Showing posts sorted by date for query YEMEN. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query YEMEN. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, October 06, 2026

How Can We Build a World Post Capitalism?

In Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025), Seven Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.


A woman holds a banner ‘Capitalism Is the Crisis’ during Climate Strike protest organized by Fridays for Future movement also known as Youth Strike for Climate in Krakow, Poland on September 24, 2021.
(Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Cynthia Kaufman
Oct 05, 2026
Common Dreams


The billionaires are putting our world at risk through support for unregulated AI, funding the fossil fuel industry, and undermining democracy. They are using their unprecedented levels of power to lead us toward multiple pathways of total human annihilation.

Now is a good time to reflect on ways to challenge capitalism, a driving force behind the madness we face. And yet, on one side we have many people who are hesitant to name capitalism as a force behind destruction we face. On the other side, many of those few who do name capitalism use outdated and unhelpful frameworks for understanding how to challenge capitalism.

Sven Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History (Penguin 2025) is a book worth reading if you are interested in building a world past capitalism. Beckert’s original approach to understanding capitalism helps us to see possibilities for challenging it in the present precarious time we are living in.

Its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism.

Beckert’s book has received awards and is being read widely. Yet much of the attention has been negative. Writing in The New Yorker, Gideon Lewis-Kraus faulted the book for having such a diffuse idea of capitalism that it becomes “an inescapable vibe—responsible for everything, everywhere, all at once.” In his review in The Nation Corey Robin criticized it for offering a fuzzy and imprecise understanding of capitalism, which then makes the book unhelpful for shaping our anti-capitalist thinking.

These criticisms miss the political power and potential of this unorthodox approach to understanding capitalism. Beckert’s book takes capitalism to its origins and puts it into a global framework. It focuses on the agency of capitalists as a group of people who over time bring capitalism as a global system into being. Beckert’s analysis helps us update our understanding of capitalism in ways that make pathways to challenging it clear and actionable. Many anti-capitalist thinkers are stuck in a stale 19th century understanding of what we are up against. Those approaches make our search for solutions narrow and not actionable in the present.

There are three dead ends to anti-capitalist thought that Becker’s approach avoids. One is that capitalism began in Britain with the industrial revolution. That idea encourages anti-capitalist thinkers to focus on class as something separate from race and patriarchy. A second is that the main victims of capitalism are the industrial working class, that idea leads us to focus on the industrial working class as the most important carriers of movements to challenge capitalism. The third mistaken approach is that the only way to get rid of capitalism is through overthrowing the system in a dramatic revolution. That leads anti-capitalist organizers to focus on getting others to see how bad capitalism is but does not encourage them to build power to challenge it in the present. Each of these tendencies has its own way of being unhelpful for building anti-capitalist politics. Beckert’s approach to capitalism helps us find pathways beyond all of them.

Rather than staring his analysis of capitalism at the transition from feudalism to capitalism, as most anti-capitalist thinkers do, Beckert’s story begins in 1150 in Aden, in what is now Yemen. He argues that at that time, largely in the Muslim world, there emerged a global trade in luxury goods. It impacted very few people’s lives, and there were no societies based on it. This was a period of the emergence of capitalists—a very small subset of the population who traded goods for the sole purpose of generating wealth.

Many societies have engaged in trade to obtain goods that they could not produce themselves. What distinguishes capitalists from other traders is that they engage in trade for profits alone. The goal of any given transaction is money itself rather than something that money could buy.

Capital itself is money, or resources, invested for the sole purpose of generating more money. Early capitalists originally worked within the political realities they found around them. Over time these merchants worked to create political systems that would enable them to generate more wealth. These early capitalists often engaged in work to get governments to create conditions that were favorable to them. Think of Columbus and his relationship with Queen Isabella.

When these disparate acts of capitalists began to be elevated to the society-wide phenomenon we now call capitalism, was when they were able to control a land base and extract wealth, not just from trading, but from producing as well. Over time these merchants came to control more land and resources. Forced labor in the form of slavery was central to the early days of capitalism. So was colonialism: the forcible taking of land on which to engage in profit-seeking actions.

As more and more resources are controlled by capitalist processes, and as capitalists became more politically powerful, a large part of human society came to be dominated by these logics. Eventually, resistance to slavery made that form of exploitation less desirable to the elites. Employers were able to hire people into wage labor as the enclosure of commons threw them off the land they had previously used to sustain themselves. Colonialism was beaten back by people fighting for control over the political systems that dominated the places they lived. In many places colonialism was replaced by neocolonialism, where local people controlled the political system but continued to run the economy in the interest of faraway elites.

Beckert’s analysis broadens our frame in ways that allow us to avoid the pitfalls of an anti-capitalism that focuses only on the class-based harms of capitalism. If you accept the older framework, which focuses on capitalism as mostly about the exploitation of the industrial working class in Europe, then its relationships to slavery and colonialism are hard to understand. Much anti-capitalist thinking sees capitalism as a step forward from slavery and colonialism, rather than as their cause.

With regard to patriarchy, much anti-capitalist thinking focuses on the experiences of wage laborers rather than on the impacts of capitalist processes on the broader matrix of society that it transforms and destroys. This can lead to an anti-capitalist politics that defines the victims of capitalism so narrowly that racism and patriarchy are outside the frame of analysis. That makes building broad coalitions for anti-capitalist politics harder to achieve.

Moving on to the second dead end of much anti-capitalist thinking, if you see capitalism as fundamentally about the exploitation of labor, then you will not see the wide variety of ways that capitalism destroys the social fabric in which it operates. By prioritizing production and distribution that are done in markets for profits, capitalist ways of operating marginalize and deny resources to the caregiving matrix of our lives.

