Middle East Eye: Continuation of the Yemen-Saudi Conflict Serves Washington and Israel, Drains Its Parties
A report by the British website suggests that refusing to lift the blockade on Yemen and keeping the confrontation open exposes Riyadh and Sana'a to ongoing costs, while external powers benefit from the continuous attrition and its regional repercussions.
NYN | Reports and Analyses
Middle East Eye stated that the Yemeni-Saudi conflict has transformed over recent years into a state of continuous attrition, pointing out that the ongoing confrontation may serve the interests of the United States and the Israeli occupation entity, while regional and local parties bear the brunt of the conflict’s cost.
In an analytical report, the website explained that certain wars may serve the interests of major powers when they continue without a decisive outcome, citing a concept by American strategist Edward Luttwak regarding how Washington sometimes benefits from conflicts remaining in a state of balance and mutual attrition.
A Victory for Either Side Could Reshape the Balance of Power
The report suggests that a military resolution in Yemen carries broad implications for the region. A complete victory for the Yemenis could lead to a redrawing of the balance of power along the Saudi border—especially given their missile and drone capabilities, alongside Yemen’s strategic geographical location overlooking one of the world’s most vital international maritime passages, the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Conversely, attempting to resolve the conflict militarily against the Yemenis would, according to the report, require a vast, prolonged, and costly war, potentially opening the door to new security and political complexities.
Eliminating Yemeni Military Power Does Not Mean the End of the Conflict
Middle East Eye noted that the Yemenis do not merely represent an isolated military force, but are deeply integrated into a broad network of political, social, and tribal structures, alongside existing security and administrative institutions on the ground.
According to the report, attempting to eliminate this force does not necessarily mean ending the Yemeni conflict, given the multiplicity of Saudi, Emirati, American, and Israeli parties and interests present within the Yemeni landscape.
The Red Sea Elevated Yemenis to a New Regional Position
The website highlighted the shift brought about by operations in the Red Sea since 2023, considering that the Yemenis’ entry into the war linked to Gaza elevated them from a local party in the conflict to a regional player capable of impacting maritime navigation and trade associated with Israel and its allies.
The report considers that this shift has further complicated the landscape, making engagement with Yemeni power increasingly bound to regional and international dynamics, rather than strictly to the trajectory of the internal conflict within Yemen.
U.S. Policy Between Support and De-escalation
The report also addressed U.S. policy regarding the Yemeni dossier, noting Washington’s oscillation between providing military support to Saudi Arabia, attempting to reach understandings with Iran, carrying out strikes against the Yemenis over Red Sea operations, and engaging in negotiation tracks mediated by Oman.
The website considers this fluctuation to reflect the difficulty of reaching a decisive military resolution to the conflict, particularly as the Yemeni dossier remains intertwined with broader regional issues, including Red Sea security, the war in Gaza, and Saudi-Iranian relations.
Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani Rapprochement and Concerns Over Washington
In a related context, Middle East Eye pointed to the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. The report argued that while this path does not necessarily amount to an integrated alliance, it reflects growing doubts among several regional states regarding the reliability of the U.S. security umbrella.
Who Benefits from the Continuation of the Conflict?
The report concluded that the continuation of the Yemeni-Saudi conflict may be more convenient for external powers than its resolution in favor of either side. Defeating the Yemenis would require immense military and political costs, whereas their victory could alter regional balances of power.
Between these two options, Middle East Eye argues that a sustained state of attrition allows external powers to influence the trajectory of the conflict and set its limits, while the primary burden remains on the Yemenis, the Saudis, and their allies in the region.
