The U.S., guilty by association in the launch of the war in 2015, has failed to fully engage its diplomacy in the service of peace, continuing instead to fuel the fighting with huge arms sales.
The internal war and outside intervention in Yemen appear to go on unabated under the neglectful eye of the Arab world and the international community. The recent armed struggle for Socotra has left the Southern Transitional Council (STC), supported by the United Arab Emirates, in charge of the island. A UNESCO-declared world heritage site, Socotra has been trampled by troops, armored trucks, and tanks, much to the detriment of its fragile ecosystem and historically peaceful population. Battles continue to rage just east of Aden, where STC fighters remain in a stand-off with troops loyal to President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi’s government for control of neighboring Abyan province—as part of the overall struggle for the entire south of Yemen. Farther north of Abyan, Houthi/Ansarullah troops are pursuing a months-long attempt to enter the capital of Marib and secure all oil and gas facilities there. To the west of Marib, a tense front still exists around the city of Hodeida, a strategic port for the importation of humanitarian assistance and potential export of oil via the Red Sea.
Of course, all this is aside from the main war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, which is being conducted by air, land forces, and rocketry over the capital Sanaa, the Houthis’ capital Saadah, and Saudi Arabia’s southern border at al-Jawf governorate. Added to that complex geopolitical picture is a pandemic that is sweeping over all without distinction as to party or regional affiliation. Indeed, there is a clear and full tragedy unfolding in Yemen.
Enter COVID-19
The devastating impact of war, disease, and poverty on the people of Yemen has been compounded by a now widespread epidemic for which the country was ill-prepared. At first, COVID-19 looked like it had somehow spared the country as one Middle Eastern country after another fell prey to the virus in early March. Although lacking reliable information from Yemen itself, international agencies now report that virus-related deaths have very likely exceeded the death toll from the war raging in the country since 2015.
Although lacking reliable information from Yemen itself, international agencies now report that virus-related deaths have very likely exceeded the death toll from the war raging in the country since 2015.
The alarming spread of COVID-19 in Yemen is cause to seriously doubt the sincerity—and even the sanity—of those who pursue victory through war instead of negotiations. This critique includes all sides to the conflict as they continue to give priority to improving their strategic positions on the ground. Numbers vary widely depending on the source of information, but a million infections is not an unreasonable estimate at this point. One thing is certain however: the spread of diseases has overwhelmed the country’s inadequate public health institutions. Instead of dramatically building up Yemen’s capacity and encouraging a coordinated regional and international effort to mitigate the spread of the deadly virus, the Arab coalition fighting the Houthis continues to prosecute the war directly from the air and via proxy forces on the ground. The vast sums being spent on the war primarily by the Arab coalition, if diverted to public health, could save millions of lives currently at risk. The fault, however, belongs to all those trying to fill the void at the center caused by the 2011 revolt, which led to the departure and ultimate demise of the late president, Ali Abdallah Saleh, and his replacement by a weak-to-nonexistent legitimate authority.
Yemeni, Saudi, and Emirati sins
Yemen has fallen into chaos because of the mistakes of an otherwise strong president, the late Ali Abdullah Saleh, who could not find it in himself or his advisors to listen to the protesters and invite them to help transition the country from authoritarianism and corruption into a more democratic and less corrupt system of government. War and chaos also resulted from the Houthi takeover of Sanaa in 2014, reflecting the clumsy efforts of the United Nations and the Gulf Cooperation Council to patch together a new social contract among the various Yemeni factions and regions. None of this was helped with the Saudi-led Arab coalition’s intervention in the country in 2015, ostensibly to repel the Houthi takeover, derail what the Saudis perceived as a growing Iranian menace on their southern border, and restore the internationally recognized government of President Hadi to power. Five years of this war have achieved quite the opposite: the entrenchment of the Houthis in Sanaa, a growing Iranian influence bucking up the Houthis, an increasingly divided country, and a marginalized Hadi government.
Five years of this war have achieved quite the opposite: the entrenchment of the Houthis in Sanaa, a growing Iranian influence bucking up the Houthis, an increasingly divided country, and a marginalized Hadi government.
