The current Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, designed to prevent Iranian-backed forces from gaining power, symbolizes the Gulf's new assertiveness. This is unfolding as the various Gulf states seek to hedge their bets with different strategies that complement, rather than replace, the regional US security umbrella.
The real reason behind the attacks is one and only one word: Iran. Ever since the Shiites came to power in Iraq in 2004, and Jordan's King Abdullah spoke about a "Shiite Crescent" in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, a religious dictatorship of the worst kind, together with its Sunni allies in the region, which are also dictatorial regimes, have been obsessed with the Shiites and Iran.
The threats emanating from Yemen are distorted and exaggerated, the stakes are actually relatively low (except for Yemenis), any imposed settlement is highly elusive and the costs to those engaged may be high. For the U.S., it can be once again something of a lose-lose situation where the enemy of my enemy is often also my enemy.
Tell me again: Whose side are we on this time? ...
On the Ground in Yemen
Just think about the supreme irony unfolding in war-torn Yemen -- Exhibit A of what I would charitably call "Kerry compartmentalization." While feve...
All I want in this moment to stand with my family and friends against those rebels, to face them with education, to make them understand that life is not only about power, to make them realize that there is freedom of choice and freedom of thoughts, but who am I to stand against them?
By degrading and undermining the Houthis' military capabilities, the Saudi-led military efforts serve as a preemptive campaign against the possible use of ballistic missiles, such as SKUD, which could target GCC countries.
For years, Pakistanis have been complaining that their efforts to fight terrorism are under-appreciated. They complain that the world does not sufficiently acknowledge and applaud the measure they have taken in this regard. There is a straightforward answer why this is so.
BEIRUT -- With the Iranian involvement against ISIS in the assault on Tikrit, and the Saudi invasion of Yemen to stem the tide of Iranian influence, we have entered a new Middle Eastern war.
American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.
As Netanyahu pointed out in Washington, the conclusion of the nuclear negotiations must be that Iran stops attacking other countries, renounces terror and ceases threatening the Jewish state of Israel with annihilation. If all three conditions are not met, there can be no deal. Because no deal is better than a bad deal.
The U.S. and its Western allies would be wise to get Yemen's political process back on track immediately, before any further derailing of fragile democratic gains. In doing so, they must remember that Houthis are rational actors capable of engagement.
Activity intensified over the past week at the United Nations with respect to the deteriorating situation in Yemen -- amid further evidence of a rift over the country's future between Washington and its traditional Gulf allies.
How did a panel of experts with a specific mission manage to understand the equations and developments in Yemen, while Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia were not able to ascertain and prepare for what was obvious in Yemen?
Watch the first episode of The Final Edition's new Jihadistan-based sitcom, "Secret Diaries of a Terrorist."