Some, including Kenya and its ally, the United States, accused Eritrea in November of delivering arms to al Shabab, an Islamic militant group battling a U.S. drone war, proxy war, and a host of foreign African fighters backed by the U.S.

Despite denials from Eritrea, the accusations led the United Nations Security Council to impose new sanctions on Eritrea in December. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favor of expanding sanctions imposed on Eritrea two years ago, while Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki’s government accused the Security Council of doing America’s bidding.

The U.S. is running CIA blacksites as prisons in Somalia and supporting thuggish militias to fight al-Shabab, all while conducting covert kill/capture raids with Joint Special Operations Command forces. The U.S.-supported regimes of Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, and others are joining the fight against the Somali militants as Predator and Reaper drones unleash airstrikes launched from bases in Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Seychelles.

The Obama administration has garnered support for aggression against Somalia’s Shabab from most of the neighboring countries, with the exception of Eritrea, putting extra significance on its already strategic location. In 2009, the U.S. threatened Eritrea over its alleged support of the group, warning it could face “the same fate as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks.”

“The resolution is another injustice on the Eritrean people and will heighten tensions and stoke an already explosive situation in the Horn of Africa,” said a statement from the Eritrean Foreign Ministry.

The Council passed the resolution with 13 votes in favor of expanding sanctions imposed on Eritrea two years ago, with abstentions from China and Russia. Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki’s government accused the Security Council of doing America’s bidding.

In Ethiopia’s U.S.-backed invasion of Somalia in 2006, Eritrea backed the target of that invasion, the Islamic Courts Union and has since allegedly maintained ties with the militant group now in America’s crosshairs, al Shabaab.

In 2009, the U.S. threatened Eritrea over this alleged support of al Shabaab, warning it could face “the same fate as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11 attacks.” The Obama administration has garnered support for aggression against Somalia’s al Shabaab from most of the neighboring countries, with the exception of Eritrea, putting extra significance on its already strategic location.

The Eritrean government so far has not commented on the latest raid, but the two factions have launched attacks against the nation in the past. The rebels are based in Ethiopia and are being backed by the Ethiopian government, which says it wants regime change in the nation.

Eritrea was only able to secure its independence in 1993 after decades of bloody clashes with Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government invaded again in 1998 and continues to occupy considerable disputed territory.

Since then the two nations have been on extremely poor terms, and Ethiopia has blamed the Eritrean government for virtually every foreign policy struggle it has had, including accusing them of being the reason Somali rebels contested the Ethiopian invasion so aggressively.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said that the Ethiopian government plans to use “all possible means” to destroy the Eritrean government. The announcement came in an interview with an Ethiopia-based radio station run on behalf of the Eritrean opposition.

The officials say Ethiopia has officially abandoned its “defensive” policy and now intends to be “proactive” about toppling Eritrea.

Eritrea was only able to secure its independence in 1993 after decades of bloody clashes with Ethiopia. The Ethiopian government invaded again in 1998 and continues to occupy considerable disputed territory.

Since the loss of Eritrea, Ethiopia has become a landlocked nation, and the reconquest of the territory, whether through a puppet regime or outright annexation, is likely a high priority. Ethiopia has pressed for broad international sanctions against Eritrea, nominally for “meddling” in Somalia. Eritrea has denied this accusation but had ties with the now defunct Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Somalia, which opposed the 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia.

The cable repeatedly refers to top officials of Eritrea’s ruling party calling for a “less antagonistic” relationship with the United States, and says the US ambassador clearly rejected the call all three times, threatening to treat al-Shabaab attacks on the US as attacks by the Eritrean government.

The Eritrean officials complained that they have had only “infrequent” contact with al-Shabaab, and insisted that they don’t control what the Somali militant group does. The US responded by saying that Eritrea should look at “recent history” (presumably the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan) to judge the US reaction to any potential al-Shabaab attack.

The cable strengthens an April 2009 report that the United States was threatening to invade Eritrea and was looking at Afghanistan as a “model” for the occupation of the nation.

It seems the model is somewhat different, however, as the embassy officials openly lament the apparent loyalty shown by Eritrea’s military and suggested that the US plans to strengthen ties with certain unnamed military leaders whenever the opportunity presents itself.

At the same time, the US has threatened a series of sanctions and at one point a military invasion to the nearby nation of Eritrea, which it has accused of supplying weapons to the al-Shabaab insurgency. Eritrea has denied supplying the weapons though it has been backing various groups opposed to the self-proclaimed Somali government.

