Revealing the Hidden Agenda Behind Trump’s Sudden Shift Toward Striking Sana’a!

YNY | Reports and Analysis 

In a shift that exposes the stark contradiction between electoral promises and political reality, American reports reveal that President Donald Trump, who campaigned with anti-war slogans, is now agreeing to discuss military plans to strike Sana’a. This contradicts his previous statements in which he described foreign intervention as a “never-ending quagmire.”

A Picture of Contradiction

Before the Election: Promises to End Wars
During his campaign for a second term, Trump promised his voters that he would end what he described as “pointless wars” and bring American soldiers back home, capitalizing on the popularity of anti-foreign involvement rhetoric.

In a famous speech in 2023, he said, “America will not destroy itself in other people’s wars… Enough.”

After the Election: Rash Military Plans
According to leaks from within the Pentagon, Washington began preparing for airstrikes against Houthi (Ansar Allah) positions, despite Trump’s previous statements about not involving the U.S. in any wars. This raises questions about the “hidden agenda” behind this shift.

Sources in Congress revealed the real decision-makers within the White House, confirming that Trump is merely a tool, pressured by arms lobbies and Gulf allies to adopt a more aggressive policy.

Reports also highlight the increasing influence of arms companies in U.S. decision-making, as wars are seen as a “golden opportunity” to boost sales.

Trump has faced domestic criticism, with Democrats and peace activists attacking him and labeling him a hypocrite, reminding him of his promises not to intervene in Yemen.

Arms and Oil as America’s Leverage

In the geopolitical context, some explain the shift as resulting from pressure by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to settle scores with the Houthis (Ansar Allah), especially after their attacks on Israeli ships in the Red Sea.

American foreign policy remains hostage to the narrow interests of arms and oil lobbies, which turn regional conflicts into a profitable market for weapons and ensure the flow of oil, even if it fuels wars and destroys entire nations.

In the case of Yemen, Washington’s support for the Saudi-Emirati coalition against the Houthis (Ansar Allah) is seen as part of a larger game aimed at weakening any force that threatens the dominance of the Western-Israeli alliance over strategic passages, such as Bab al-Mandab, which controls over 10% of global trade.