's digital foundation in the first place.

This debate is ultimately about more than internet access. It is about the future structure of Nigeria's digital economy, the sustainability of infrastructure investment, and whether emerging technologies can coexist with traditional operators in a way that benefits both consumers and the broader economy.