The “proxy war” model the US
has been employing throughout the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even
in parts of Asia appears to have failed yet again, this time in the
Persian Gulf state of Yemen.
Overcoming the US-Saudi backed regime in Yemen, and a coalition of
sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda and its rebrand, the “Islamic
State,” pro-Iranian Yemeni Houthi militias have turned the tide against
American “soft power” and has necessitated a more direct military
intervention. While US military forces themselves are not involved
allegedly, Saudi warplanes and a possible ground force are.
Though Saudi Arabia claims “10 countries” have joined its coalition
to intervene in Yemen, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq hid
behind a “coalition,” it is overwhelmingly a Saudi operation with
“coalition partners” added in a vain attempt to generate diplomatic
legitimacy.
The New York Times, even in the title of its report, “Saudi Arabia Begins Air Assault in Yemen,” seems not to notice these “10” other countries. It reports:
Saudi Arabia announced on Wednesday night that it had launched a military campaign in Yemen, the beginning of what a Saudi official said was an offensive to restore a Yemeni government that had collapsed after rebel forces took control of large swaths of the country.
The air campaign began as the internal conflict in Yemen showed signs of degenerating into a proxy war between regional powers. The Saudi announcement came during a rare news conference in Washington by Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.
Proxy War Against Iran
Indeed, the conflict in Yemen is a proxy war. Not between Iran and
Saudi Arabia per say, but between Iran and the United States, with the
United States electing Saudi Arabia as its unfortunate stand-in.
Iran’s interest in Yemen serves as a direct result of the
US-engineered “Arab Spring” and attempts to overturn the political order
of North Africa and the Middle East to create a unified sectarian front
against Iran for the purpose of a direct conflict with Tehran. The war
raging in Syria is one part of this greater geopolitical conspiracy,
aimed at overturning one of Iran’s most important regional allies,
cutting the bridge between it and another important ally, Hezbollah in
Lebanon.
And while Iran’s interest in Yemen is currently portrayed as yet
another example of Iranian aggression, indicative of its inability to
live in peace with its neighbors, US policymakers themselves have long
ago already noted that Iran’s influence throughout the region, including
backing armed groups, serves a solely defensive purpose, acknowledging
the West and its regional allies’ attempts to encircle, subvert, and
overturn Iran’s current political order.
The US-based RAND Corporation, which describes itself as “a nonprofit
institution that helps improve policy and decision making through
research and analysis,” produced a report in 2009 for the US Air Force
titled, “Dangerous But Not Omnipotent : Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East,”
examining the structure and posture of Iran’s military, including its
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and weapons both present, and possible
future, it seeks to secure its borders and interests with against
external aggression.
The report admits that:
Iran’s strategy is largely defensive, but with some offensive elements. Iran’s strategy of protecting the regime against internal threats, deterring aggression, safeguarding the homeland if aggression occurs, and extending influence is in large part a defensive one that also serves some aggressive tendencies when coupled with expressions of Iranian regional aspirations. It is in part a response to U.S. policy pronouncements and posture in the region, especially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Iranian leadership takes very seriously the threat of invasion given the open discussion in the United States of regime change, speeches defining Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” and efforts by U.S. forces to secure base access in states surrounding Iran.
Whatever imperative Saudi Arabia
is attempting to cite in justifying its military aggression against
Yemen, and whatever support the US is trying to give the Saudi regime
rhetorically, diplomatically, or militarily, the legitimacy of this
military operation crumbles before the words of the West’s own
policymakers who admit Iran and its allies are simply reacting to a
concerted campaign of encirclement, economic sanctions, covert military
aggression, political subversion, and even terrorism aimed at
establishing Western hegemony across the region at the expense of
Iranian sovereignty.
Saudi Arabia’s Imperative Lacks Legitimacy
The
unelected hereditary regime ruling over Saudi Arabia, a nation
notorious for egregious human rights abuses, and a land utterly devoid
of even a semblance of what is referred to as “human rights,” is now
posing as arbiter of which government in neighboring Yemen is
“legitimate” and which is not, to the extent of which it is prepared to
use military force to restore the former over the latter.