Caregiving labor, which has been disproportionately done by women, becomes socially invisible and undervalued. It is especially not valued in the discipline of Economics, which is largely the study of the profit-making sector. That narrow focus ignores the wide variety of ways that many people’s lives are made miserable by not having access to the resources they need to live well. It also ignores the many non-capitalist aspects of our economies that continue to thrive, even as the capitalist sector has increasingly large impacts on our shared social world.

By focusing on the capitalist class, as a group of people who are ready to subordinate our world to profit seeking, and by showing that members of that class act in a variety of ways in relationship to government, and the rest of society, in order to make the world over to enable their profit seeking, Beckert opens up our perception to the wide range of ways that capitalism causes destruction. He therefore opens us to a wide range of ways to fight against it.

Beckert’s approach is aligned with the work of Karl Polanyi. In The Great Transformation, his pathbreaking book from 1944, Polanyi argued that, in previous times, markets were subordinated to other social logics, and so their negative impacts were limited. What distinguishes capitalism is that the logic of markets comes to dominate, and their centrality undermines other ways societies have been structured to ensure that people’s needs are met. Markets come to have lives of their own, and the needs of markets come to dominate over the needs of people or the rest of nature.

Beckert updates Polanyi’s analysis by adding more detail, and also by naming more clearly than Polanyi does the forms of agency behind these destructive practices. This approach allows us to understand capitalism less as a total system and more as a set of destructive practices driven by those addicted to the profit motive. This approach helps us imagine a variety of ways to challenge capitalism.

We need to break the spell of pro-capitalist thinkers’ claim that human economies are best served when markets are allowed to decide what is produced, how it is produced, and who gets the things produced. We need to figure out how best to ensure that we are making the things we need, in ways that are sustainable, and distributed in ways that ensure that everyone’s needs are met.

We need to fight against the powers of the owners of capital by breaking our dependencies on capitalism for our survival. Fighting against the exploitation we experience in wage labor is a part of that. But gathering social resources for the caregiving aspects of our lives, developing public goods, and preventing the environmental damage caused by corporations pursuing profit at any cost, are also crucial aspects of challenging capitalism.

Finally, Beckert’s approach allows us to avoid the third and most destructive element of standard anti-capitalist thinking: the belief that we need to wait for a revolution. If you think of capitalism as a focused system that came into being all at once with one major transformation, it is easy then to imagine the way to get rid of it is through overthrowing that system with one large blow. That way of thinking about how to get rid of capitalism doesn’t position us well to understand the work we need to be doing right now to build power to stop the forces of social destruction while building the better world we are looking for, now.

Rather than waiting for a revolution to overthrow capitalism, anti-capitalists need to build power to fight against the variety of ways that the capitalist class is destroying our world. One way to think of this is with the idea of revolutionary reforms, the steps we take to make our world better, as we fight against the forms of destruction caused by capitalism and against the power of the capitalist class to destroy our social fabric.

Both Beckert, and Polanyi before him, owe a great deal to the work of Karl Marx. Marx’s criticism of capitalism remains an invaluable starting point for anti-capitalist thinking. But Marx’s narrow focus on the exploitation of labor as the single most important form of destruction caused by capitalism has led generations of anti-capitalist activists to hope the industrial working class would lead us away from capitalism. Those hopes have been repeatedly disappointed.

Marx faulted colonialism and slavery for the ways they were part of the destruction caused by capitalism, but many of his followers see those processes as side issues to the problem of capitalism. And so many anti-capitalists insist on a class-first analysis, which undermines their ability to work well in broad coalitions.

On the question of revolution or reform, Marx actually said very little. And much of what he said was contradictory. In places, he argued that the path away from capitalism was through building political power via elections. At other times, he claimed that all of that was a distraction from a revolution that would overturn all social relations in a short dramatic period. Many followers of Marx assume, incorrectly, that he only supported the second strategy,

Much of the criticism of Beckert’s book from the left has rested on the ways his understanding deviates from a telling of the history that leads to the core set of beliefs that have kept anti-capitalist thinking from being politically productive. Beckert’s Capitalism: A Global History doesn’t address these questions of political strategy. But its approach to understanding capitalism as a process pushed by capitalists, developing their power, and colonizing the matrix of our social world, explains capitalism in ways that point to more productive approaches to anti-capitalism. If we want to bring anti-capitalist analysis into the broad liberatory social movements that are animating our time, we need to base our anti-capitalism on an updated understanding of what we are up against. Beckert’s book offers a starting point for that understanding.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Cynthia Kaufman

Cynthia Kaufman is a writer and educator. She is the author of six books on social change: Solidarity Economics: Building Sustainable Social Relations (Routledge 2026),Consumerism, Sustainability, and Happiness: How to Build a World Where Everyone Has Enough (Routledge 2023), The Sea is Rising and So Are We: A Climate Justice Handbook (PM Press 2021), Challenging Power: Democracy and Accountability in a Fractured World (Bloomsbury 2020), Getting Past Capitalism: History, Vision, Hope (Lexington Books 2012), and Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change (2nd Edition PM Press 2016). Visit her website.
Full Bio >
IMPERIALIST WAR CRIME
Saudi-backed forces run over surrendering Houthis with trucks

Akhtar Makoii
Mon, October 5, 2026


Saudi-backed Yemeni forces ran over surrendering Houthi fighters with armoured vehicles, video showed on Monday, as intense clashes raged over control of a key Red Sea shipping lane.

In one video clip, a group of Houthi fighters can be seen raising their hands to surrender moments before an armoured vehicle drives over them. The driver is heard shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Another video shows an armoured vehicle driving over several wounded fighters who had raised their hands while lying on the ground. A third shows Houthi fighters, wading through shallows, being run over. Some also appeared to be gunned down.

The images emerged as Yemeni government forces, backed by Saudi air power, pressed an offensive to drive the Iran-backed Houthis from the Bab el-Mandeb strait, which the rebels seized in a lightning offensive last month.

