Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 16, 2015

Why Does The World Wage War Against The People Of Yemen?

Nearly the whole world, seemingly paid off by Saudi money, is waging war against Yemen.

How else can one explain the silence that surrounds the Saudi bombing campaign that will lead to devastating starvation in Yemen and will turn that country into a second, bigger Gaza?

The sycophantic UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon kicked out the UN envoy to Yemen, Jamal Benomar, because Benomar did not endorse the Saudi bombing campaign. He will be replaced with the Saudi choice Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad from Mauritania:

Previously, in Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmad was “an embarrassment,” as multiple UN sources put it to Inner City Press. But, hey, whatever the Saudis want.

A UN Security Council resolution against the Yemeni people practically endorsed the Saudi blockade, bombing and starvation campaign by 14 to 0. Russia was criticized for only abstaining but not vetoing the resolution. I can see two reasons for the Russian vote. For one Russia may believe that the Saudi campaign will, in the end, severely hurt Saudi Arabia which would be to Russia's advantage. It may also have not vetoed because China, for whatever reason, endorsed the resolution. China and Russia prefer to veto together to avert to be singled out and blamed.

The Saudis have bombed not only refugee camps and food depots in Yemen but also the telecommunication networks, news stations and electricity networks. Sanaa has been without electricity for over 60 hours now. On Monday the soccer stadiums in Ibb, Aden, and Sanaa were bombed. Yesterday 16 gas stations, with long lines of cars waiting for fuel, were bombed in one case leaving at least 17 people dead and 50 wounded.

Between March 26 and April 11 the Saudis bombed Yemen over 1,200 times. According to an earlier account by a Yemeni army spokesperson 2,571 were killed of which 381 were children and 455 women. 1,200 official institution and 72 schools were destroyed. In the last 24 hours another 56 civilians were killed.

Fuel prices have increased by 600%, bread by at least 300%. Cooking gas is running out and without fuel or electricity water pumps can not run. People will starve but for lack of reporting abilities in the country no one will notice.

While the Saudis claim to bomb the Houthis but destroy Yemeni infrastructure Al Qaeda took full control over the harbor city al-Mukalla and slaughtered 15 Yemeni soldiers in Shabwa province in south Yemen. The Yemeni 2nd brigade, run by a Saudi stooge, gave up its weapons to AlQaeda. The Pakistanis were smart enough to reject the Saudi request for Pakistani foot soldiers to die in Yemen. The Saudi plan B is now to hire "local forces" to do their dirty bidding which means that the Saudis will, like in Syria, finance and support Al Qaeda's takeover of that country. Pakistan should send the Taliban to teach the Saudi how religious lunatics fight.

The U.S. is helping the Saudis not only with weapons and ammunition. At least 20 U.S. officers were send to a joint headquarter in Riyadh and are vetting the Saudi targeting lists.

Nobody in Washington or elsewhere believes that the Saudi campaign will solve anything in Yemen. But why then endorse and support it and the all the suffering it creates?

Posted by b on April 16, 2015 at 7:44 UTC | Permalink


Thanks for reporting. The threat of completely blocking transit through the Red Sea to all parties considered hostile(not supporting the Saudi plan), would probably have some influence on the decision, especially with European or Asian countries. Russia depends far less on that route, so they could show off some opposition.

Posted by: jaqwith | Apr 16 2015 8:22 utc | 1

Like the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate the Russians and Chinese are nihilists who care nothing for the lives of the Yemenis nor for for those of anyone else.

Posted by: jfl | Apr 16 2015 10:20 utc | 2

Like the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate the Russians and Chinese are nihilists who care nothing for the lives of the Yemenis nor for for those of anyone else.

where is the Arab street, who it seems get's angered by cartoons but not by wanton slaughter of their fellow brethren.we should praise Pakistan for standing to Saudi bullying, the repercussions for the poor Pakistani workers will come when they will face definite defeat. Nasarallah will give a speech address the Yemen issue on Friday, let's see his view on where this conflict will lead.

