• The War on Yemen: Where Oil and Geopolitics Mix

    Date: 2015.04.09 | Category: Freedom of Expression, Genocide in Yemen, Human Rights, Saudi-UAE Dictators, United Arab Emirates, US Caselaw, Violation of Sovereignty, War Crimes in Yemen, Willful Defaulters | Tags: ,,

    The War on Yemen: Where Oil and Geopolitics Mix
    Posted by: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya   Publication: RT Op-Edge   April 09, 2015

    Everything about the war on Yemen is a smokescreen. Concealed behind the smoke is a tale of geopolitics and petro-politics that aims to control the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden.

    The House of Saud and a military coalition that consists mostly of anachronistic monarchies are claiming to bomb Yemen as a means of saving the Yemenite people and their transition to democracy. The irony should not be lost on observers that recognize that the Saudi-led coalition — consisting of the Kingdom of Morocco, UAE, Kuwait, Kingdom of Bahrain, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia itself — is comprised of an unhealthy mixture of backward family dictatorships and corrupt governments that essentially are the antithesis of democracy.

    Just as important to note, the Saudi-led war on Yemen is a criminal act. The military attack on Yemen was not authorized by the UN Security Council. Nor can the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia justify its bombing campaign under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, because Yemen and Ansarullah (the Houthi movement) pose no threat of war to Riyadh and never had any intentions of igniting a war in the Arabian Peninsula. This is why the Kingdom’s war on Yemen is categorically a violation of the Charter of the UN and international law.

    The Houthis never wanted to aggravate Saudi Arabia let alone start a war against the Kingdom. Days before the Saudi-led war on Yemen, the Houthis had stealthily sent a delegation to Riyadh to establish an understanding with the Saudis and to calm them down.

    Instead of opposing the illegal war on Yemen, Washington and its allies, including Britain, have thrown their political support behind the bombing of Yemen by the malfeasant Royal Saudi Air Force, which has committed war crime by intentionally bombing civilian infrastructure, including refugee camps and children’s schools.

    It is no coincidence that most of the victims in Yemen are civilians. This is part of a Saudi strategy of establishing rapid military dominance, which is colloquially called “shock and awe.” Ring any bells? This is a strategy taken right out of Uncle Sam’s playbook that intends to demoralize resistance and scare the opponent into surrendering.

    Pentagon’s not-so-hidden bloody hands

    Not eager to reveal their roles in another illegal war on another sovereign country, the US and undoubtedly several of its NATO allies have decided to keep low profiles in the attack on Yemen. This is why Washington has opted to publicly present itself as only providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis for the war on Yemen.

    The war on Yemen, however, would not be possible without the US. Not only have countries like the US and Britain provided military hardware to Saudi Arabia, but they are providing it with bombs for the attack, refueling its warplanes, providing intelligence, and giving the Kingdom logistical support.

    Does this sound like non-involvement? Can the US really be considered a non-combatant in the war?

    History — and very recent history at that too — is repeating itself in Yemen.

    Observers should recall how Washington deceptively claimed that it did not want to go to war with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2011. The US publicly let the British and French take the lead in the NATO war on Tripoli while the Pentagon was actually the main force behind the war. US President Barack Obama called this a strategy of leading from behind.”

     The US strategy in Yemen is not too different from that of the  NATO war on Libya. It is another case of cloak and dagger where  the US does not want to be seen pulling the strings behind the  aggression and violation of international law.

    The Saudis would never have dared attack Yemen without  Washington’s green light or help. The Pentagon is even selecting  the bombing targets in Yemen for the Kingdom. “American  military planners are using live intelligence feeds from  surveillance flights over Yemen to help Saudi Arabia decide what  and where to bomb,” the Wall Street Journal casually   reported when the war began. National  Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan, even stated that  the US had established a  joint planning cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate the  attack on Yemen.

      This is why it should not come as a surprise that Saudi Arabia  used Washington as the platform to announce the launching of its  war on Yemen. The Associated Press even noticed the weird podium  that the Kingdom had selected. “In an unusual tableau, Saudi  Arabia’s ambassador to the United States announced the rare  military operation by his country at a Washington news conference  about a   half-hour after the bombing began,” the Associated Press  reported on March 25.

    Double standards: Remember EuroMaidan in Ukraine?

      One ugly double-standard after another ugly double-standard  sticks out. While the House of Saud argued that it has intervened  militarily in Yemen to restore Abd-Rabbuh Manṣour Al-Hadi, who  Riyadh claims is the legitimate president of Yemen, it has pushed  for a war on Syria and worked with the US to topple Bashar  Assad’s government.

      Washington’s reaction is even more lopsided. When EuroMaidan was  underway in Kiev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich was  forced to flee in 2014, the US and its allies claimed that  Yanukovich had lost all legitimacy because he fled Ukraine. Even  as recently as February 2015, US officials have maintained this  argument. “Well, let’s all refresh ourselves on the facts  here. President — former President Yanukovich abdicated his  responsibilities by fleeing Kiev during a political crisis,”   the US Department of State’s spokesperson, Jennifer Psaki,   told reporters during a press briefing.