Both sides have reported heavy casualties in fighting along the coast of the Red Sea, which is vital for global shipping, and around the city of Taiz.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which Yemen has ratified, bars violence against combatants who are "hors de combat" – out of the fight – including those who have surrendered or been incapacitated by wounds.

Intense clashes broke out on Monday over one of the world's most important shipping lanes.

Plumes of smoke were seen rising over the Houthi-controlled capital, Sanaa, after Saudi jets struck at least one location in the city.

Yemeni military sources on the ground told The Telegraph that the operation began with waves of Saudi-led air strikes and a ground push by government units towards the strait.

Houthi rebels said they were fighting back, and denied that government forces had advanced.

Were Yemen's forces to wrestle back control of the strait, it could provide a significant security boost for shipping through the narrow oil and gas chokehold.

The Saudi-backed forces said they had seized large parts of the Dhubab district, which overlooks Bab el-Mandeb.

Brig Gen Majid al-Nuzaili, a spokesman for the Saudi-backed forces, said troops had tightened control of the area and that some besieged Houthi fighters had fled by boat.


If the Yemeni government retook the Bab el-Mandeb strait, it could provide a significant security boost for global shipping - Reuters

He described the operation as a "strategic offensive operation" that utilised "modern capabilities". More than 1,000 strikes were said to have been carried out since dawn.

A Yemeni defence minister said that forces had taken "full control of Bab al-Mandeb and Mayun Island".

The assault is part of a broader campaign, called Operation Dawn of Yemen, announced on Sunday by the country's internationally recognised government.

As night fell, Saudi-backed forces said they had captured the strategic coastal city of Mokha and were pushing north towards the Red Sea towns of Yakhtul, Jiran, Maushij and Al-Khaukhah.

Mokha, the historic coffee trading port that gave mocha its name, had been seized by the Houthis last month in their lightning sweep down the coast.

Yemen's pro-government Saba news agency quoted a military source as saying government forces had retaken the city, west of Taiz province, and were securing it.

If confirmed, the capture would be one of the government's most significant gains since the offensive began on Monday morning, handing it a foothold on the coast and paving the way for an advance up the shoreline toward Hodeidah, the Houthis' main Red Sea port, while loosening the fighters' grip on the waters around Bab el-Mandeb.

Rashad al-Alimi, the chairman of the presidential leadership council, ordered forces to retake all Houthi-held territory and vowed to fight "until the country is liberated from the grip of the terrorist militia".

He set the recapture of Sanaa as the ultimate goal to help move Yemen "towards a new dawn of freedom, peace, and stability".

The Saudi-led coalition said more than 320 "high-value targets" had been struck since the operation began, with more than 100 jets taking part on Monday alone.

"We are providing air support to back the Yemeni armed forces on the ground around the clock," Maj Gen Turki al-Maliki, the coalition spokesman, said.

The government army said 1,747 Houthi fighters had been "neutralised" and more than 360 military vehicles destroyed in some 1,100 operations across Saada, al-Jawf and Taiz provinces and the western coast.

The Telegraph could not independently confirm casualty and equipment figures because the situation on the ground was rapidly changing on Monday afternoon local time.

The Houthis have pressed their own advances. A source said the group had driven government forces from the al-Mawasit district of Taiz province, reaching Mr al-Alimi's home area.

The military said the rebels had pushed along strategic hilltops near Taiz and cut the last road linking the besieged city to Aden, the government's interim capital.

The fighting has thrust another global energy artery into jeopardy. Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow passage linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, has gained importance as an alternative to the Strait of Hormuz, effectively closed by the Iran war.

The Houthis seized much of the Red Sea coastline last month, and the renewed combat has pushed up global oil prices.

The latest fighting has deepened what the United Nations has described as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Afrah Al-Zouba, the Yemeni foreign minister, appealed for more international support, saying it was "in the world's interest" for the country to be stable.

"The latest flare-up threatens to be absolutely devastating," said Matthew Hollingworth, a senior World Food Programme official, adding that Yemen imported roughly 90 per cent of its food.

Across Yemen, 18.3 million people face severe food insecurity, including 2.2 million acutely malnourished children under the age of five.


The Houthis seized much of the Red Sea coastline last month - Getty Images/Mohammed Hamoud

More than 149,000 people have been uprooted by the latest fighting, the International Organisation for Migration said, and more than 3,700 have fled across the strait to Djibouti.

Saudi Arabia led an Arab coalition into Yemen in 2015 and fought the Houthis to a bloody stalemate.



US Backs Major Saudi-Led Offensive as Yemen Slides Back Toward All-Out War

The US is providing military advisers and helping the Saudis choose targets in a war that has already displaced nearly 150,000 people and put much of the country on the brink of acute food insecurity.


Flames burn at a facility belonging to Saudi oil giant Aramco south of Riyadh following retaliatory strikes from Yemen’s Houthis on October 3, 2026.
(Photo by AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Oct 04, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Yemen is spiraling back toward full-scale war after its Saudi-backed government launched a major offensive on Sunday to retake territory captured by the Iran-backed group Ansar Allah, also known as the Houthis.

President Rashad al-Alimi said the armed forces would seek to retake all Houthi-controlled territory, which is home to about 70% of Yemen’s population, including the capital Sanaa. He said the offensive would continue “until the country is liberated from the grip of the terrorist militia.”

Houthi officials said Saudi forces have launched 50 air and missile attacks in the last 12 hours. As al-Alimi announced the new offensive, the Houthis responded by launching ballistic missiles and drones at Saudi Aramco oil facilities, including one near Riyadh that was engulfed in flames.



Last month, the Houthis captured major strategic areas along the Red Sea coast, giving them unprecedented leverage over one of the world’s busiest shipping routes and adding to the economic stranglehold Iran is asserting by restricting travel through the Strait of Hormuz in response to US-Israeli attacks.

Earlier this month, it was reported that President Donald Trump had rebuffed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s request for the US to launch airstrikes against the Houthis.