Posted by: papa | Apr 16 2015 10:36 utc | 3

Yemeni lives are disposable it seems... and Uncle Sam can make a tidy sum selling rockets and missiles to the Saudis for their new war...

jfl @2... bingo.

Posted by: Almand | Apr 16 2015 11:42 utc | 4

@jfl #2:

You are the main nihilist here with your moral equation of Russia with the United States. Russia was the only country that abstained. China didn't even manage to do that, for unknown reasons.

UN sanctions Houthis in Yemen, ignores Russian calls for all-inclusive arms embargo

Fourteen members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution, Russia being the only abstention.

The Russian representative explained the move by saying that not all of Moscow’s proposals had been included in the final text drafted by Jordan and Gulf Arab states.

"The co-sponsors refused to include the requirements insisted upon by Russia addressed to all sides to the conflict to swiftly halt fire and to begin peace talks," Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the council after the vote. …

The Jordanian draft resolution was being debated alongside a separate Russian draft, which called for a “humanitarian pause” in airstrikes by the Saudi-led military coalition.

An all-inclusive arms embargo on all parties in the Yemeni conflict, suggested earlier by Russia as an amendment to the Arab draft, was rejected.

I suggest you do some soul searching and try to explore ways to cure yourself of your Russophobia. But I regret to say that I have the feeling that your nihilism is incurable.

Posted by: Demian | Apr 16 2015 11:52 utc | 5

Lovely... the way it is put by the BBC...

"Western diplomats said Mr Benomar had faced mounting criticism from Saudi Arabia and other members of the GCC for his failure to persuade the warring parties to attend peace talks."

Posted by: Mina | Apr 16 2015 12:54 utc | 6

But why then endorse and support it and the all the suffering it creates?

well, like why flies swarm to shit, it's a fertile environment for insect minds.

the suffering it creates is precisely why.

Posted by: john | Apr 16 2015 13:08 utc | 7

It seems the Saudis are really twisting the arm of the Pakistani government. The latter has come out verbally in full support of the Saudi position, and is trying some way to meet their demand for troops without committing to getting involved in a ground war in Yemen. It is possible that they may be able to get away with a symbolic troop presence on the SA border with Yemen.

It also depends on how much it matters to China for Pakistan to not get involved and thus spoil its relations with Iran; the Chinese need both for their 'economic land corridor' plan. If the Chinese strongly object, it will be really difficult for Pakistan to do anything more than just token support for the Saudis.

As for Russia's abstention in the SC, it makes sense from their point of view. Yemen means nothing to them; they do not wish to rile the Saudis unnecessarily; and they have already done a big favour to Iran with the release of the AA system.

Posted by: FB Ali | Apr 16 2015 15:29 utc | 8

Al Jazeera is reporting that Ali Abdullah Saleh has asked the Saudis for safe passage out of Yemen after some of his forces turned on him and are now fighting the Houthis. Does anyone know if this is an accurate report?

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 16 2015 15:56 utc | 9

As I said to wayoutwest in a post a couple days ago:

"... it's basically the UN giving the stamp of approval to the ultimate crime, unprovoked aggressive war. The UN, therefore, should be brought before a Nuremberg Tribunal and then be put to death."

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 15, 2015 11:59:25 AM | 59

What's going on is Saudi oil money buying Chinese silence (and, let's face it, Yemen doesn't have any important friends or important resources ...).

Nonetheless, the Houthis won't lose. They may be pushed out of some of the south, where US/Saudi ally Al Qaeda can take over.

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 16 2015 16:35 utc | 10

thanks b..

it is quite shocking actually.. watching some sycophant group in saudi arabia or by proxy - all their friends who can't do without the money or oil or wtf else - rubber stamping it all with a UN seal of approval.. tells us all we need to know about the UN too.. i used to think the UN could be a useful means of resolving international issues - especially after bush 2 came out flailing away against it in his war on iraq.. at the time he seemed to convince the brain dead that the UN was a bad thing as it didn't approve of his war in iraq and he wasn't going to wait for approval.. now - 12 years later - here we are with the UN making an ass of itself..

i think you might be right about why these countries aren't standing up to sa's completely evil acts here - they need the money/oil/arm sales - and will not bite the hand that feeds them.. russia is the only country that vetoed this on good ground - they want a stop to the whole thing... it's bizarre to see how far we have come..

what a mess we have on the international stage at this point.. cold war 1 is looking a lot better.. idiots running most places in every direction including the international bodies that are supposed to help out in a situation like this.. pathetic..

