SANAA, Aug. 12 (YPA) – The US’s policy in Yemen appears to be in disarray, especially after its military setbacks.
Washington is attempting to compensate for its defeat by stirring up chaos and confusion in Yemen to weaken Sanaa’s stance in support of Gaza. It is doing this by pushing the figure of Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh, son of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, into the political scene and mobilizing those who still support Saleh’s family to sow discord and overturn the situation.
This raises the question: Why has Washington resorted to this option, and at this specific time?
A Lack of Options
The truth is that before resorting to this step, the US administration considered activating its regional proxies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and their affiliated forces in Yemen, to open internal fronts against Sanaa. The goal was to weaken and distract it from supporting Gaza.
However, these plans were met with the reality of Yemeni public sentiment, which is experiencing widespread anger towards “Israel” and its allies due to the aggression against Gaza.
Any move against Sanaa at this time could have united Yemeni ranks behind the leadership in Sanaa, and these forces might have found themselves facing the Yemeni people.
It seems that US military circles have become convinced that the Saudi-Emirati coalition is completely incapable of making any progress against Sanaa’s forces. This is especially true since the coalition has faced repeated defeats against Sanaa, even with its previous military superiority.
Therefore, it is impossible for the coalition to achieve victory now, especially as the balance of power has shifted, and Sanaa has become a military force to be reckoned with—not only by the coalition but also by Washington itself, which was forced to accept a ceasefire with Sanaa on Sanaa’s terms in its last war, in which it intervened to support “Israel” and try to break the Yemeni blockade imposed on it.
A Losing Bet
The direct confrontations between the United States and Sanaa in the Red Sea revealed the limitations of American capabilities. Washington failed to break the blockade that Sanaa imposed on Israeli ships and was ultimately forced to withdraw on Yemen’s terms.
This experience confirmed that a military confrontation with Sanaa is no longer just a difficult challenge but a pre-doomed battle.
In light of this frustration, Washington has resorted to a weak option: reviving old alliances with forces that lost their influence after the failed December 2017 coup, which ended with the killing of its leader, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The truth is that Washington’s resort to this option reveals that it has exhausted all its cards in Yemen, from its support for the coalition forces to its military failure to influence Sanaa’s unwavering stance on the Palestinian issue.
The American bet on outdated tools also reflects a strategic inability to deal with the new reality of Sanaa’s rise as a military power and its growing popular support.
The leadership and its project in Sanaa are now seen as the only ones capable of confronting the American-Israeli project in the region. This is in contrast to the coalition forces, which the Yemeni people now view as mere tools in the hands of the Americans, especially after their clear stance and declaration of readiness to align with the Israeli enemy in its aggression on Gaza.
However, it is clear that the US’s bet on the card of Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh and what are known as the “Afashis” is a losing one. If these forces were unable to achieve any success in the past despite having some political and tribal influence at the time, it is unlikely that they will achieve any results today after losing what was left of their popularity and influence.
Additionally, the US is ignoring fundamental facts:
- The 2011 revolution was a clear popular rejection of the corrupt regime led by Ali Abdullah Saleh and his family. The goal was to completely eradicate it, were it not for external interventions.
- The popular memory has not forgotten the corruption of Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh during his leadership of what was called “the Republican Guard,” where his name was associated with cases of public money embezzlement and illicit enrichment, which makes him an unpopular and politically unmarketable figure.
Furthermore, the Yemeni position today is clear: Sanaa and Ansarallah forces represent a national leadership that resists American-Israeli aggression, while the Washington-backed coalition forces stood with “Israel” in its war on Gaza. Any attempt to bring back Ahmed Ali and mobilize the “Afashis” will be understood as part of the American-Israeli aggression and will face a violent popular rejection.
Washington is also mistaken in trying to use the General People’s Congress (GPC) party as a front to mobilize the “Afashis,” because the party is no longer what it was during Ali Abdullah Saleh’s era. Its current leadership includes national figures who refuse to submit to American and Israeli projects.
In addition, internal balances have changed, and it is no longer possible to rally behind Ali Abdullah Saleh’s family. Therefore, even if Ahmed Ali tries to return, he will be without a real popular or political base and will be in direct confrontation with the people.
Sanaa’s Vigilance
Sanaa is not unaware; it is closely monitoring the movements of Washington and its tools and has military and political experience in foiling conspiracies.
Furthermore, popular support for Sanaa is on the rise, especially after its firm stance on supporting Palestine, which makes any move by Ahmed Ali and the loyalists of the Afash family a political suicide.
Conclusion: The American bet on Ahmed Ali and the loyalists of Saleh’s family and the American-Saudi project is a desperate attempt to revive a dead project. The Yemeni people will not go back, and they have settled their position on the Saleh’s family and those who stand behind foreign projects. The only victims in this equation are the “Afashis” themselves, who will pay the price for their alliance with Washington and “Israel,” either through popular anger or a decisive security response.
YPA