Whatever the agenda of the Saudi and Emirati leadership, it could not have been pursued without the willing participation of Yemeni militias and armies on the ground. To start with, the Hadi government, living in the lap of luxury courtesy of the Saudi government, has been fighting for a secure foothold inside Yemen and has sought to keep control of Yemen’s central bank holdings. However, it has been unable to do that in either Sanaa (which was taken over by the Houthis) or Aden (where the STC challenges it). Hadi loyalists have been fighting in Marib, trying to fend off Houthi attacks to remain in control of oil and gas facilities in the area. The Hadi forces have also complained of inadequate support from Riyadh, especially because they have to fight on at least two fronts: north with the Houthis and south with the STC and other UAE-supported forces trying to form a separate state there. There are reports of the Saudis’ unhappiness with Hadi’s leadership, that they may be searching for alternatives. Indeed, everyone now questions the Hadi government’s legitimacy as well as the efficacy of continuing to vest this honor upon him when he, like every other major player in Yemen, is struggling to hold on to land and resources.
In fact, the Riyadh Agreement, purportedly a plan to merge the STC with the Hadi government and put an end to bloodshed and chaos in the south, has been suspect in the eyes of Hadi as well as analysts who see it as an abandonment of Hadi in favor of the STC. The hostile takeover of Socotra Island is the most recent example of the STC trying to assert southern independence with clear support from the UAE and suspected connivance from Saudi Arabia. There is no military value to the island for the STC, save that of adding territory to what it already controls in the south, in addition to how the island might help the UAE’s maritime ambitions in the Arabian Sea. It represents, however, a significant defeat for the Hadi government and a further squeezing out of their forces from the south. What is noteworthy here is the withdrawal of the small Saudi force that had gone to the island in 2018 after the UAE sent an expeditionary force, ostensibly to mediate between UAE forces and the island’s population. STC leader Aidarous al-Zubaidi had recently returned from a visit to Riyadh to confer with the Saudi leadership, leading to speculation at the time that the Saudis were lending legitimacy to his desire for an independent southern state.
If the reported Saudi offer of a Riyadh Agreement part II is true, it would shed even more doubt on Saudi intentions and add credibility to reports of their discontinuing support to President Hadi. This offer evidently suggested the STC withdraw its troops from Aden and into Abyan, with no mention of where Hadi’s forces would be deployed. If implemented—and there is no chance of that happening, in any case—it would mean an expansion of STC influence into Abyan, a contested governorate not currently under their control.
Under the best of circumstances and assuming good intentions, Saudi and Emirati leaders are under intensifying pressure to cut their losses in Yemen, given the increasing cost of the war, lower revenue due to the depressed prices of oil, and the vulnerability of their own countries to rocket attacks and land incursions in southern Saudi Arabia. The management of Yemen, as administered territory, also seems too much of a challenge for the Arab coalition, unless one wants to assume the worst and conclude that the prevalent chaos is exactly what they wanted to achieve.
The management of Yemen, as administered territory, also seems too much of a challenge for the Arab coalition, unless one wants to assume the worst and conclude that the prevalent chaos is exactly what they wanted to achieve.
The Houthis, whose motives in capturing Sanaa in 2014 were never transparent, stopped short of taking over Aden due to local resistance and the military intervention by the Arab coalition. They have alternated between trying to hold on to northern territory they control and pushing to expand their area. This lack of transparency has become a hallmark of Houthi rule; most recently, the Houthis were legitimately accused of hoarding information about the spread of COVID-19, brazenly declaring that revealing accurate information on the spread of the disease only causes panic among the population. Information has also been withheld on how they collect and spend their revenue. Specifically, concern has been voiced about widespread corruption within the disbursement of international aid, both by the authorities in Sanaa and by the UN agencies directing and monitoring the process.
The sins of the international community
Since 2011, three successive UN special envoys have failed to stitch together an agreement to reconcile the various parties in conflict and to get the permanent members of the UN Security Council to put their weight behind an effort to end the war. The latest of the envoys, Martin Griffiths, wasted two years trying to secure the neutrality of the vital Hodeida port while the real war raged elsewhere in Yemen and Yemeni and regional parties continued to fundamentally disagree on what a final agreement would look like.