Posted by: james | Apr 16 2015 17:04 utc | 11


Yemen is a complicated and confusing place to try to understand and the more I read about it makes me think it's probably going to become even more confused.

An interview with Tribal Milita leaders in East Yemen at the Guardian was informative. They were cursing AQAP for not attacking the Houthi advance, trying to stop their young men from joining the IS and firing artillery at their allied neighbor tribe over long disputed land. They also dislike the Saudis and their interference in the country.

BTW both AQAP and the Islamic State may get support from some Saudis but their shared goal is to depose the House Of Saud, where app 2000 members of that family actually rule the nation of millions.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 16 2015 17:51 utc | 12

That which they can't control, they will destroy.

Any number of nations, along with the world's hegemon and its lickspittles, take that approach.

Seems the Saudis treat the laws of war as the Israelis do: Their only usefulness is to attack one's enemies.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 16 2015 18:39 utc | 13

This is not a short read, but, well worth it. Very much TRUTH to be had from it.

Posted by: ben | Apr 16 2015 18:45 utc | 14

I'm not entirely conviced that the Saudi war on Yemen isn't a smoke and mirrors attempt at breaking up the Kingdom into more manageable pieces of oil rich real estate for the rest of the world to exploit.

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Apr 16 2015 20:07 utc | 15

@15 The general goal of Saudi foreign policy is to make sure there aren't any Muslim governments organized around a non-Saudi model or utterly loyal to the KSA (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt) to keep their own population from getting ideas. If every Saudi prince disappeared today, the cities, the oil wells, the ports, and so forth would still function. Richard III and much of the English aristocracy was wiped out in a single day. England endured. This recognition is what the Sauds fear. They are a tribe not a nation. A cabal of colonels could grab power tomorrow. It happened in Egypt and the Ottoman Empire.

The collapse of a puppet regime in Yemen with U.S. military backing would only give potential rebels ideas especially given the newness of the king and precarious of an unclear succession system.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 16 2015 20:26 utc | 16

You're right NTG @ 16, which means perpetual war because that is the only way that the Saudis can maintain their grip on hegemony. They've combined now with Israel, and that combination, I think, is effectively dictating U.S. foreign policy. A lot of commentators like to say it is all a U.S.-run show, that al-Saud is basically a British creation that was taken over by the U.S. during WWII and run ever since. And while that might have been true at one time, I don't think it true any longer. The structure of pay-to-play has gotten so out of whack in the U.S., it has priced the old school CFR Brahman class out of the Great Game. Realpolitik is second class to neoconservatism. That is why there will likely be war with Iran. The goal of KSA/Israel is to have the United States fight that war.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Apr 16 2015 21:15 utc | 17


I had some respect for Nasrallah and Hezbollah when they confronted Israeli aggression in South Lebanon. Since that time they have expanded their goals and attempted to violently overthrow the Lebanese government, supported the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon and have been for years blocking the selection of a President there. Their goal appears to be to establish an Islamic Republic in Lebanon which most Lebanese do not support. It is hard to respect their leader now no matter how many Stoned Devil diatribes he broadcasts.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 16 2015 21:50 utc | 18

@17 The House of Saud has been aligned with Israel for a long time. Israel may have been the target of rhetoric, but hate of Israel (non-Muslims) has always distracted from Saudi thugs and cash. Israel plays it's part loyally, attacking Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq despite knowing full well the U.S. will always guarantee Israeli borders even beyond '67 and '73 lines.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 16 2015 21:56 utc | 19

WOW @ 18. If a violent coup is Nasrallah's goal, what prevents him? The Lebanese Army?