But if Eritrea isn’t supplying the al-Shabaab with weapons, where are they getting them all? The answer, it seems is much simpler. According to traders at Mogadishu’s Cirtoogte Market, Somali forces routinely bring the light arms provided to them by the US government to the market and sell them to traders, who turn around and sell them to the insurgency at a tidy profit.

As the largest weapons exporter in the world, it seems inevitable that the US would at some point find itself arming both sides of many conflicts. In this case, however, it seems to be not a deliberate policy decision but rather a function of shipping “tons” of free weapons to a war torn nation and just assuming it would somehow create legitimacy out of a government that appointed itself in a Kenyan soccer stadium.

Clinton claimed the al-Shabaab insurgency wanted to take over Somali in hopes of luring al-Qaeda to the nation and to spread its influence. President Ahmed added that al-Shabaab wanted to “destabilize the whole world” with unspecified attacks.

The Secretary of State also said she was particularly concerned that the insurgency uses not only foreign money, but “foreign ideas” in the battle. Other officials in the State Department said that President Obama plans to double its funneling of weapons ot the Somali government, from 40 tons to 80 tons.

The State Department went public with the extent to which it has supplied the self-proclaimed government of Somalia with weapons in June. Despite the heavy US support, the government continues to lose ground to the insurgency, and has control over a relatively limited portion of the nation.

The council issued a declaration today publicly condemning “the recent attacks on the Transitional Federal Government.” Eritrea has been blamed for the weakness of the Somali goernment, and the US and the AU have claimed Eritrea is directly supporting the al-Shabaab movement.

Eritrea’s Foreign Ministry condemned the Security Council’s statement, saying it no authority to prop up the self-proclaimed Somali government, which it termed “illegitimate.” It added the Eritrean government will never recognize a government “externally imposed” on Somalia.

Eritrea supported the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Somalia in opposing the 2006 Ethiopian invasion, ostensibly to repay the nation for its support in its own protracted war of secession with Ethiopia and while elements of the ICU have since taken control of parts of the dubious government of Somalia, the nation remains largely locked in a civil war over control of its major cities.

Eritrea appears to be America’s scapegoat of choice as the situation in Somalia continues to deteriorate, and only last month it was reported that the Obama Administration had threatened a US invasion of Eritrea over its support for the Islamist al-Shabaab faction.

The United Nations is also getting in on the act, voicing official concerns over the reports that Eritrea was providing arms to the insurgency, in breach of the UN arms embargo. Eritrea was as always defiant in the face of international criticism, its foreign ministry issued a statement condemning the “illicit and externally imposed transitional governments” of Somalia, and said the Security Council had aggravated the situation and was contravening the independence and sovereignty of Somalia.

Situated along the Red Sea, the State of Eritrea is a nation of under 5 million people with a long history of foreign occupation. Bought by an Italian shipping company in 1869, the region remained under Italian rule until 1941, when Britain took control of them. British control was formalized under UN auspices in 1947, and the United Nations ceded the region to Ethiopia.

What followed was a particularly bloodly 30-year long battle of secession between Ethiopia and an Eritrean rebel faction (the Eritrean Liberation Front), which ended in 1993 when Ethiopia finally gave in to demands for an independence referrendum, which passed with 99.79% of the votes in favor. Eritrea has remained on poor terms with Ethiopia since, fighting a border war which ended with the installation of a UN commission to establish the still tenuous border between the two.

In 2006, Ethiopia invaded Somalia with American support, vowing to crush the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) movement and prop up the self-proclaimed Transitional National Government (TNG) of Somalia, which had recently been chased from a Kenya hotel for failing to pay their bills and was attempting to assert control over the stateless region. Eritrea backed the ICU, and later the al-Shabaab movement ostensibly to repay Somali support for their own independence bid. Though the TNG remained on the verge of collapse, Ethiopia declared “mission accomplished” in December of 2008, withdrawing its troops and claiming it had foiled a “plan orchestrated by Eritrea.”

The Bush Administration attempted to have Eritrea declared a “state-sponsor of terrorism” numerous times for backing forces in opposition to the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. Eritrea publicly denounced “foreign intervention” in Somalia and said the Ethiopian pullout had vindicated their position that military occupation would not stabilize the nation.

Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki remains defiant, saying he will continue to oppose the Western-backed TNG’s attempt to assert control over the nation. “There is no government, there is not even a naiton of Somalia existing,” the president insisted, calling for a peace conference in which all parties, including those branded by the US and Ethiopia as “extremists” would have a voice. “Peace is not guaranteed without a government agreed by all Somalis.”