Strategic realignments reshape southern Yemen amid regional power struggle
SANAA, Jan. 09 (YPA) – The political and military map of southern Yemen is being undergone profound transformations. At first glance, the unfolding developments appear to reflect a traditional struggle for influence between the two pillars of the Saudi-led coalition—Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
However, a deeper examination reveals a broader regional realignment, one that increasingly reflects Israeli, American, and British strategic calculations.
At the heart of this shift lies a growing effort to identify local forces capable of securing Israeli interests in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, particularly after Sanaa imposed maritime pressure on Israeli-linked shipping following its declared support for Gaza in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation.
From international failure to regional subcontracting
In this context, the “Maritime Security Conference” hosted by Riyadh last September marked a critical turning point. Rather than being a routine diplomatic gathering, the conference signaled a transfer of responsibility to Saudi Arabia after the failure of the U.S.- and British-led “Prosperity Guardian” coalition—established with direct Israeli participation—to curb Sanaa’s naval operations in the Red Sea.
As Israeli shipping increasingly became exposed to attack, Western capitals shifted toward encouraging Saudi Arabia to assume the military burden through local Yemeni proxies.
This transition came after what many observers describe as the exhaustion of the Emirati role, particularly its reliance on armed factions that proved incapable of delivering decisive results.
Scaling back the Emirati role
Against this backdrop, intensive Saudi-Emirati military movements across southern and eastern Yemen since early December raise a fundamental question: why is the Emirati role being gradually reduced in favor of Riyadh?
According to regional analysts, this recalibration serves multiple objectives. On one hand, it aims to insulate the economic interests of Dubai and Abu Dhabi from potential Yemeni retaliation. On the other, it shifts the risks of direct confrontation to Saudi Arabia, which possesses greater geographic depth but faces far higher political, economic, and security costs.
At the same time, Riyadh’s increasing reliance on the Saudi-funded Dera al-Watan or Homeland Shield forces and Salafi-leaning formations, including the UAE-backed Giants Brigades, represents a significant strategic departure. These groups—some of which include figures previously associated with extremist networks—are now being positioned as frontline forces against Sanaa.
Reframing the conflict
This approach, critics argue, seeks to reduce the direct costs borne by international actors by replacing foreign military intervention with a prolonged “Yemeni–Yemeni” war of attrition. In doing so, the nature of the conflict is being reshaped—from resistance against external domination into an internal ideological struggle that ultimately serves Israeli security interests, without requiring direct Israeli military engagement.
Nevertheless, Sanaa has closely monitored these developments. From its perspective, Saudi naval deployments along Yemen’s coastlines are not intended to restore stability or preserve national unity, as coalition narratives suggest, but rather to provide political cover for future operations aimed at eroding Yemen’s sovereignty over its territorial waters.
Sanaa’s Warning Signals
Within this framework, recent statements by Mohammed al-Farah, a member of Ansarallah’s Political Bureau, reflected rising alarm over Saudi Arabia’s evolving role. Al-Farah warned that Riyadh is being drawn into assuming the role of “guardian of Israeli interests” under American pressure—a position that could expose vital Saudi infrastructure to renewed targeting should escalation continue.
In a post published on the X platform, al-Farah stated: “After the UAE failed to unify mercenary factions to fight on Israeli occupation’s behalf, the task was transferred to Saudi Arabia to perform the same role—an outcome well understood by those who follow the facts.”
A high-stakes gamble
As a result, Saudi Arabia now appears to be risking the fragile truce with Sanaa in exchange for American and Israeli assurances of expanded influence in southern and eastern Yemen, alongside long-term ambitions to secure alternative routes for oil exports toward the Arabian Sea.
However, analysts cautioned that this strategy may prove counterproductive. The use of Salafi factions to protect Israeli-linked maritime routes could place Riyadh in direct confrontation with Yemeni forces, potentially transforming Saudi economic and energy infrastructure into legitimate targets—particularly as Sanaa claims to possess advanced and unexpected military capabilities.
An uncertain outlook
Despite presenting itself as a mediator, Saudi Arabia’s role in Yemen—since launching the war on Yemen from Washington on March 26, 2015—is continuing to draw scrutiny. The central question now confronting Riyadh is whether it fully recognizes the implications of drifting toward the role of Israel’s primary regional security proxy.
The answer, observers suggest, may soon be tested—both in the strategic waters of the Bab al-Mandab Strait and across Saudi Arabia’s vital oil installations.
AA