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Apr 16 2015 21:59 utc | 20

16 apr 2015. 'B' asks: "Why Does The World Wage War Against The People Of Yemen?"

I fully agree with B and Nasrallah and Iranian gov't and others who say the Saudi bombing in Yemen is "a mistake" and not good for the people of Yemen. For me to appreciate the the world is acting rationally, I start by looking at the political values embodied in "good for the people of Yemen".

Nasrallah at #14 above says of the Saudis that they had control and hegemony over Yemen until the coming to power of the Houthis and "the goal of the war is to restore [Saudi] control and hegemony, and it's as simple as that." Might be true, but why does Jordan, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and much of the rest of the whole world, even China, Malaysia and Spain, support the Saudi war? I think it's fundamentally because they don't like the spirit of the Houthis and they think it's okay for themselves to interfere and take sides in Yemen's internal conflict. But 'B' asks: "nobody believes that the Saudi campaign will solve anything in Yemen, why then endorse and support it and the all the suffering it creates?" My answer is they don't believe the Saudi campaign will solve everything in Yemen, but they sincerely believe it will solve some things and establish a good foundation for longterm, gradual, preferable solutions overall. In the outsiders' thinking, they ask themselves what would be good for the people of Yemen according to their (outsiders') political opinions about what is good and preferable. As a legal technicality they aren't violating Yemen's sovereignty by interfering, and so they've a free hand to interfere if they wish to, and they choose to. It is exceedingly fundamental that the outsiders are acting in accordance with what they think is good for the people of Yemen according their (outsiders') political values, and that's why I've said it twice.

'B' has said in times past that he's got no objection to the outsiders' interference in Iraq and eastern Syria against ISIS this past year (btw I don't agree with him about that). It is political values that brings B to oppose the bombing in Yemen and support the bombing in Iraq. Likewise it is political values that brings the Egyptian gov't and other non-Saudis to support the bombing of Yemen. To find out what those values are, you read what they say. What they say is what they think, and what they think is what they say.

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Apr 16 2015 22:06 utc | 21

consider also that USA, France, S.A. and others have to keep the terrorists in the cauldrons of Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and out of S.A., Turkey, Jordan, etc. Thus, S.A. can pay and direct these terrorists away from their internal politics, and prevent the terrorists from Isilstanning Riyadh

Posted by: DamascusFalling | Apr 16 2015 22:09 utc | 22


I didn't say that Mike, Hezbollah tried to overthrow the Lebanese Govt and failed, the Lebanese Army did oppose them but I think that other Lebanese Militias were the deciding factor in their defeat.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 16 2015 23:37 utc | 23


Thanks for the link. The Saker actually reposted the link from

Reading this and the 2003 article by the 'retired' CIA official linked to by Mike Whitney at taken together with the other noises made in the MSM lately - the attempted link of Saudi Arabia rather than Israel to 9/11, for instance - makes me think that the Saudi royals have actually been sucker-punched by the US/Israel on this war ... or maybe that the US/KSA have both been sucker-punched by Israel on this war. How many people do you think are sharpening their knives, dreaming of oil-fields all over the GCC, in the event that the brutal royals there are overthrown?

Posted by: jfl | Apr 17 2015 2:43 utc | 24

@22 There isn't one reason for state actors to move, and any move against the Saud clan would attract hot heads who can provide early strength to any movement. Europe jumped on board with the Syrian operation to get rid of their hothead Muslims.

*When I say "hotheads," I'm referring to the ilk who are in it for the pure violence as opposed to a political goal. In the U.S., they become cops.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 17 2015 2:49 utc | 25

@25 yup - the west wanted to draw the islamic radicals out of their land and into Syria.. a confluence of strategic interests, kind of like what the Iraq war was supposed to be.

Houthis in Yemen are a monkey wrench for the axis of empire, hence the almost universal assault

Posted by: DamascusFalling | Apr 17 2015 3:09 utc | 26

@16. That's the Saudi policy, but what is the US policy toward KSA?

