The U.S.-based media coverage of the Saudi war in Yemen rarely describes in detail the impact of the bombing campaign on civilians in the impoverished nation. A simple Tweet from @Rooj129 says it all: “2 know what it is like in #Yemen, turn off electricity, water, heating, eat once a day, fear for ur life.” According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 648 civilians have been killed so far, many of them children. Targets have included refugee camps, hospitals, schools, urban neighborhoods and soccer stadiums. The country is facing a serious humanitarian crisis.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasing its role in the brutal bombing campaign, both by vetting the Saudis’ target list, and by moving to intercept alleged Iranian aid to the Houthi rebels. This increased and direct assistance to the Saudi bombing effort is in contrast to the Obama administration’s stated desire for the Saudis to scale back the bombing campaign, focusing on halting Houthi advances and forcing all parties back to the negotiating table.
The Saudis, on the other hand, have as their stated goal the destruction of the Houthis military capability and the restoration of Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to the presidency—a goal some in the administration believe is unrealistic, given that 17 days of aerial and naval bombardment have failed to halt Houthi advances, although they were unable to hold Aden.
The reasoning behind the Obama administration’s advocacy of a more limited bombing campaign is grounded in some understanding of reality on the ground. While the Houthis are not universally loved in Yemen, the Saudis are probably even less popular, especially given that they are causing massive civilian casualties. Thus, the bombing campaign is likely to politically strengthen the Houthis and other anti-U.S. forces, including Al Qaeda in the Arabic Peninsula and/or Sana’a Province, an Islamic State affiliate.
If this is the administration’s understanding, why are they providing so much support to the bombing campaign? According to unnamed sources quoted by the WSJ, they are attempting to advise the Saudis on their target list, thus reducing the likelihood of civilian casualties, while continuing to counsel the Saudis to modify the goals of the operation. While it might seem laughable that the U.S. is concerned about civilian casualties in Yemen, given its history of drone attacks and the extra-legal assassination of U.S. citizens in Yemen, what the administration is concerned about is the scope of civilian casualties, which they wish to hold down to a more modest number.
The other direct support being given the Saudi effort takes the form of an attempt to “intercept” Iranian arms allegedly being sent to the Houthis. Secretary of State Kerry claimed that the U.S. knows that the Iranians are arming the Houthis, despite Iranian denials. On PBS NewsHour (April 7), he said: There are obviously supplies that have been coming from Iran…there are a number of flights every single week that have been flying in. We trace those flights, and we know this. We are well aware of the support that Iran has been giving to Yemen, and Iran needs to recognize that the United States is not going to stand by while the region is destabilized, or while people engage in overt warfare across lines—international boundaries of other countries.”
Of course, this statement does not make a lot of sense at the present moment, given that there are no flights going in and out of Yemen due to the Saudi air blockade. The New York Times charitably opined that perhaps he was talking about “past support and not current activities.”
As reported in the WSJ, the U.S. Navy came up empty in its April 1 search of a Panamanian-flagged ship suspected of delivering Iranian weapons. Since that incident, the U.S. has stepped up its surveillance of the region.
Kerry’s remarks on the NewsHour were in the context of his explaining that the U.S. could “do two things at the same time” (like the man who can chew gum and walk), by which he meant that the U.S. could both “push back against Iranian attempts to project its influence around the region, while at the same time rewarding Tehran for providing guarantees that it was not building nuclear weapons.” (NYT, April 9)
This raises another question: Why go making claims about Iranian support for the Houthis and intercept ships while at the same time pursuing a new relationship with Iran? Even sources in the U.S. military are not convinced that Iran is deeply involved in aiding the Houthis: “I don’t get the sense that the Iranian level of commitment at this point is of such a magnitude that they are going to take a big risk of being exposed any more than they already are. … If they can do it and it’s not going to cost them a whole lot, I think they’ll do it. But the Houthis are not some ally that they are going to go to the mat for.” (WSJ April 13)
This whole situation is emblematic of the current global state of affairs, in which the U.S. is losing its position as the dominant global power and is flailing about, still quite lethally, without a real strategy. It is also indicative of divisions within the U.S. ruling class as to which way to go forward in advancing U.S. interests internationally.While in the past, one would assume that Saudi Arabia would not initiate a bombing campaign without explicit U.S. approval, now the client state is taking the lead to protect what it sees as its own regional interests, recognizing that the U.S. may leave them on their own when push comes to shove.
The U.S. now seems to be jumping on board with the anti-Iran/anti-Houthi rhetoric, while simultaneously allying with Iran versus IS in Iraq. U.S. policy seems to reactively jump from crisis to crisis without a clear vision or strategy. In the meantime, Yemen is suffering and faces disaster. All the more reason all progressive and revolutionary people need to work together to put U.S. imperialism in the dustbin of history where it belongs.