      Well Mr. Al-Hadi also fled his country. Nevertheless, the same  measuring stick that was used in Ukraine is not applied to assess  Al-Hadi’s legitimacy. Unlike its position on Ukraine, Washington  claims that Al-Hadi is still the legitimate leader of Yemen.

      The US is even willing to put aside its differences and work with  Sudan, which the US Department of  State claims is a state sponsor of terrorism, to bomb Yemen  into accepting Al-Hadi back.

      The basis for all of these contradictory positions is really a  marker of US interests and Machiavellianism. It has nothing to do  with legitimacy, democracy, or human rights.

      Al-Hadi’s (il)legitimacy

      While there some parallels between the two, there are key  differences between Ukraine and Yemen. These key differences set  Yanukovich and Al-Hadi apart and are what made Yanukovich  legitimate and Al-Hadi illegitimate.

      Firstly, unlike President Yanukovich, Al-Hadi resigned from  office. For arguments sake, however, we will not dwell on this.  There are much more important points for evaluating Al-Hadi’s  legitimacy.

      Unlike Yanukovich, Al-Hadi’s term had actually expired. While  President Yanukovich was elected into office by the Ukrainian  people for his term, President Al-Hadi’s term was extended  through an administrative process. To quote Reuters: “Yemen’s political factions  extended the president’s term by a year” on January 21,  2014. Al-Hadi was only kept in office to execute reforms, and  this is the criterion for his legitimacy.

      Under the above context, it has to be remembered that Al-Hadi was  selected as a transitional figure. He became the president of  Yemen to usher democracy and his term was extended in 2014 for  this purpose. Instead, Al-Hadi dragged his feet on the democratic  reforms — the fundamental basis for his legitimacy — that he was  supposed to institute in Yemen. He was not fulfilling his mandate  to share power and to enfranchise Yemen’s different political  factions.

      President Al-Hadi actually tried to concentrate power into his  own hands while working to weaken Yemen’s other factions,  including the Houthis, through gerrymandering by redrawing  Yemen’s administrative regions.

    Petro-politics & Bab-el-Mandeb Strait: Another war for  control of oil?

      The geopolitical significance of Yemen has weighed heavily in the  equation. This war is as much about oil as it is about Saudi  suzerainty and the House of Saud’s objectives to make Yemen a  vassal state. Alongside Djibouti, Yemen forms part of an  important maritime chokepoint, called the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait  (also known as the Gateway of Tears/Anguish), which connects the  Indian Ocean’s Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.

      It is no exaggerations to call the Mandeb Strait one of the  world’s arteries. As a maritime chokepoint, the strait is just as  important as Egypt’s Suez Canal — which connects the  Mediterranean to the Red Sea — and the Strait of Hormuz in the  Persian Gulf, because Bab-el-Mandeb overlooks one of the most  strategic and important global corridors for the transportation  of energy and international commerce.

      Preventing US and Saudi rivals from gaining a strategic foothold  over the Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden is a major objective  of the war on Yemen. The US and the House of Saud see control  over the Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden as strategically  important in the scenario of a conflict with Iran where Tehran  closes the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments and international  shipping. As the New York Times points out, “Nearly all Saudi commerce is  via sea, and direct access to the Arabian Sea would diminish  dependence on the Persian Gulf — and fears of Iran’s ability to  cut off the Strait of Hormuz.” Plan B in such a scenario for  the Kingdom includes   using Aden and other Yemeni ports.

      Support for the balkanization of Yemen chimes with this and ideas  about dividing Yemen have been floating around since the Arab  Spring. In 2013, the New York Times had this to propose about a  Saudi takeover and annexation of southern Yemen: “Arabs are  abuzz about part of South Yemen’s eventually merging with Saudi  Arabia. Most southerners are Sunni, as is most of Saudi Arabia;  many have family in the kingdom. The poorest Arabs, Yemenis could  benefit from Saudi riches. In turn, Saudis would gain access to  the Arabian Sea for trade, diminishing dependence on the Persian  Gulf and fear of Iran’s virtual control over the Strait of  Hormuz.”

    Houthi control over Yemen, however, complicates and obscures US  and Saudi plans.

      Mandeb Strait and control of strategic chokepoints

      As Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has rightly  pointed out, the Houthis and the Yemeni military are capable   of  closing the Mandeb Strait. One of the reasons that Saudi  Ambassador to Washington Adel Al-Jubeir stressed that the Houthis  should not have control over ballistic missiles, heavy military  hardware, and Yemeni bases is because the US and Saudi Arabia  want to neutralize the potential of Yemen to close the Mandeb  Strait, especially if Yemen should coordinate with Tehran as an  Iranian ally in the future. In this regard, the Saudis have  attacked Yemen’s missile depots. The aim of the air strikes  include not only preventing Yemen’s missile arsenal from being  used to retaliate against any exertions of Saudi force, but to  also prevent them from being on hand to a Yemen government  aligned to Tehran or other US rivals.

      Moreover, it has to be remembered that control over Yemen is not  only important for mitigating the effects from a scenario where  the Strait of Hormuz are closed by Tehran. Control over Mandeb  Strait is also important for tightening the noose around the  Iranians and in the scenario of a war with Iran. The same can be  argued about a US strategy in the Indian Ocean against the  Chinese.