However, US officials told Axios on Friday that the military is providing Saudi Arabia with “everything short of direct combat, mainly intelligence and targeting data.”

While the Saudis conduct a new campaign of airstrikes, Yemen’s government could reportedly mobilize as many as 100,000 troops, one of the largest military buildups since the 2022 truce that halted the nation’s brutal eight-year civil war.

That war, in which the US also provided extensive military support to a merciless Saudi air campaign, is estimated by the United Nations Development Program to have caused about 377,000 excess deaths by the end of 2021: 154,000 from the fighting itself and 223,000 from indirect effects such as hunger, disease, and the collapse of healthcare and basic infrastructure. An estimated 259,000 of those deaths were of children under 5.

Even before Sunday’s escalation, renewed fighting was already fueling a major displacement and hunger crisis. More than 149,000 people have been driven from their homes, according to the International Organization for Migration. Meanwhile, the World Food Program says fighting has disrupted food delivery routes, placing 18.3 million Yemenis at risk of acute food insecurity.

The US and Israel have repeatedly bombed the group, yet it still controls much of the country.

On the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, Maj Gen Ali Abdollahi, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, warned on Monday that any new war against Iran would spiral out of control and "engulf everyone".

On Monday evening, Turkey and Pakistan vowed to send troops to Saudi Arabia under a newly signed defence pact.

The "rapid deployment" of soldiers was announced in a joint statement by Pakistan's foreign ministry as it praised Riyadh's "vigilance" in countering Houthi attacks.

The Mecca joint defence agreement, modelled on Nato's Article 5, was signed in August by the three majority-Sunni nations and agreed an attack on one was an attack on all.

In the statement, Islamabad and Ankara condemned the "attempted targeting" of Mecca and Medina, two of Islam's holiest sites, by the Iran-backed Shia Houthi.

Turkey's foreign minister added: "We also discussed what could be done to resolve the issue peacefully through dialogue. Saudi Arabia has adopted a very constructive approach to resolving the issue."

Sunday, October 04, 2026

 Yemen's government declares counter-offensive as Houthis cut vital route to besieged city



The ​leader of ​Yemen's Saudi-backed government announced the beginning of a ​major ‌military ⁠operation against the Iran-backed Houthis ‌on Sunday aimed at ⁠recapturing territory under their control. The announcement came as Houthi forces cut off a vital supply route to the besieged government-held city of Taiz, according to several security sources.


Issued on: 04/10/2026
By: FRANCE 24

Besieged by Houthi fighters, the southwestern city of Taiz is one of the main fronts in Yemen's civil war. © AFP

The head of Yemen's presidential council on Sunday announced the start of a new military operation to retake all territory held by Iran-backed Houthi fighters.

"I announce today the start of military operations to retake the remaining territories of the republic and extend the authority of the state and its institutions across the entire national territory," Rashad al-Alimi said in a statement.

Alimi called on "the armed forces, security forces and all military formations to begin carrying out their assigned missions, in accordance with the approved plans, until the country is liberated from the grip of the Houthi terrorist militia".

The announcement marks the latest major escalation in the war against the Houthis following a rapid offensive by the Iran-backed group last month that saw them seize large swaths of the Red Sea coastline.

Earlier Sunday, several security sources also told AFP that the group had effectively encircled Taiz after cutting the main supply route to the government-held city.

The Houthi advance follows days of heavy fighting in and around the city of Taiz between the group and government forces.

"We were informed that the Houthis had taken control of the al-Safiya area, where they cut the main road and took control of the police station," a police source in the area told AFP.

Three sources with the Yemeni military also confirmed Houthi control over the area and supply route, with the group effectively encircling Taiz city.

A fleeing family drives behind Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces near the Jabal Han front, west of the city of Taiz, on October 3, 2026. © Ahmad Al-Basha, AFP

The military sources added that the Houthis had also halted traffic on the main road linking Taiz to Aden, with fighting in the area ongoing.

The city itself remains under the control of government forces but has long been besieged from the north, east and west by Houthi fighters and remains one of the main fronts in Yemen's civil war.

"They've achieved the military objective of isolating Taiz from Aden, even if they haven't fully taken control of it," Farea Al-Muslimi, research fellow at the Chatham House think-tank, told AFP.
Saudi support

Elsewhere in Yemen, the Houthi's Al-Masirah TV channel reported Saudi strikes in the northern governorates of al-Jawf and Saada, saying at least two people had been wounded.

The strikes come a day after Yemen's government said its forces hit Houthi targets around the country, including in the capital Sanaa, the northwestern governorate of Saada and the group's positions near Taiz in the southwest.

The Yemeni government's air capabilities however remain limited.

Since a Saudi-led coalition intervened in 2015 in support of the government, it has primarily been Riyadh's forces that have carried out airstrikes against the Houthis.

Experts believe the recent operations have most likely been conducted by Saudi warplanes rather than the Yemeni air force.

Following several years of relative calm, Yemen's war reignited in July against the backdrop of the widening Middle East war.

The country is one of the poorest in the world and remains gripped by a vast humanitarian crisis.

Fighting intensified in September as the Houthis launched a lightning offensive that saw them seize Yemen's entire Red Sea coast, including the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a vital shipping lane.

The Houthis have in parallel launched a blockade on Saudi energy exports, already squeezed by Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Yemen's war erupted in 2014, when the Houthis seized the capital Sanaa from the Saudi-backed government, before going on to take control of swaths of the country's north.

Riyadh intervened in the war the following year as the head of the international coalition.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)



Tanker Reports Attack South of Bab el-Mandeb

UKMTO
Courtesy UKMTO

Published Oct 4, 2026 5:14 PM by The Maritime Executive


The Royal Navy's UK Maritime Trade Operations center (UKMTO) has reported an attempted attack on a tanker at a position south of Mokha, Yemen, the latest in a string of strikes widely attributed to Yemen's Houthi rebel group. The militia, which has been advancing rapidly into areas controlled by the internationally-recognized Republic of Yemen government, has not claimed responsibility for the attempted strike. 

