What If “Israel” launched a new aggression against Yemen?

SANAA, June 25 (YPA) – The recent wave of threats issued by officials in the Israeli occupation entity’s government, led by the criminal Netanyahu, against Yemen comes at a sensitive timing that reflects a deep structural crisis experienced by the occupation’s security and political establishment.

To read the threats issued by the so-called Minister of Defense in the occupation entity, “Yisrael Katz,” and the so-called Minister of National Security, “Itamar Ben-Gvir,” regarding the threat of assassination operations in Yemen, alongside Hebrew media discourse on updating operational plans for the possibility of resuming fighting on the Yemeni arena, in isolation from the current variables on the Lebanon and Iran fronts, is an analytical shortcoming.

The intensive Hebrew discourse regarding the “Yemeni arena” at this particular time does not operate as an offensive option stemming from a surplus of power; rather, it is an attempt to reshuffle the cards and cover up the strategic setbacks and field defeats that the occupation suffered in its recent confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

From this standpoint, the recourse of the ruling elite in the occupation entity to the language of “physical liquidations” and the regurgitation of operational plans via media leaks cannot be separated from being a structural symptom of the “erosion of complex deterrence” crisis. Through this media noise, the entity is attempting to manage its crisis-ridden internal front and manufacture an imaginary victory to cover up its inability to decisively resolve the adjacent fronts. This objectively produces what can be termed “threats of the helpless,” which employ propaganda to cover up a strategic failure rather than establishing real military effectiveness on the ground.

The Counter-Deterrence Dilemma and Field Transformations

In connection with the manifestations of this “Israeli” helplessness, any thinking of translating verbal threats into large-scale military action against Yemen collides with a radical shift in the balance of power and asymmetric warfare. This reality was cemented by the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battles and the rounds of strategic support for Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, which elevated the military cost of adventure to levels beyond the occupation’s capacity to tolerate, via two fundamental tracks:

• First—Penetrating the Occupation’s Strategic Depth: Sanaa succeeded in bringing down the theory of “distance-dependent security,” transforming the occupation’s vital capitals and ports into militarily fallen zones under the impact of hypersonic ballistic missiles and drones. These reached the depth of the occupation entity, bypassing all regional and international air defense layers.
• Second—The Cost of Attrition and Dispersion of Capabilities: The military echelon in “Tel Aviv” realizes that Yemen possesses geographical immunity and a decentralized, highly complex military infrastructure. This renders any aerial campaign an effort devoid of strategic utility, and rather one that depletes “Israel’s” precious air defense stockpiles in the face of retaliatory Yemeni strikes that would be costlier and deeper in their impact on an economically and socially exhausted internal front.

Geo-Economic Suffocation and the Maritime Ban Equation

The boundaries of Yemeni deterrence do not stop at a defensive military posture; they extend to intersect with the ability to suffocate the geopolitical arteries of the global and local economy of the occupation. Yemen’s governing geography grants Sanaa the authority to manage the conflict with the tools of “total war” should the occupation entity commit any military folly. These tools manifest in two primary edges:

1. The Zero-Sum Maritime Equation: Returning to the imposition of a strict and absolute ban on “Israeli” navigation or ships heading to the occupation’s ports would be the automatic first step. This means a total paralysis of commercial movement through the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the re-imposition of a suffocating economic blockade on the entity’s vital maritime outlets, such as the Port of Eilat.
2. Targeting American “Structural Sponsorship”: Since the Yemeni formulation of the confrontation does not separate the functional entity from its strategic sponsor represented by the United States, the Yemeni bank of targets will not be limited to the entity’s interests. Instead, it will expand to integrate with striking American military and commercial bases and assets in the region—something Washington does not want.

Yemen as a Ballot Box for Netanyahu

Despite the clarity of this exorbitant economic and military cost, a deep analytical reading dictates not ruling out the occupation government launching a front against Yemen. This would not be based on military profit-and-loss calculations, but rather driven by the complex personal and political motives of the occupation’s criminal Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who views external escalation as an internal lifeline.

Manufacturing an “Imaginary Victory” for a Crisis-Ridden Interior

Netanyahu and his government team are living through a political deadlock resulting from the repercussions of the battle with Iran and Lebanon. In light of this deadlock, an urgent need emerges to market any “picture of victory” or security achievement, even if theatrical, to present to the exhausted “Israeli” society with the aim of repairing eroding legitimacy.

As the “Israeli” elections approach and indicators rise confirming the inevitability of the ruling right-wing coalition’s loss, military gambling transforms into a tool for deferring crises. Netanyahu attempts to win over the right-wing vote by showcasing military force in a geographically distant arena, under the illusion that the long distance might protect him from the consequences of a direct response.

The Dilemma of Simultaneous Encirclement… The Dynamics of the “Unity of Fronts”

However, this reductionist calculation by Netanyahu collides with the greatest dilemma in contemporary “Israeli” military planning: the Yemen front is no longer an isolated arena that can be singled out. Instead, it has become an organic part of an integrated regional security network moving according to a unified military doctrine recently consolidated by the Axis of Resistance in the face of the occupation.

Accordingly, any “Israeli” decision to target Yemen will automatically activate the “collective and joint defense” protocol. The fronts of Lebanon, Iran, and others will not stand by as observers; rather, these arenas will move according to the tactic of “simultaneous encirclement.” This forces the occupation to fight a multi-front war that exceeds its operational and logistical capacity. This was recently applied when Iran and Yemen intervened alongside the resistance in Lebanon, forcing the Israeli occupation to accept a ceasefire.

Consequences of the Adventure

Based on all the foregoing, a strategic conclusion can be drawn: any new “Israeli” military adventure in the Yemeni arena will not be a mere operational promenade to repair the image of the defeated entity or Netanyahu’s electoral front. Rather, it will be a major folly for which the occupation system will pay a heavy and unprecedented price. The boundaries of the response will not remain confined to traditional rules of engagement, nor will they stop at the geography of the occupied entity; they will extend, by virtue of the organic interconnectedness in the battle, to reach American interests, bases, and assets scattered across the region.

Consequently, Washington, which is trying hard to contain escalating crises, may find itself once again bogged down in a strategic quagmire and deep attrition in Yemen—a dilemma it was previously unable to escape.

Furthermore, the sparks flying from this “Israeli” adventure will surpass the immediate military field to reshape the diplomatic landscape in the region. The coordinated responses of the Axis of Resistance are likely to cast heavy shadows over the path of current negotiations and understandings between Tehran and the United States, which is something neither Washington nor Trump wants to happen.

YPA