Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1219453060

Did Biden help the Saudis turn the tide in their favor in Yemen?

If he thinks supporting the Kingdom's efforts to take territory will help achieve a ceasefire, he's likely in for a surprise.

Analysis | Middle East

Recent weeks have witnessed a string of victories for forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognized government, or IRG, and its Saudi and Emirati backers. Last week, the UAE-funded al-Amaliqa (“Giants”) Brigades drove Ansar Allah (Houthi) forces out of territory in the al-Bayda province. After a ten-day battle, the al-Amaliqa Brigades successfully ousted Ansar Allah forces from the province of Shabwa, and are now advancing towards the strategic city of Marib. These military gains depend heavily on close support from the Saudi Air Force. 

In December, the Saudi government pleaded for air-defense systems from the United States allegedly to defend themselves from Ansar Allah’s cross-border missile attacks. At the same time, the Biden administration successfully pushed the sale of $650 million in air-to-air missiles through Congress, despite objections by some lawmakers concerned about U.S. backing for the Kingdom’s seven-year-old intervention in Yemen, by insisting that the weapons would be used only for “defensive” purposes. 

The latest Saudi-backed offensives belie the Saudis’ claim that they needed American munitions to defend themselves, as well as the Biden administration’s justification for the latest weapons sale. Instead, large swathes of Yemeni territory have once again changed hands. As UN Special Envoy to Yemen Hans Grundberg told the UN Security Council on Wednesday, “there is no sustainable long-term solution to be found on the battlefield”: the escalation in violence undermines efforts to resolve the conflict.

Last year, disputes between forces backed by the Saudis and those backed by the UAE undermined their effectiveness against Ansar Allah, allowing the rebels to make the territorial gains in al-Bayda and Shabwa that the Saudi coalition-aligned forces have now reversed. 

The UAE has primarily funded militias that seek an independent south Yemen, while Saudi Arabia backs the transition government that took power after Yemen’s long-time president, the late Ali Abdullah Saleh, stepped down after months of Arab Spring protests in 2011. The UAE sees a future independent south Yemen as a useful client state, given its strategic location at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, while Saudi Arabia fears that a central government controlled by Ansar Allah would render its southern border vulnerable to an Iranian presence and pressure. Iran has provided political and material support to Ansar Ansallah since the Saudi-led coalition’s 2015 intervention.

Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia’s vulnerability to transborder attacks has only increased over the course of the war, the very outcome that they initially intervened to prevent. Last July, Saudi commentators publicly criticized the UAE’s role in Yemen, a rare occurrence that signalled the dissatisfaction of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with his supposed ally, Emirati Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed.

In 2019, Saudi and Emirati-backed forces signed the Riyadh Agreement, which sought to hammer out a functional partnership. However both sides, as well as additional separatist militias, continued to jockey for power in Aden, eroding security there, as well as basic services, and driving civilian protests and violent crackdowns last September. 

The relative economic and physical security of areas controlled by Ansar Allah have attracted Yemenis to areas they control, including Sanaa, Ibb, and Dhamar. Last fall, Yemen observers wondered if Ansar Allah would further consolidate its control over northern Yemen by finally ousting Hadi government loyalists from Marib. Many expressed concerns at the humanitarian implications of such an outcome, given the large numbers of Yemenis who had taken refuge there. Now that forces backed by the Saudis and those backed by the UAE appear to be working together, Ansar Allah may be driven back from Marib and denied access to the territory’s strategic petroleum reserves. 

The Biden administration may feel that these recent military successes justify its decision to expand support to Saudi Arabia by potentially pressuring Ansar Allah to agree to a ceasefire rather than risk losing more territory. That is one possible outcome, although on December 18,  Ansar Allah’s foreign minister, Hisham Sharaf, reiterated his government’s openness to a ceasefire provided that after Saudi Arabia first lift its blockade on Hodeidah port and the Sana’a international airport. 

The Saudis have sustained the blockade based on UN Security Council Resolution 2216, which justifies a Saudi role in preventing the smuggling of arms to the insurgency. The same resolution also requires the reinstatement of President Hadi, who has lived in exile virtually continuously in Riyadh since 2015. Recent reports indicate that the UK, the UN’s pen-holder for Yemen, may introduce a new Security Council resolution that would allow for Hadi to be replaced. A politician less tarnished by corruption, such as his prime minister, Maeen Abdul Malik Saeed, presents an alternative: Saeed was born in Taiz, in central Yemen and is seen as a technocrat and possibly a compromise figure. 

A new UN Security Council resolution would offer an opportunity for the international community to put forward a more realistic framework for resolving Yemen’s long-running conflict. Resolution 2216 demands that Ansar Allah give up their weapons and all territory seized since 2014, terms which they have always rejected and to which they will almost certainly never agree. Unfortunately, the latest gains by the Saudi-led coalition may embolden them to insist on these terms, as they have for the past seven years, rather than accept that the war in Yemen, often described as the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” will continue to drag on until all parties find more compelling reasons to come to the negotiating table.

Last February, President Biden pledged to end U.S. support for the Saudis in Yemen, “including relevant arms sales.” Instead, his administration’s actions thus far appear to have perpetuated the conflict, harming both U.S. interests and the lives and futures of Yemenis.


The southern city of Taiz in Yemen. (anasalhajj/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Middle East
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.