If (*IF*) the US is interested in changing the map of the ME, it is entirely possible that KSA has overstayed its welcome alongside the US in the pinnacle of global power.

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Apr 17 2015 3:29 utc | 27

KSA has NOT overstayed its welcome, yellowsnap. They are an essential part of "keeping the world safe for war". KSA provides the terrorists for US and Israel to frighten their populations with, and to fight. Both US and Israel MUST have enemies. Once I was naïve enough to think with the collapse of the USSR there would be a peace 'dividend'. Only to have the US govt put forth a policy of "we must be able to fight two wars on two continents". That's the moment I remembered Ike's warning. It's gotten worse since. That's why Congress supports any and all wars - we live in a economy dominated by the MIC, with, of course, support from Wall Street who profits from the MIC. Politics is only about money, despite all the diversionary tactics to make us think otherwise. So, yes, politics is an ongoing criminal enterprise.

Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 17 2015 6:40 utc | 28

Great discussion as usual here.

The Houthis were and are explicitly about using their military power to bring shared governance to a country that they don't want to govern by themselves. The opposite of chaos. Reminds me of Hezbollah's explicitly multi-faith approach to Lebanon governance. Again, common sense and the opposite of chaos. The last reminder is of Somalia, where Islamic Courts (if I remember their name correctly) brought an end to the civil war but too much sovereignty for the US to stand. So the US gave Somalia a return of warring mini-states and chaos. It won't be able to destroy the sovereignty that the Houthis have brought to Sanaa and the mountais of northern Yemen. Aden on the other hand, welcome to chaos. We all knew this is how the US neocon empire operates, but what an exposure of the brutally neocon UN.

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 17 2015 6:43 utc | 29

Grayson on Money & Politics: "If We Do Nothing, We Can Kiss This Country Goodbye. Well, Pucker Up"

Posted by: okie farmer | Apr 17 2015 6:49 utc | 30

But why then endorse and support it and the all the suffering it creates?
Posted by b on April 16, 2015 at 03:44 AM

My guess is that the people responsible for this (typically cowardly, bloodthirsty and destructive) act of unprovoked slaughter and vandalism i.e. USrael, EU and assorted pimps and vassals, know it's only a matter of time until it becomes clear to all and sundry that the Iran N-deal was designed to fail.
Yemen will provide an opportunity for the MSM to talk about something other than the failure of the non-negotiations. The Yankees have all but promised themselves that they'll bomb-bomb Iran if it doesn't capitulate. And the cowardly Yankees, and the cowardly Israelis won't dare attack Iran - unless they suddenly decide that suicide bombing isn't such a bad idea after all.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17 2015 6:50 utc | 31

today Hezbollah Secretary General, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah will give a speech solely about Yemen. It will be interesting what he will say, this speech must have been cleared by Iran, Iraq Shia's, Ansarullah Movement. What will he say about Saudi, remember his powerful March 27 speech. after this speech, we should have a pretty good idea how the Ansarullah Movement intend to fight the next stage of this war, what will Iran, Iraq, Syria do. So far they have absorbed massive causalities and destruction, fighting mainly to get rid of the fifth columnist in South Aden, blocking off sea landing of troops.

IRGC Deputy General Salami confirmed to Almayadeen TV in an interview that Ansarullah Movement have Massive Capabilities.

Posted by: papa | Apr 17 2015 8:31 utc | 32

@27 The Sauds have way too much money and connections in Versailles, and thugs like Obama aren't that clever. Many times much like in Yemen internal problems lead to organic revolts without planning in the Pentagon or Langley. I know it seems crazy.

The Sauds have been content to let the U.S., thugs, and Israel carry out their plans, but the Pentagon isn't as gun happy if there is an expectation of retaliation and the American people are opposed to war which means the Sauds can't get more than drones which are less useful in urban areas. A losing general doesn't get appointed to corporate boards. Israel is a crummy, tourist trap of 8 million at the end of the day. It can't undertake more than symbolic operations beyond its borders which means the 31 year old defense minister needs a big win if he wants to be king.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 17 2015 13:37 utc | 33

Maybe it's time to brush up on the mindset which embraces pitiless and self-indulgent slaughter of innocents.

