Tigray on the Brink of War Again: Is the Pretoria Agreement Collapsing?

The rapidly unfolding developments in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region are no longer merely signs of a limited security dispute between the federal government and regional forces. They raise a far more consequential question concerning the future of the settlement that brought an end to the devastating Tigray war between 2020 and 2022.

On September 23, 2026, Tigrayan leaders said that their forces had entered what they described as a “defensive war” against the federal government, while fighting was reported in Tigray and two neighboring regions. The escalation comes after Tigrayan forces seized Mekelle’s main airport from federal police, according to local sources cited by Reuters. Ethiopian Airlines subsequently suspended flights to Mekelle, Axum, and Shire because of the security situation.

The significance of the development extends well beyond the airport itself. Mekelle’s airport is one of the principal points of connection between Tigray and the rest of Ethiopia. Its seizure by regional forces represents a shift from political confrontation toward direct control of strategic infrastructure and indicates a widening gap between the formal constitutional structure of the Ethiopian state and the distribution of power on the ground.

From the Pretoria Agreement to the Erosion of the Settlement

Understanding the current escalation requires a return to the Pretoria Agreement, signed in November 2022 between the Ethiopian federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). The agreement ended two years of devastating conflict and established a framework for ending hostilities, restoring essential services, facilitating humanitarian access, and addressing disarmament and political arrangements.

The agreement succeeded in stopping large-scale fighting, but it did not resolve all of the political, territorial, and security disputes underlying the conflict. Questions concerning disputed territories, the return of internally displaced persons, the status of Tigrayan forces, disarmament, and the relationship between the federal government and the regional administration remained contentious.

Recent assessments have likewise pointed to unresolved political, territorial, and security issues as important factors behind the renewed tensions.

The current crisis should therefore not be viewed simply as an isolated development that emerged suddenly. It is better understood as the latest stage in the erosion of an already fragile postwar settlement.

The Mekelle Airport Seizure: A Political Signal Beyond the Military Dimension

The seizure of Mekelle airport is particularly significant because airports in internal conflicts are not merely civilian or economic facilities. They can also have strategic importance as points of movement, communication, logistics, and political control.

The central question is therefore not simply who controls the airport, but who possesses effective authority in Tigray.

If regional forces can take control of infrastructure previously guarded by federal security personnel, the development suggests that the gap between formal constitutional authority and effective territorial control is widening.

The suspension of Ethiopian Airlines flights to Mekelle, Axum, and Shire provides an additional indication of the deterioration of the security environment. The airline said the services were suspended because of the “current situation in the Tigray region,” without providing further details.

The interruption of scheduled air services also carries civilian and humanitarian implications, particularly because air travel represents an important connection between Tigray and Addis Ababa.

A New Armed Coalition Changes the Nature of the Crisis

The most consequential development may not be the airport seizure alone, but the broader political and military context in which it has occurred.

On September 21, seven Ethiopian armed groups announced the formation of an alliance aimed at removing Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government. The coalition includes the TPLF as well as armed groups from several Ethiopian regions, including Amhara, Oromia, Afar, and Benishangul-Gumuz. Some of its members were previously on opposing sides during the 2020–2022 war.

This development potentially transforms the crisis from a confrontation between the federal government and Tigray into a broader challenge involving multiple armed and political actors across Ethiopia.

That does not necessarily mean that the coalition can operate as a unified military force. Its members have different political objectives, territorial interests, and historical grievances, and reports indicate significant differences among them. Geographic dispersion may also limit their ability to coordinate sustained military operations.

Nevertheless, the formation of the coalition represents an important development for Ethiopia’s national security environment. It adds a broader political dimension to the renewed confrontation at a time when the federal government is already facing armed challenges in several regions.

Why Has the Confrontation Returned?

The renewed escalation cannot be attributed to a single factor.

First, a deepening crisis of trust

Relations between the federal government and Tigrayan authorities have remained marked by mutual distrust. Although the Pretoria Agreement halted large-scale hostilities, several of its political and security provisions have remained incompletely implemented or contested.

Second, disagreement over federalism

The conflict also reflects a broader dispute over the nature of Ethiopia’s federal political system and the balance between central authority and regional autonomy. In Tigray, this question is inseparable from the region’s political history and the legacy of the 2020–2022 war.

Third, disputed territories and displacement

Territorial disputes and the return of internally displaced people remain among the most sensitive issues. The question of who controls contested areas, and under what political and administrative arrangements displaced communities return, has the potential to become a renewed source of conflict.

Fourth, the unfinished security transition

The postwar transition from armed conflict to institutional politics has not been completed. Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration remain critical components of any durable settlement, and incomplete implementation can leave former combatants and political actors with incentives to retain or rebuild military capabilities.

These unresolved questions help explain why the peace established in 2022 has remained fragile.

Are We Witnessing the Start of Another War?

It is now more difficult than it was earlier in the escalation to describe the situation simply as a limited political or security dispute. On September 23, Tigrayan leaders explicitly said that their forces had entered a “defensive war,” while Reuters reported fighting in Tigray and neighboring Afar and Amhara regions.

Nevertheless, the scale and duration of the renewed conflict remain uncertain.

The immediate concern is not necessarily that a fully developed nationwide war will emerge overnight, but that a cycle of escalation could become self-sustaining. Local clashes can generate retaliatory operations, which in turn can widen the geographical scope of the conflict and draw additional armed groups into the confrontation.