The United States providing
support for the Saudi regime is designed to lend legitimacy to what
would otherwise be a difficult narrative to sell. However, the United
States itself has suffered from an increasing deficit in its own
legitimacy and moral authority.
Most ironic of all, US and
Saudi-backed sectarian extremists, including Al Qaeda in Yemen, had
served as proxy forces meant to keep Houthi militias in check by proxy
so the need for a direct military intervention such as the one now
unfolding would not be necessary. This means that Saudi Arabia and the
US are intervening in Yemen only after the terrorists they were
supporting were overwhelmed and the regime they were propping up
collapsed.
In reality, Saudi Arabia’s and
the United States’ rhetoric aside, a brutal regional regime meddled in
Yemen and lost, and now the aspiring global hemegon sponsoring it from
abroad has ordered it to intervene directly and clean up its mess.
Saudi Arabia’s Dangerous Gamble
The aerial assault on Yemen is meant to impress upon onlookers Saudi
military might. A ground contingent might also attempt to quickly sweep
in and panic Houthi fighters into folding. Barring a quick victory built
on psychologically overwhelming Houthi fighters, Saudi Arabia risks
enveloping itself in a conflict that could easily escape out from under
the military machine the US has built for it.
It is too early to tell how the military operation will play out and
how far the Saudis and their US sponsors will go to reassert themselves
over Yemen. However, that the Houthis have outmatched combined US-Saudi
proxy forces right on Riyadh’s doorstep indicates an operational
capacity that may not only survive the current Saudi assault, but be
strengthened by it.
Reports that Houthi fighters have employed captured Yemeni warplanes
further bolsters this notion – revealing tactical, operational, and
strategic sophistication that may well know how to weather whatever the
Saudis have to throw at it, and come back stronger.
What may result is a conflict that spills over Yemen’s borders and
into Saudi Arabia proper. Whatever dark secrets the Western media’s
decades of self-censorship regarding the true sociopolitical nature of
Saudi Arabia will become apparent when the people of the Arabian
peninsula must choose to risk their lives fighting for a Western client
regime, or take a piece of the peninsula for themselves.
Additionally, a transfer of resources and fighters arrayed under the
flag of the so-called “Islamic State” and Al Qaeda from Syria to the
Arabian Peninsula will further indicate that the US and its regional
allies have been behind the chaos and atrocities carried out in the
Levant for the past 4 years. Such revelations will only further
undermine the moral imperative of the West and its regional allies,
which in turn will further sabotage their efforts to rally support for
an increasingly desperate battle they themselves conspired to start.
America’s Shrinking Legitimacy
It was just earlier this month when the United States reminded the world of Russia’s “invasion” of Crimea.
Despite having destabilized Ukraine with a violent, armed insurrection
in Kiev, for the purpose of expanding NATO deeper into Eastern Europe
and further encircling Russia, the West insisted that Russia had and
still has no mandate to intervene in any way in neighboring Ukraine.
Ukraine’s affairs, the United States insists, are the Ukrainians’ to
determine. Clearly, the US meant this only in as far as Ukrainians
determined things in ways that suited US interests.
This is ever more evident now in Yemen, where the Yemeni people are
not being allowed to determine their own affairs. Everything up to and
including military invasion has been reserved specifically to ensure
that the people of Yemen do not determine things for themselves,
clearly, because it does not suit US interests.
Such naked hypocrisy will be duly noted by the global public and
across diplomatic circles. The West’s inability to maintain a cohesive
narrative is a growing sign of weakness. Shareholders in the global
enterprise the West is engaged in may see such weakness as a cause to
divest – or at the very least – a cause to diversify toward other
enterprises. Such enterprises may include Russia and China’s mulipolar
world. The vanishing of Western global hegemony will be done in
destructive conflict waged in desperation and spite.
Today, that desperation and spite befalls Yemen.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario