PNN – According to the analysis of the English publication Economist, the recent US and British military attack on Yemen increased the weight of Sana’a’s power and popularity as a regional power, and at the same time failed to stop the attacks against Israeli ships.
“It is unlikely that [Ansarullah Movement], which emerged from a 9-year war stronger, will be stopped by a few attacks by coalition forces.” The English publication The Economist questioned the attacks of the American and British coalition against Yemen with the aim of deterring attacks against Israeli ships.
In a long report about the consequences of the recent American-British attacks on Yemen, this publication wrote that these attacks increase the power of Yemen, because it is a force in conflict with world powers, including the United States, Britain, Israel and several countries.
According to this note, during this time, the Saudis “fought more from above” but in the end it became clear that “airstrikes are ineffective in weakening Yemen.”
Read more:
Tension in the Red Sea; America between the hammer of China and the anvil of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
According to Fabian Heinz, a defense and military researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Yemeni armed forces have been equipped with various stocks of anti-ship missiles with a range of up to 800 kilometers over the past decade, and currently there are 6 different types of these missiles.
According to the Economist, Western warnings and media disclosures gave the Yemenis weeks to move and hide their weapons, many of which are relatively small and portable, and it is currently unclear how much of this arsenal is from bombing. If this arsenal remains largely intact, the Yemenis could even expand the scope of their attacks, and “in the long run, Sana’a will be able to recoup the damage” and be equipped with new anti-ship missiles that can be easily assembled.
The “New York Times” newspaper also reported today, quoting American officials, that finding targets for the attacks on Friday and Saturday in Yemen was more difficult than what Washington thought, and many of the military and offensive capabilities of the Yemeni army after the American and British airstrikes.
The Economist wrote further Confrontation with the West has many advantages for the National Salvation Government of Yemen because its action in encircling Israel won the admiration of the Arab world and aroused the feelings of the Palestinian supporters, at a time when most of the Arab rulers are watching the war in Gaza. In such an environment, the attacks of the American coalition against Yemen will increase the popularity of Ansarullah in the shadow of the escalation of hostility against Washington due to its support for Israel.
Another consequence of the American coalition’s attacks against Sana’a is strengthening the position of the National Salvation Government of Yemen in the process of peace negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Maybe a few years ago, the Saudis supported the attacks of the West on Yemen, but today they are in a sensitive position and with the experience they have of the 9-year war with Yemen, fearing that Yemen will decide to target the Persian Gulf countries with missiles or drones, they are asking for calm.
The note concludes that Washington does not want to enter into another protracted conflict in the Middle East, while Sana’a is not worried about this, as its forces have fared better in the war with the Saudi coalition and forces of the former Yemeni president. In addition, they are now “certainly pleased to have added Washington to their open operations.”