The United States, guilty by association in the launch of the war in 2015, has failed to fully engage its diplomacy in the service of peace, continuing instead to fuel the fighting with huge arms sales, training of fighter-pilots, and putting in place a missile defense system in an extensive but futile effort to guard against rocket attacks against sensitive targets inside Saudi Arabia. Democrats in Congress have repeatedly urged the Trump Administration to suspend arms sales to the region, arguing that peace and stability in Yemen are in the best national security interests of the United States. The latest legislative effort, by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), does not seem any more promising than previous attempts—at least while the Republican majority continues to block such moves.
Yemen needs Yemenis
Young men and women from Yemen are now spread far and wide across Europe, the United States, and Asia. Through their various engagements and contributions, they have demonstrated the ability of a new Yemeni generation to launch a rebuilding of their country and lead it into the future. Oil and gas potential is very promising and could well support such efforts once the war ends. If the international community seems incapable or unwilling to stop the bloodletting, it remains incumbent on Yemeni leaders themselves to use the good counsel of their youth to patch up their differences and enable a positive and constructive transition into the future.
Nabeel A. Khoury is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. A retired foreign service officer, he most recently served as director of the Near East South Asia office of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. secretary of state said this week that he wants the war between Ukraine and Russia to end.
“It is important for everyone to be realistic: there will have to be concessions made by the Russian Federation, but also by Ukrainians,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday. “There is no way Russia takes all of Ukraine.”
He added that “there's no way Ukraine is also going to push these people all the way back to where they were on the eve of the invasion.”
He also said sending American aid to Ukraine “for however long it takes” is “not a realistic or prudent position,” sentiment that echoes what Trump has said.
Trump had previously promised to end the conflict within 24 hours of taking office, but his incoming Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, later amended that timeline to 100 days.
The establishment consensus in the U.S. and Europe on the Ukraine war has slowly evolved as the conflict moves increasingly toward Russia’s favor.
“We need a cease-fire line, and of course ideally this (the Ukrainian part) should include all areas currently under Russian control. But we see that this may not be realistically achievable in the immediate future,” former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in December. He added, “if the cease-fire line means that Russia continues to control all occupied territories, this does not mean that Ukraine has to give up the territory forever.”
Ukrainian officials have also reportedly been discussing the option of allowing for a ceasefire, with Russia still controlling part of Ukraine, although not officially or legally. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy even admitted, "if we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we should take under NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control. That’s what we need to do fast. And then Ukraine can get back the other part of its territory diplomatically.”
During his hearing this week, Rubio emphasized this growing emphasis on diplomacy over a complete Ukrainian victory, saying that ending the war will not “be an easy endeavor… but it's going to require bold diplomacy, and my hope is that it can begin with some ceasefire.”
“Rubio's remarks reflect a pragmatic, constructive approach toward ending the Ukraine war — one that, encouragingly, the administration seems intent on institutionalizing throughout the foreign policy/national security bureaucracy,” said Quincy Institute research fellow Mark Episkopos. “The upcoming peace talks will demand an all hands on deck approach across the agencies if they are to succeed, and Rubio, as the nation's chief diplomat, is poised to play a major role in this difficult but necessary process.”
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Moscow accused Washington of assisting in attempting to sabotage the TurkStream pipeline, the only remaining pipeline that brings Russian gas into Europe. Russian Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the attack “energy terrorism”
The attack was thwarted, according to Al Jazeera, as the pipeline only suffered minor damage. Ukraine has thus far rejected claims of its involvement in the attempted attack.
This comes at a time when Ukraine has halted gas transits from Russia to Europe sparking a war of words and potentially an energy crisis this winter, wrote Stavroula Pabst in Responsible Statecraft this week. Despite claims from Zelenskyy that the gas transit halt was “one of Moscow’s greatest defeats,” the rest of Europe seems to be bearing the brunt of the consequences, facing high energy prices and outages in some countries.