At about 1650 hours UTC, the company security officer for a vessel operator informed UKMTO that a tanker's crew had spotted "multiple explosions in close proximity to the vessel." The crew is unharmed and there was no environmental impact, UKMTO said. An inquiry is under way. 

UKMTO advises vessels to proceed with caution near Bab el-Mandeb. Recent Houthi strikes have focused narrowly on Saudi-linked vessels, both in the group's rhetoric and in its actual attack patterns, but EOS Risk Group's Martin Kelly warns that Houthi target selection criteria have previously tended to expand when hostilities escalate.   

The attempted strike followed just hours after the Yemeni government publicly announced the launch of a major military operation targeting Houthi positions, with active support from Saudi forces. The Houthis have been making significant military gains against the IRG in recent weeks, seizing most of Yemen's Red Sea coastline and advancing on key government positions. They have also engaged in a series of effective attacks on Saudi Arabia, targeting Aramco's energy infrastructure with significant effects. Over the weekend, a Houthi drone and missile attack reportedly reached a refinery in Riyadh, 500 miles from the border; meanwhile, Saudi forces conducted airstrikes in the vicinity of Taiz, a Yemeni government stronghold that is in increasing danger of encirclement. Houthi fighters have reportedly cut the road between Taiz and the Yemeni seat of government in Aden. 

 The New York Times reports that Saudi advisors are on the ground in Yemen, assisting government troops with tactics and targeting. Two U.S. officials confirmed that a large cohort of U.S. military intelligence analysts are supporting the Saudi side of the effort with target identification and selection - though the Trump administration has reportedly declined to provide direct combat support for Saudi forces.   

Saturday, October 03, 2026

Will The Horn Of Africa Become The Latest Regional Battleground? – Analysis


By Gabriele Malvisi


Key Takeaways:

  • Ethiopia closed its Asmara embassy and gave 10 Eritrean diplomats 48 hours to leave, citing hostility; Eritrea called the move absurd and severed ties, ending the 2018 thaw that helped Abiy Ahmed win the 2019 Nobel.
  • The break followed explosions in Addis Ababa and fighting in the north with a TPLF-linked alliance; Ethiopia accuses Eritrea, Sudan, and Egypt of backing them (all deny it), while Sudan accuses Ethiopia of aiding the RSF. Analysts tie the split to sea access and Assab, not a proven Eritrean role in the latest clashes.
  • The piece links the rupture to GERD, Sudan’s war, and a strained Red Sea, and warns a wider Ethiopia–Eritrea fight could become another front from the Chad–Sudan border to Hormuz—risk, not a declared regional war.

Ethiopia on Thursday closed its embassy in the Eritrean capital, Asmara, and ordered 10 Eritrean diplomats to leave within 48 hours.

Addis Ababa accused Eritrea of “direct and indirect acts of hostility and belligerence” that pose “a direct threat to Ethiopia’s national security.”

Eritrea’s response was swift. Its foreign ministry called the move “absurd” and said that it “has no option but to reciprocate in kind and sever all diplomatic ties,” warning of “all the negative corollaries that this entails.”

The rupture ends a cold peace that had been fraying for some time. Addis Ababa frames it as a hostile campaign involving Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt. Those countries dismiss the accusations as baseless and tied to Ethiopia’s internal wars and its quest for sea access.

The standoff sits at the intersection of the Nile dispute, Sudan’s civil war and an increasingly contested Red Sea. Together they create the potential for a new front in the Horn of Africa, with implications for Arab states.

The break came hours after powerful explosions were heard overnight in Addis Ababa, including near military headquarters. It also followed a week of fighting in the north between the army and a new alliance of armed groups, which includes forces from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, or TPLF, and allies across Tigray, Afar and Amhara.

Ethiopian Army Chief Field Marshal Birhanu Jula has accused Eritrea, Sudan and Egypt of supporting these forces. All three deny involvement. Sudan, in turn, accuses Ethiopia of backing forces hostile to Khartoum, which Addis Ababa denies.

It is a dramatic reversal from 2018, when Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed restored relations with Eritrea after two decades of hostility. The border reopened and separated families were reunited, with the rapprochement helping Abiy to earn the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

The latest hostilities are the most serious since the Pretoria agreement ended the Tigray war in 2022, in which an estimated 600,000 people died.

There is so far no evidence of an Eritrean role in the latest fighting, though experts say that it is plausible. In a statement to the BBC before ties were severed, Eritrea’s Information Minister Yemane Gebremeskel denied involvement, accusing Ethiopia’s governing Prosperity Party of blaming neighbors to divert attention from its domestic problems.

The two countries were allies in the 2020-22 war, when Eritrean troops fought alongside federal forces against the TPLF. Relations have since deteriorated, chiefly over Ethiopia’s push for direct access to the Red Sea, which it lost when Eritrea became independent in 1993.

“The 2018 thaw rested on a shared adversary more than a shared agenda,” Lesley Anne Warner, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former US State Department official, told Arab News. “Abiy and Isaias (Afwerki, president of Eritrea) normalized relations while both viewed the TPLF as a threat, and that logic held through the 2020 war, when Eritrean forces fought alongside the federal army.

“It unraveled when Pretoria excluded Eritrea from a settlement it had helped fight for, and Asmara concluded that peace in Tigray left it exposed. Red Sea access then turned a strained partnership into a strategic dispute.”

Abiy has repeatedly called sea access essential to Ethiopia’s long-term economic and security interests. He has not ruled out force, including the seizure of the Eritrean port of Assab.

“The Tigrayan offensive into Afar underscores, for the second time in under a decade, why Abiy treats sea access as existential,” Warner said. “Ethiopia’s trade runs through a single corridor to Djibouti, and that corridor crosses territory that armed actors can contest.”