The Occult Technology of Power (Anonymous) RexResearch
from the 1970's

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17 2015 13:58 utc | 34

NotTimothyGeithner says:

...the American people are opposed to war...

is that a joke? the American people love war and they celebrate it everyday in so many ways. they elect one warmonger after another and, indeed, have even learned that supporting war is a good career move. i doubt seriously if there has ever been a more war supportive culture in the history of humankind.

i hope you don't have the idea that nifty little web sites like moa reflect some kind of pervasive anti-war sentiment that's sweeping the nation. 'cause they don't.

Posted by: john | Apr 17 2015 14:46 utc | 35

@35 Did you not see the reaction to the lies about Syria? Even the GOP became scared. The Iraq War in 2003 had to be sold as a negotiating tactic with the authorization sham bill in 2002.

Posted by: NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 17 2015 15:05 utc | 36

@ 36

we are still at war in Syria. we are still at war in Iraq. we are still at war in Afghanistan. we are still at war in Libya. we are still at war in Yemen. all aggressive, illegal wars on our part. we have been at war in the Middle East since 1991 which means that an entire generation of Americans has grown up with war. we have multiple military installations in most countries and a defense budget larger than the rest of the world's combined...and we have massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction.

this reality is not representative of a people opposed to war...

...and let me remind you that when we last had a tangible anti-war movement during the Vietnam war the vast majority of Americans were opposed to it.

Posted by: john | Apr 17 2015 15:58 utc | 37

@ntg.. i like your posts and always read what you have to say, but as a canuck i have to agree with john's viewpoint here on just how deeply entrenched the usa public is with war, at least on some basic level.. @okie farmer says much the same thing @28.. i tend to agree with john and okies viewpoint here fwiw.. i wish it were different..

Posted by: james | Apr 17 2015 16:10 utc | 38


I think D H Lawrence stated this reality a hundred years ago, " The essential American soul is hard, stoic, and a killer, It has never yet melted."

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Apr 17 2015 16:37 utc | 39

@28 *If* US is shifting away from its Saudi alliance (again, *if*) it would be a shocking turn for sure. Admittedly, it's hard to believe such a thing could happen in light of the recent history of US/Saudi/Israel relations. Still, I'm in wait and see mode. Balkanization of the Arabian Peninsula, more war, more chaos, smaller pockets of valuable real estate to control ... All these things are in the US foreign policy wheelhouse. A King with dementia and an 30 year old nobody for an heir might make the time right.

@33 Organic revolt in such a strategically valuable area that just happens to involve an element of sectarianism with regional implications? Well, maybe. Wait and see.

House of Saudi is a den of vipers with any number of princes interested in usurping the throne. Gas prices are at rock bottom and production at full tilt. Surely a prince or two objects. Wonder what Bandar is up to these days?

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Apr 17 2015 16:47 utc | 40

And why would a rumor about a Saudi slush fund for Israel surface just now? I assume that leak was aimed at the Saudi domestic audience to stir up trouble. Who benefits from exposing a link between KSA and Israel?

Posted by: yellowsnapdragon | Apr 17 2015 17:02 utc | 41

Until the Washington Saudi/Turk/Muslim Brotherhood alliance ends, the world will continue to islamify and non Muslims will continue to be massacred.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Apr 17 2015 17:16 utc | 42

james @ 38

i wish it were different, too

Posted by: john | Apr 17 2015 18:50 utc | 43


Posted by: Shahid Zaidi | Apr 18 2015 14:11 utc | 44


Posted by: Shahid Zaidi | Apr 18 2015 14:12 utc | 45

In trying to make sense of this aggressive war, especially the seemingly pointless pure destructiveness of it, two thoughts:

1. Saudi wants to split off old south Yemen from north Yemen and make a neoliberal dependency of the south. This takes advantage of the organic sympathy in the south for independence/autonomy from the north.