The New York Timesreported on Monday that Ukraine launched a large drone barrage deep into Russian territory. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, more than 140 drones were launched from Ukraine, and U.S. and UK-made ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles were included in the attack. The strikes were in three Russian regions, with some hitting over 700 miles into Russian territory. Industrial and military sites were reportedly damaged, with no reported casualties.
Russia responded the next day by launching dozens of missiles at Ukraine’s energy grid. President Zelenskyy responded to the attacks on social media, “It’s the middle of winter, and the target for the Russians remains unchanged: our energy infrastructure. Among their objectives were gas and energy facilities that sustain normal life for our people.”
There was reported damage but no casualties.
United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer says that he will deliver new mobile air defense systems and “more support to Ukraine than ever before,” according to The Guardian. This announcement is part of a 100-year partnership agreement between the two nations, meant to secure previously promised aid in addition to further military assistance under the shadow of Trump’s return to the White House. The deal, which also includes health care and agriculture partnerships, must be approved by the British parliament in the coming weeks.
From this week’s State Department briefing on 01/15
A journalist asked spokesperson Matthew Miller if the United States was considering designating Russia as a state sponsor of terror. Miller indicated that the U.S. had determined that the sanctions already in place were more effective. “If you look at the combined regime that we have put into place – sanctions and export controls – we determined that that would have more of an impact than a state sponsor of terrorism designation.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: US President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on July 25, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Sipa USA)
It would appear to be based on the text already made available by the Associated Press, which is very much like the deal brokered by the Biden administration in May 2024. That agreement was never ratified by either side and was never implemented.
It fell through then largely because of Israel’s refusal to accept Hamas’s demand that the ceasefire be permanent. A ceasefire of course is by definition impermanent, and Israel was scarcely likely to swear off renewed attacks. It could still collapse today for the same reason.
Hamas’s difficulty here is that it needs to justify its October 7 attacks and seizure of hostages with a significant achievement. An Israeli agreement to not attack Hamas in the future would rise to that level, but naturally, that is another reason Israel would resist agreeing to it in the first place. Netanyahu is not very motivated to help the Hamas leadership maintain credibility at his expense.
Otherwise, this agreement retains a phased structure in which the next 42-day phases do not automatically start when the preceding phase expires. During each period, the parties will still be negotiating the points of the succeeding phase. Thus, there is the possibility of many a slip between cup and lip.
If the parties follow up it will be phase one that is most likely to be carried out. Both sides need a win. Hamas needs to retrieve Palestinians in Israeli jails and that requires the release of some of the Israeli hostages in their possession. Both sides will retain plenty of fodder for future trades. Israel will not be required to withdraw its forces from Gaza right away, but rather to remove them to the perimeter. If fighting restarts, Israel won’t have to explain reentry into the strip; they’ll still be inside the wire.
The second phase, which, as drafted, requires complete withdrawal of IDF units from Gaza, seems unlikely to be implemented on the basis of Netanyahu’s consistently contrary position throughout the war that began on October 7. Hence the judgment of informed commentators back in May 2024 that phases 2 and 3 would not come to pass in the foreseeable future. But something is surely better than nothing.
For the Israelis, the first phase gives the IDF an opportunity to refit, get back to training cycles, restock munitions, spare parts and consumables and rotate and refresh combat personnel. It also provides a breathing space in which to assess options in the North, where a ceasefire still holds with Hezbollah and a new technocratic government has been formed, and in western Syria, where the IDF is positioned inside the country to the east of the Golan Heights. They need to plan for a clash with Turkish forces — Erdogan recently told the Turkish assembly that foreigners should “get their hands off Syria.” Evidently the Turks do not count as foreigners in Syria, at least for this purpose.
For Hamas, it’s a chance for Mohammed Sinwar, the late leader’s brother, to live for another 42 days.
There is the question, to whom should the Gaza ceasefire be attributed? One answer is Netanyahu. This is one version of a classic ceasefire, where the party that had resisted it has temporarily run out of targets and largely achieved its war aims.
If it is truly a ceasefire, that is, a temporary halt to the shooting, which is presumed to renew if and when the ceasefire is violated by the other side or expires, then the stronger party has every incentive to go with the flow. There wasn’t to be a ceasefire until these conditions were obtained.