Abiy has described the loss of Ethiopia’s coastline as a historical “mistake” that will be corrected. Warner said that rhetoric is widely understood in Asmara and elsewhere as aimed at Assab.

“Each time it is threatened, the case for diversifying access gets stronger,” she said, explaining that “that logic is layered on a longer grievance given the country’s’ shared history.”

For Mirette Mabrouk, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, access is a major demand for Abiy. “He has said repeatedly they want to have a navy and build up their naval capacity, which is kind of strange for a landlocked country,” she told Arab News.

More than 90 percent of Ethiopia’s imports and exports pass through Djibouti’s ports, at a cost of billions of dollars a year. Hence, Mabrouk said, “Eritreans are worried that (Addis Ababa) is going to try and invade their territory again.”

The Red Sea handles roughly 15 percent of global maritime commerce and nearly 30 percent of container traffic. It is already under strain after the renewal of Yemen’s civil war and the Houthis’ advance around Bab Al-Mandab, the chokepoint between the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa. That has renewed fears that conflicts on the two shores could converge.

Ethiopia has also escalated with Egypt, declaring at least one Egyptian diplomat persona non grata on Thursday and giving him 48 hours to leave. Addis Ababa accuses Cairo of backing its opponents or obstructing its Red Sea bid, and portrays Egypt as a “strategic spoiler” bent on keeping Ethiopia landlocked, linking the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam — or GERD — dispute directly to Red Sea politics.

Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia have been locked in a water-diplomacy battle for more than a decade over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, a $5 billion project on the Blue Nile whose reservoir is roughly the size of Greater London. Ethiopia sees it as vital to its economic growth and energy sovereignty, while Egypt and Sudan view it as an existential threat to downstream flows and to Egypt’s annual Nile share of 55.5 billion cubic meters.

The dam was inaugurated in September 2025, yet the three countries still lack a binding agreement on filling and drought-release rules. Tensions rose further when Addis Ababa advanced plans for three more Blue Nile dams, Karadobi, Mandaya and Beko Abo, which Cairo says would threaten its survival if built without coordination.

Sudan’s leverage has waned during more than three years of civil war, and its army-led government under General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan now accuses Ethiopia of backing the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. It alleges that Addis Ababa facilitated weapons deliveries, hosted RSF training facilities and allowed strategic and kamikaze drones to be launched against Sudan.

Mabrouk was skeptical about the claims.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that Egypt is backing Ethiopian rebels,” she said. “I haven’t seen any proof that Sudan is either,” she added, citing a past Reuters investigation as the only suggestion that Addis Ababa had collaborated with the paramilitary force.

She stressed that these accusations were doing little more than “ratcheting up escalation.”

“This is how you get an escalation,” she said. “You have someone in authority coming out and mak(ing) a claim that is difficult to prove. But at the moment, one imagines that the point is not proof. The point is to provide an excuse for further escalation.”

Analysts see the flashpoints as distinct and the Tigray clashes as primarily a domestic conflict, but the number of external actors involved gives them a foreign-policy dimension.

“The longer clashes in northern Ethiopia persist, the more likely it is that we’ll see an escalating proxy contest layered over the domestic conflict,” Warner said. “Most concerning is the fact that the alignments that have fueled Sudan’s war for over three years will also shape, and perhaps join with this one,” she said.

For now the situation remains contained, but the risk is that an Ethiopia-Eritrea war would quickly intersect with the region’s other crises.

Mabrouk’s fear is that it would draw in regional actors with competing interests. “It is not simply the Horn. We now have a fairly entangled group of proxy rivalries here,” she said. “If it draws into conflict, then the situation is extremely serious.”

She also questioned Ethiopia’s timing.

“If you are going to come up against a country on your borders, Sudan, and when you already have issues with another country on your borders, Eritrea, and you are going to try and aggravate the largest military in the Middle East, that is Egypt, then you must feel that you have the appropriate backing.”

The risk, both agreed, is that the conflict could spread and further destabilize the Red Sea, complicating security around Bab Al-Mandab and the Suez Canal, disrupting shipping and driving large-scale displacement.

“Unless that dynamic is arrested,” Warner said, “the Horn will become a southern front in a Red Sea competition that runs from the Chad-Sudan border to the Strait of Hormuz.”

Sunday, September 27, 2026

 

Somali Forces Free Third Ship Seized by Pirates

Somali pirates surrender
Forces in Puntland said the pirates were arrested while media reports indicates several people were killed (file photo)

Published Sep 25, 2026 1:45 PM by The Maritime Executive



Authorities in the Puntland region of Somalia are reporting that they freed another vessel being held by pirates. Somali pirates took control of six vessels between April and August this year, with three still believed to be under the control of pirates.

The Puntland Navy and Puntland Maritime Police Force only said that the product tanker Sibu 1 had been freed and the pirates were arrested. They reported it was a planned 48-hour operation, and they were continuing to follow up.

The local news outlet, the Daily Somalia, however, reports it was a violent clash between the Somali forces and the pirates. The unconfirmed story says the fight took place off the coast of Mudug and that three people were dead and several others injured. It did not specify whether it was all pirates or some of the crew from the ship. 

The Sibu 1 was transporting oil products when it was boarded on August 20 off the coast of Yemen, approximately 136 nautical miles east of Al Mukalla. UK Maritime Trade Operations was informed that six individuals had boarded the ship and directed it to the coast of Somalia. The crew appeared to hastily transmit a final message on AIS reading “PRIRATE ONBOARD HEL,” [sic] as the ship was being seized. The ship was reported to have a crew of 20, including 16 Indian nationals and four Arab crewmembers.

