Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Throwing Good Money After Bad in Yemen?

Despite the Obama administration’s claims to the contrary, the U.S.-supported, Saudi-led attack on Yemen has made a political solution to the Yemen conflict less likely.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

In late March, when Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies began “Operation Decisive Storm,” the military effort to end Yemen’s ongoing civil war and restore President Abd Rabbuh al-Hadi to power there, they did so with American logistical assistance. In fact, according to The Washington Post, the early phases of the Saudi-led air campaign “relied heavily on U.S. surveillance ­images and targeting information,” and a US helicopter was responsible for rescuing two Saudi pilots when their plane crashed into the Gulf of Aden during a sortie on March 26. Last month, “Operation Decisive Storm” gave way to “Operation Restoring Hope,” which ostensibly meant an end to the heaviest parts of the air campaign. Aside from a brief humanitarian pause in the bombing earlier this month, however, there’s been no discernible change in the conduct of the campaign or in its intensity.

It’s hard to point to a single thing that the Saudi-led intervention has accomplished in pursuit of its declared goals. It hasn’t restored Hadi to power or tamped down the forces that ousted him, the Houthi-led Ansar Allah and allied forces loyal to former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. True, just this week forces reportedly allied with President Hadi captured the city of Dhale, which is not far from the important Yemeni port city of Aden and is the base of operations for Yemen’s Saleh-aligned 33rdArmored Brigade. Between the city’s strategic location and the weapons the pro-Hadi forces seized in its capture, this was a significant victory. But it is literally the first gain of any importance by a pro-Hadi force in the two months since the Saudi campaign began.

In the meantime, the main effect of Saudi efforts has been to turn what was already a critical humanitarian situation into an outright “catastrophe.” Thanks to reckless conduct on both sides of the conflict, thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed or wounded, and millions are either displaced or otherwise lack access to clean water, food, and healthcare. Speaking on Tuesday at a conference held by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Beirut, European Council on Foreign Relations analyst Adam Baron called the war “unprecedented in Yemen in its level of destruction and its scope.” He added that “facts on the ground point to an extended conflict,” which means that most Yemenis have little to look forward to apart from further misery. It appears, actually, that the Saudi campaign has not weakened the Houthi position within Yemen in any significant way. On the contrary, according to Baron, Yemenis who had been ambivalent or even opposed to Ansar Allah’s takeover have, in the face of the bombing campaign, adopted the phrase “kullna Ansar Allah”—“we are all Ansar Allah.”

The one group in Yemen that has seen its fortunes improve under Decisive Storm and Restoring Hope has been al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which of all the regional affiliates of al-Qaeda U.S. officials consider “by far the most dangerous to the West because it has both technical skills and global reach.” In the chaos created by the civil war and the Saudi intervention, AQAP has been able to take control of the important seaport of Al-Mukalla—one of AQAP’s top commanders, Nasser al-Ansi, was killed in a drone strike on Al-Mukalla in early May—as well as a nearby airfield and oil terminal. Of potentially greater concern is that AQAP has made inroads into eastern Yemeni tribes that have opposed Ansar Allah’s takeover. Because the Saudi coalition has focused all of its attention on Ansar Allah, AQAP has been able to strengthen these ties without fear of pushback. As Baron put it, at this point “al-Qaeda and extremist groups in Yemen are stronger than they’ve ever been in their history.”

The Saudis and their coalition partners have justified their military intervention into Yemen on the basis of constraining Iran’s regional ambitions. But although there is a growing relationship between Ansar Allah and Tehran, the argument that the Houthis are nothing more than Iranian proxy agents has always rested on shaky ground. For example, Iranian officials actually tried to talk the Houthis out of seizing power in Yemen last year, before they took control of Yemen’s capital city of Sanaa. Moreover, despite concerns that Iranian arms shipments have enabled much of the Houthis’ military success, the Houthis’ weaponry has more likely come from Yemeni army units loyal to former President Saleh, and therefore, ultimately, from…the United States, which supplied them to Yemen in the first place. Ultimately, as Yemen scholar Gabriele vom Bruck recently wrote for LobeLog, the Saudi intervention probably has more to do with a desire to dominate Yemen politically and ideologically, a desire that the Houthi takeover has threatened to thwart, than it does with any fear of nefarious Iranian influence.

All this raises a critical question for the United States: is it really going to continue to involve itself in a campaign whose effects have uniformly run counter both to the interests of Yemeni civilians and to America’s own national security needs?

Despite the Obama administration’s insistence that it is simply providing “enabling support” to an intervention intended to force a political settlement to Yemen’s civil war, its support has been vital to the course of an air campaign that has, if anything, made a political solution more, not less, difficult to achieve. In fact, in early April Washington announced that it would begin “expediting” arms shipments to the Saudis, escalating America’s involvement from simply supplying targets to supplying both the targets and the ordinance used to strike them. America is thus providing critical logistical support to an operation that has only added to Yemen’s instability and that has worked largely to the benefit of America’s biggest security concern on the Arabian Peninsula.

Yet so far, America’s decision to enable the intervention has backfired in every imaginable way. Yemen is even less stable, Yemenis are suffering more, and AQAP’s position is stronger now than before the intervention began. Additionally, the escalating violence has stranded dozens of US citizens in Yemen, several of whom the Houthis are now reportedly holding captive. Washington contends that the situation is too dangerous to attempt an evacuation.

The Obama administration undoubtedly sees support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention as a relatively easy way to reassure Riyadh that the US is still a reliable ally despite its ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. But at some point, the value of reassuring the Saudis has to be weighed against the damage that their actions in Yemen have wrought on America’s regional and national interests.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share