2. For its assertion of Yemeni sovereignty, the northern Yemenis adn Houthis are being punished with destruction of their infrastructure. There will be no invasion of the north or center, as the Saudis know that would be very foolish. The goal is long-term and costly damage and creation of a severe hunger/humanitarian crisis in an already impoverished north.

Traditional divide-and-rule strategy, and if you can't rule it destroy it.

The only flaw in the plan is uncertainty whether the South can successfully be brought under Saudi/neoliberal control. Probably not, considering the pathetic effort the Saudis and their mercenaries/allies will likely put into it. Likely the short and medium term result will be increasingly usual second best outcome: chaos and al Qaeda/IS.

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 18 2015 16:00 utc | 46

The Russians have their vital interests at heart. They cannot risk being drawn into every front of the resistance. So they have their hands full, keeping things in check in Ukraine, while holding fast in the theater of diplomacy, seeing that Iran may be threatened by the West. And Putin's advisors have probably calculated that Syria's resistance, and the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, is in no danger of being snuffed out.

I suspect that despite Washington's slippery negotiations with Iran, its lasting, ulterior motive, the Empire's consistent goal, remains the option of working with Israel toward Iran's destruction. The neocon strategy of chaos aims at the leveling of regional powers that won't play in its petrodollar sandbox.

Maybe the Russian abstention in the UN was a mistake; but one has to consider the possibility that this crisis in Yemen has been manufactured as a baited trap for Russia. Syria is not being given the S-300 defensive missiles, but Iran will receive them. This would be strategy, and not a sign of Russian weakness or nihilism.

This ongoing international crisis is very dangerous for everyone.

Posted by: Copeland | Apr 18 2015 19:52 utc | 47

I said above at #14: "It is political values that brings the Egyptian gov't and other non-Saudis to support the bombing of Yemen. To find out what those values are, you read what they say. What they say is what they think." However, I must add, to find out their thinking from reading what they say is not a simple job. They do make implicit assumptions that they take for granted when they're expressing their political values, so what they think is more than what they say. Also they are inarticulate to some extent. Also they tend to couch their positions in terms of well-accepted norms, which can be post-hoc rhetorical rationales and not the drivers of their thinking. It takes time and effort to understand them. I haven't put in the time and effort, and I actually don't understand them.

Posted by: Ghubar Shabih | Apr 19 2015 18:50 utc | 48

Al Jazeera: US generals: Saudi intervention in Yemen ‘a bad idea’

The fact that the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen was planned and launched independently of the U.S. was, in McCain’s eyes, a rebuke of the administration’s policies. “These countries, led by Saudi Arabia, did not notify us nor seek our coordination or our assistance in this effort,” he said during a March 26 committee hearing, “because they believe we are siding with Iran.”

A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity, scoffed at that argument. “The reason the Saudis didn’t inform us of their plans,” he said, “is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think — that it was a bad idea.”

h/t to DeepResource

Posted by: Demian | Apr 21 2015 14:36 utc | 49

Im disgusted that the UN is participating in this bloodbath thats part of the war by Sunnis and the west on the Shiite crescent. Iran Syria, Bahrain, Houthis, Hezbollah. No support for an Arab spring in Yemen or Bahrain. Its Israeli anti Iranian policy as well as US Wolfowitz doctrine in Action. Its aimed at reducing Russian influence in the Middle east and regime change in Syria and Iran.The sad thing is they are going to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives pursuing this mad policy.
And in its place they are setting up future failed states like Afghanistan was under the Taliban. Things arent getting better they are getting worse. The strange thing is the West and Israel seem confident that the Sunni extremism will be controllable somehow. What do they know we don’t?
As usual the Western citizens have been fed their daily hate session and foan at the mouth at the mention of Russia, Putin, Assad, Iran.
Its so easy to control their thinking, so that they think they are helping spread democracy and safety. Instead they are helping to kill innocent men women and children.

Posted by: Allan Jensen | May 4 2015 9:04 utc | 50

The comments to this entry are closed.