The 32,238 dwt product tanker, which was built in 2001 and also operating under the name Seamul, had a murky past and was sanctioned by the United States in December 2025 in an effort targeting an Egyptian businessman. OFAC asserted his companies were associated with multiple shadow fleet vessels, as well as several shipping companies, used to transport Iranian oil products. The Seamul was transferred to UAE management and also started using the name Sibu 1. It was claiming registry in Eritrea, which is considered false.

The rescue of the tanker followed the release of the small cargo ship Sward on September 11 after 138 days in captivity. The 8,500 dwt cargo ship, which is registered in St. Kitts and Nevis, was carrying a cargo of fertilizer bound for Mombasa, Kenya, when it was boarded on April 26. It had a crew of 17, made up of 15 Syrians and two Indians. Reports said an undisclosed amount of ransom had been paid.

Turkish commandos working with the Somali forces also freed another cargo ship, Lufut (1,400 dwt), at the end of August. The ship, which was operating under the flag of Cameroon, was carrying Turkish military equipment for a base in Africa when it was seized. Reports said it was a violent confrontation, and between four and six pirates were killed.

The last reported incident in the region near the Horn of Africa came on September 10 when pirates boarded the Glamor southwest of Yemen. The crew was able to secure itself, and EU forces conducted a show of force, which was believed to scare the pirates into disembarking the vessel.

The Maritime Security Center Indian Ocean (MSCIO), however, reports it is still tracking three other vessels whose crews were hijacked and remain off the coast of Somalia. They include the Honour 25, Eureka, and Asana, and while there have been reports of diplomatic efforts and possible negotiations, the crews remain in the custody of the pirates.

Saturday, September 26, 2026

France to send military to protect Saudi Arabia on Red Sea oil route

France will send troops and defence systems to Saudi Arabia to help protect the Red Sea port city of Yanbu, which is key for energy transport, French President Emmanuel Macron has said in a TV interview. He also denied a report by Spanish newspaper El Mundo that the US Central Intelligence Agency had warned European governments of possible Russian drone attacks from the Mediterranean.


Issued on: 25/09/2026 - RFI

"The situation is serious", President Emmanuel Macron said in an live interview on Thursday on the international situation. © LUDOVIC MARIN / AFP

"We are going to send military resources, that is to say, soldiers, radar systems and defence systems, to protect this site – not to get us involved in any conflicts, but to protect this site," Macron told TF1 and France 2 on Thursday in a wide-ranging primetime interview on the international situation.

Crude oil prices have surged recently as the main alternative route for Saudi oil exports through Yanbu has come under missile attacks from Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis.

Facing growing pressure at home over high fuel prices, Macron sought to reassure the French people that France has adequate gas and oil supplies as winter approaches.

He said Paris was actively working to ensure flows were not disrupted.


On the subject of a 90-day US ban on diesel exports, under consideration by the White House but which Washington denies, the president said it would be "catastrophic" both globally and for the US economy.

“I think all the experts around [President Donald Trump] and all the American refiners can only tell him the same thing: 'this decision would be a bad one – not just for the rest of the world, but for the US economy as well'," he said

No CIA warning


President Macron also talked about possible Russian attacks on French soil.

He denied a report in Spanish newspaper El Mundo that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had warned European governments about the threat of potential drone attacks from the Mediterranean.

"I can deny it. The CIA did not inform French services," he said.

Macron nonetheless said Russia is multiplying its hostile and criminal acts against European countries, and France could face strikes similar to the failed attack in Leipzig airport in August, which Germany has blamed on Russia.


Growing Russian threat

Macron gathered French party chiefs at the Elysée last week to brief them on the growing threat from Russia. He later said he had ordered his government to draw up a plan to protect critical infrastructure against drone and cyber attacks.

Macron said Moscow was seeking to intimidate Europe and break the continent's resolve in supporting Ukraine.

On Monday , rance's interior minister said the hybrid warfare threat being waged by Russia is "real and documented".

Russia says European allegations of hybrid attacks are baseless and the result of anti-Russian hysteria.

Macron's position on Russia was weakened this week after France persuaded EU members to get Russian-Uzbek metals tycoon Alisher Usmanov exempted from EU sanctions, citing national security concerns.

That prompted Azerbaijan to pardon a French national jailed for espionage.


What Washington’s Defense Pledge To Saudi Arabia Means As Houthi Attacks Intensify – Analysis

SWEET FUCK ALL!


September 25, 2026
Arab News
By Gabriele Malvisi

Key Takeaways:

Gulf Research Center chair Abdulaziz Sager tells Arab News that Rubio’s Wednesday pledge to honor the Nov. 2025 U.S.–Saudi Strategic Defense Agreement will be judged on kit, operational know-how, and intel—not an automatic U.S. fight on Riyadh’s behalf.

 Coalition spokesman Maj. Gen. Turki Al-Maliki: six ballistic missiles toward Taif and Yanbu intercepted Thursday; Houthis claimed strikes on Jazan sites without evidence.

Sager wants planning help, timely imagery, and treating Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb as one problem. Chatham House’s Neil Quilliam calls Rubio’s line a “sop”: reassurance without promising intervention if the waterways worsen. Tests he names: a major strike on energy/civilians, or a lasting Red Sea shipping campaign. 


CENTCOM’s Adm. Cooper (May): 6,000+ drones and 1,500+ ballistic missiles intercepted since the Feb. 28 war began; an Arab News tally had GCC states taking 83% of early Iranian missiles/drones vs. 17% at Israel.

Sept. 8–19: reported hits and intercepts from energy sites to Riyadh; East–West pipeline shut Sept. 11 (Saudi blame on Iraqi militias), restart reported this week. July civilian nuclear cooperation deal is background. Quilliam: “America First” and Gulf self-help.

From the perspective of Saudi Arabia, the value of Washington’s renewed defense assurances will lie in the support they deliver as Houthi attacks intensify, according to Abdulaziz Sager, founder and chairperson of the Gulf Research Center.

“For Riyadh, that support rests on three areas: military equipment, operational expertise and intelligence,” he told Arab News.