      Back in 2011, when Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin  was serving in Brussels as Moscow’s envoy to NATO, he noted that  Washington was not only planning on taking over Syria as a  beachhead for a war with Iran, but that the US and its allies  would later try to control Yemen as the next step in preparing  the grounds  for an attack on Iran. At the time, RIA Novosti (now renamed  Sputnik) reported that “Rogozin agreed with the  opinion expressed by some experts that Syria and later Yemen  could be NATO’s last steps on the way to launch an attack on  Iran.”

    Why did Netanyahu warn US Congress about Yemen?

      Reports that Israel is a not-so-secret member of the Saudi-led  coalition that is bombing Yemen need to be read, understood,  analyzed in the above context about the Mandeb Strait too.  Netanyahu’s unspoken concern is that Yemen could cut off Israel’s  access to the Indian Ocean and, more specifically, its ability to  easily deploy its Dolphin class submarines to the Iranian coast  in the Persian Gulf.

    Who is threatening who? According to the Sunday Times and Israeli  sources,   three nuclear-armed Israeli submarines are deployed near  Iran’s shores at all times waiting on standby for orders from Tel  Aviv to bomb Iran. In part, this is why Israeli Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu was ringing the alarm bells about Yemen  and the Mandeb Strait in the Washington Beltway when he went  to speak on Capitol Hill on March 4.

      Israel is concerned about Yemen because an independent Yemeni  government could inhibit Israel’s nuclear-armed submarines from  easily deploying from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf to menace  Iran with the threat of an attack.

      Iran and the Houthis

      Just like the case with Ukraine, all the problems in Yemen are  also being blamed on a nearby country. While Russia has been  blamed as the scapegoat for the plethora of problems in Ukraine,  Iran has been blamed for the Saudi war on Yemen.

      The Saudis are falsely depicting the Houthis as Iranian proxies  or allies, because the movement is composed of Zaidi (Fiver)  Shiites. The Houthis, however, are independent from Tehran and  have agency as political actors; they are not Iranian proxies  whatsoever. A common faith has not brought the Houthis and the  Iranians, who are predominately Jaffari (Twelver) Shiites,  together. Politics is what has brought the two together.

      The sectarian language that falsely depicts Yemen as a  battleground between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims is ill  informed or intended to mislead people by design about the actual  politics and history of Yemen. This type of sectarian language  was never used when the House of Saud supported King Mohammed  Al-Badr’s Zaidi imamate against the republicans or Ali Abdullah  Saleh, who himself is a Zaidi Shiite, against the Houthis.

      Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah is very accurate  when he points out that different regional players are turning to  Tehran for help, because either Saudi Arabia will not help them  or is pushing them in the direction of Iran through its foolish  policies. This has been precisely the case for the Houthis. If it  was not for the flawed policies of the US and Saudi Arabia, the  Houthis would never have turned to Iran in the first place.

      The Houthis also sent delegations to Moscow and Beijing to  overcome US and Saudi efforts to isolate and weaken them  internationally.

      Will Yemen become Saudi Arabia’s Vietnam?

      Historically, foreign intervention in Yemen has largely proven to  be a disaster. Yemeni terrain is rugged and the elevated interior  topography is perfect for guerilla warfare. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s  Egypt lost many soldiers in North Yemen during its civil war,  which was a major liability for Cairo.

      When Ibn Saud was conquering Arabia, he was stopped in Yemen by  King Yahya.

      In more recent history times, when Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen to  fight the Houthis in 2009 and 2010, it was effectively defeated  again in Yemen. The Houthis even ended up capturing towns inside  Saudi Arabia.

      Ground operations will not be a walk in the park for Saudi  Arabia. Any invasion and occupation of Yemen will prove to be a  disaster for the Kingdom. There are also complex tribal links  between southern Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In the chaos a Pandora’s  Box could be ignited that would result in rebellions inside the  Kingdom itself.

      The House of Saud seems to be cognizant of the dangers. This may  be why it is pushing Pakistan and Egypt to send their troops.

      Someone should tell the House of Saud that according to the  Chinese general Sun Tzu, “The best war is the one that never  has to be fought.”

    Source: ‘War on Yemen: Where oil and geopolitics mix’ was originally published by RT on April 9, 2015.

    SPONSORED BY THE ‘JUDGMENT CREDITOR’

    Ever heard of a victim celebrating the 20th anniversary of the gravest disaster in his life? It’s the tragic drama of the Judgment Creditor, in real life. The victim is forced to celebrate his twentieth anniversary of looting and torture by the Abu Dhabi police due to Non-execution of its Landmark Judgments. He is not celebrating it with cheers, but with agonizing memories of the nightmare …COMING SOON! ‘Abu Dhabi: Shop burgled by policeman in civil-dress, US$ .4m worth money and valuables looted’

     

    UAE’s State-sponsored Terrorism & Funding for Coup in the Middle East

    Reports on ‘Human Rights in the UAE’

    Promoting Human Rights Values in the Digital Age. Let’s Join