For the Palestinians, it’s a bittersweet moment — a hoped-for respite from the death and destruction in the strip — and a profound political challenge. For the Israelis, some of whom will be reunited with loved ones, it will be a moment to think through how best to translate victory into lasting security.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. President Joe Biden, flanked by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaks after negotiators reached a phased deal for a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, during remarks at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 15, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
The achievement of a Gaza hostage deal and temporary ceasefire ahead of Trump's inauguration demonstrates the power that the U.S. had all along. The Biden administration simply refused to use American leverage to push Netanyahu, despite U.S. officials’ assertions that they were “working tirelessly towards a ceasefire.”
In his remarks about the deal, and in his response to journalists afterwards, President Biden sought to take full credit. He pointed out that this was the deal he proposed in May, yet did not acknowledge that it was Trump’s willingness to pressure Israel to reach a ceasefire in time for his inauguration that actually achieved the deal, which Biden had failed to for months. "A diplomat briefed on the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas credited progress in the talks in part to the influence of President-elect Donald Trump, saying it was 'the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal’,” according to the Washington Post.
Unfortunately, despite the jubilation of the population in Gaza as well as that of the families of hostages held by Hamas, there have already been signs that Netanyahu has no interest in a lasting ceasefire. Last month, Netanyahu told Channel 12 news that the Israeli military would resume fighting even if a deal were achieved.
“If there is a deal — and I hope there will be — Israel will return to fighting afterward,” he said. “There is no point in pretending otherwise because returning to fighting is needed in order to complete the goals of the war.”
This statement ignores the reality that Secretary of State Blinken acknowledged on Monday, that Israel’s war in Gaza has generated more recruits for Hamas than it had before October 7, 2023, demonstrating that Israel’s actions have been counterproductive to its alleged goal of reestablishing Israeli security. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right Minister of Finance, stated on Tuesday that “the war must continue,” but did not indicate if he would exit Netanyahu’s government, as he had previously threatened to do if the prime minister agreed to a ceasefire.
In contrast to Israeli politicians’ pledges to keep fighting, and Biden’s efforts to take credit, President-elect Trump expressed his intention to build on the ceasefire. On Truth Social, Donald Trump posted, “This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our allies…”
Trump said that he would build on the ceasefire’s momentum to expand the Abraham Accords, something the Biden team tried and failed to accomplish. In particular, both Biden and Trump hoped to facilitate the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. With Israel engaged in a brutal campaign of violence and starvation against civilians in Gaza, normalization with Saudi Arabia was impossible. If the ceasefire holds, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may be more willing to normalize, although that agreement would be jeopardized by Israel’s ambition to annex the West Bank.
News of the ceasefire broke on the same day a new poll came out finding that the genocide in Gaza was the number one issue that kept Biden’s supporters from voting for Harris. Twenty-nine percent of those who had voted for Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Harris in 2024 cited Gaza as the reason. This outranked the economy (24 percent) and immigration (11 percent), according to the poll from YouGov and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).
Trump’s success in achieving a temporary ceasefire and hostage deal, combined with the disastrous political effects of Harris’s unwillingness to break with her boss on foreign policy, both demonstrate the folly of Biden’s unconditional support for Israel. If Biden had used the United States’ considerable leverage to achieve a ceasefire, his party might not have lost the election.
The question that remains now is how long the ceasefire will last. The terms stipulate a six week cessation in fighting and an exchange of hostages by both sides, primarily 33 hostages held by Hamas over 42 days, in exchange for approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.
Speculation on social media and after Biden’s remarks was rife about how long the deal is likely to last. After boasting that he achieved his goal of a ceasefire by his inauguration, Trump may lose interest in reining in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The deal may last through the first phase of 42 days, but beyond that the Israeli press has reported that Netanyahu promised Smotrich that the fighting would resume.
If he wished, Trump could contribute to a more lasting ceasefire by maintaining pressure on Netanyahu and upholding U.S. laws that would end American security assistance to Israel due to its human rights abuses and blocking of humanitarian aid.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.