This risk is particularly significant in Ethiopia because political, ethnic, territorial, and security disputes overlap across regional boundaries.

The Federal Government’s Dilemma

Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government faces a difficult strategic calculation.

On one hand, allowing a regional armed force to seize strategic infrastructure challenges the authority of the federal state. On the other hand, launching a large-scale military operation against Tigray would carry substantial humanitarian, political, and economic costs, particularly given the consequences of the previous war.

The experience of 2020–2022 also demonstrated the limits of military solutions. The conflict ultimately ended through negotiations and the Pretoria peace process rather than through the definitive military elimination of the underlying political dispute.

A renewed military campaign could therefore produce short-term territorial gains while simultaneously creating new political and security problems.

Tigray Between Restoring Influence and the Risk of Renewed Isolation

For Tigrayan leaders, the current confrontation appears to reflect an effort to restore greater political and security leverage after the postwar settlement. Yet renewed conflict also presents significant risks for the region itself.

Tigray continues to face the consequences of the previous war, including displacement, economic disruption, and major reconstruction needs. A return to large-scale fighting could further disrupt civilian life, humanitarian operations, trade, transportation, and the region’s recovery.

The challenge for Tigrayan leaders is therefore not simply how to preserve regional influence, but how to do so within a political framework capable of preventing another prolonged war.

The Regional Dimension: Why Tigray Matters Beyond Ethiopia

The consequences of renewed fighting would extend beyond Ethiopia’s borders. Ethiopia is a central actor in the Horn of Africa, and renewed conflict in its northern regions could affect the broader regional balance.

The country shares borders with Eritrea, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, South Sudan, and Kenya, while its internal security is closely connected to questions involving trade, infrastructure, water, regional security, and access to ports.

The Eritrean dimension is particularly sensitive. Ethiopia’s federal government has accused the new armed coalition of receiving support from Eritrea, while Asmara has denied such allegations. This illustrates how an internal Ethiopian conflict could quickly acquire a regional dimension.

The situation also has implications for Ethiopia’s relationship with Sudan, which is already experiencing its own devastating conflict. A renewed Ethiopian war could create additional cross-border security pressures and humanitarian challenges.

A Test for the African Union

The current escalation also represents an important test for the African Union, which played a central role in facilitating the Pretoria peace process.

The AU’s involvement helped establish a framework for ending the Tigray war and monitoring aspects of its implementation. The renewed violence raises questions about whether the existing mechanisms are sufficient to prevent the collapse of the settlement or whether a renewed diplomatic effort will be required.

The challenge for African mediators is particularly acute because the longer military escalation continues, the narrower the space for political compromise becomes.

The immediate priority is therefore not merely to negotiate another ceasefire after large-scale fighting resumes, but to address the unresolved political and security issues that made the original settlement fragile.

Three Possible Trajectories

Several broad trajectories can be considered, although the rapidly changing situation makes definitive predictions difficult.

1. Containment and renewed negotiations

The first possibility is that domestic, regional, and international pressure could push the parties back toward negotiations. If both the federal government and Tigrayan leadership conclude that the costs of another prolonged war are unacceptable, the current escalation could become a bargaining phase rather than the beginning of a full-scale conflict.

2. Protracted low-intensity conflict

A second possibility is the continuation of localized clashes, drone strikes, and military pressure without an immediate return to full-scale war. Such a pattern could produce prolonged instability, humanitarian deterioration, and economic disruption while leaving the fundamental political disputes unresolved.

3. A broader return to war

The most serious trajectory would involve the expansion of military operations across Tigray and potentially into other regions, particularly if members of the newly formed armed coalition become directly involved or if regional actors intervene more openly.

The available evidence does not yet allow a definitive conclusion about which trajectory will prevail. The federal government’s response, the behavior of Tigrayan forces, the cohesion of the new armed coalition, and the ability of African and international mediators to reopen channels of communication will be critical variables.

Conclusion: The Problem Is Larger Than Mekelle Airport

The significance of the Mekelle airport seizure lies in what it reveals about a much larger unresolved problem: how can Ethiopia reconcile federal state authority with substantial regional political autonomy in a country with a long history of competition between the center and the periphery?

The Pretoria Agreement succeeded in ending a devastating war and establishing a framework for peace. Yet a ceasefire is not synonymous with a comprehensive political settlement. The current escalation demonstrates that the underlying political and security architecture remains vulnerable.

The central challenge is therefore not simply preventing another battle around Mekelle. It is preventing the collapse of the political framework established after the 2020–2022 war.

For Addis Ababa, Tigrayan leaders, and the African Union, the most urgent task is to address the issues that have continued to undermine the peace process: regional governance, disputed territories, the return of displaced populations, disarmament and reintegration, and credible mechanisms for managing disputes between the federal government and regional authorities.

If these issues can be transformed from sources of confrontation into subjects of institutional negotiation, the Pretoria Agreement could still provide a foundation for a more durable political settlement.

If, however, political disputes continue to be managed primarily through military balances and coercive pressure, the seizure of Mekelle airport may ultimately be remembered not as an isolated security incident, but as one of the moments when Ethiopia’s fragile postwar settlement gave way to a new phase of armed confrontation.

The broader issue, therefore, is not simply whether Tigray will experience another war. It is whether Ethiopia can develop a political framework capable of managing its profound regional, ethnic, and political diversity without repeatedly returning to armed conflict.