A partnership intended to strengthen deterrence is now being tested by attacks on Saudi territory and threats to the waterways on which regional trade depends. The immediate question, Sager said, was how Washington would put its commitments into practice.

On Thursday, the Coalition to Support Legitimacy in Yemen said Saudi air defenses had intercepted six ballistic missiles fired by the Houthis toward Taif and Yanbu. Damage or casualties were not immediately clear, Reuters reported.

“Escalations and violations by the terrorist Houthi militia will be dealt with firmly,” the coalition’s spokesperson, Maj. Gen. Turki Al-Maliki, said.

The Houthis separately claimed, without providing evidence, that they had used missiles and drones to attack military sites in Jazan.

The latest developments followed an assurance from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday that Washington would honor its defense commitments to Saudi Arabia, and was closely monitoring the regional situation.


“We have a very strong defense agreement with Saudi Arabia, and we will live up to our commitments in that agreement,” Rubio said when asked whether President Donald Trump was prepared to take further action against the Houthis.

Rubio declined to specify what further military action Trump might take, while reiterating Washington’s commitments to Riyadh.

“The US has made commitments to them. We will live up to those commitments. We are living up to those commitments now,” he said, adding that Trump had “many options available” without specifying what they might be.

The distinction between practical defense assistance and direct US intervention is central to understanding that pledge, Sager said.

“Rubio’s remarks should be understood as a commitment to continue the defense support Saudi Arabia expects from the US, rather than a promise that American forces would fight on its behalf,” he explained.

The US-Saudi Strategic Defense Agreement, signed in November 2025, built on more than eight decades of defense cooperation. The White House described its aims as a strengthening of the partnership, and reinforced deterrence across the Middle East.

According to Sager, the immediate question was not whether Washington would honor the agreement, but how it would do so, particularly in terms of strengthening readiness and coordinating defense capabilities.

“Saudi Arabia would expect assistance with planning and identifying threats, alongside timely intelligence and satellite imagery to help it defend its territory and critical infrastructure,” he said.


“Rubio’s words offer reassurance on those practical forms of cooperation, but they leave open the question of whether Washington would take a direct military role if the crises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea escalate.”

Neil Quilliam, an associate fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, offered a slightly different reading of the scope of Washington’s assurances.

“Rubio’s remarks were essentially a sop to Riyadh, offering reassurance without removing the ambiguity that surrounds US support for Saudi Arabia,” he told Arab News.

“He reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the 2025 defense agreement, but avoided any promise of automatic military intervention should the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea crises intensify.”

Those questions have become more pressing as the war with Iran increasingly places Gulf states under sustained security and economic pressure, despite their efforts to contain the conflict through diplomacy.

The scale of the pressure was apparent even early in the war. An Arab News analysis published on March 26 found that Gulf Cooperation Council member states had faced 83 percent of the Iranian missile and drone attacks tallied since the conflict began on Feb. 28, compared with 17 percent directed at Israel.

The defensive response has also been substantial. Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, told Congress in May that regional missile defenses had intercepted more than 6,000 attack drones and more than 1,500 ballistic missiles targeting US and partner forces, according to reporting on a subsequent Pentagon inspector general’s review.

Houthi attacks have intensified over the past month, targeting Saudi cities and energy infrastructure. On Sept. 8, a wave of strikes wounded 73 people and caused fires that halted operations at some energy facilities, Saudi authorities said.

The following day, the Coalition to Support Legitimacy in Yemen reported further ballistic missile and drone attacks on Abha, Khamis Mushayt and Jazan.

By Sept. 19, the escalation had reached Riyadh, with the coalition reporting it intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at the capital, and thwarted attacks on Yanbu, Taif, Baish and Farasan.

The expanding geographic reach of the attacks underscored the challenge of protecting population centers and critical infrastructure while also safeguarding the Kingdom’s Red Sea export route.

The pressure on energy infrastructure has come from more than one direction; Saudi Arabia attributed a drone attack that forced its East-West Pipeline to close on Sept. 11 to Iraqi militias. Reuters reported on Tuesday that pipeline operations had restarted, citing sources briefed on the matter.

The pipeline provides an alternative delivery route to the Red Sea for Saudi crude when passage through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted. Protection of that route therefore requires security for both the infrastructure that carries the oil and the shipping lanes used to export it.


Rubio did not directly address media reports of requests to Trump for US intervention, but described attacks on regional energy infrastructure as “very disturbing.” His remarks came as a Houthi military adviser told news agency Agence France-Presse that the group would target US interests in the region if Washington intervened in the conflict in Yemen.

Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and the escalation in the Red Sea have underscored how closely interconnected are the Gulf’s territorial security and economic interests. Attacks on energy facilities or shipping can affect regional revenues, international supply chains and global markets.

Sager said a key test of the US-Saudi defense agreement would be whether Washington treated Hormuz and Bab Al-Mandab as parts of the same security challenge.

“If Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia or shipping near Bab Al-Mandab intensify while Washington remains focused primarily on Hormuz, Rubio’s pledge will come under scrutiny,” he said.

Quilliam said there were several scenarios that could test the US commitment.

“The most immediate test would be a major Iranian or Houthi strike that causes substantial damage to energy infrastructure or results in significant civilian casualties,” he said.

“A second scenario would be a sustained campaign against shipping in the Red Sea that disrupts Saudi exports and impacts global energy markets.”

He suggested that Washington might act before either scenario fully materialized, although Rubio had announced no such decision.

“The US appears to be preparing for another round of escalation against Iran and may use that opportunity to intensify military operations against the Houthis,” Quilliam said.

“Rubio’s remarks may therefore have been intended to reassure Riyadh ahead of a possible expansion of US military activity in the region.”

The security debate is unfolding alongside broader bilateral collaboration. In July, Washington and Riyadh signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement, providing a legal foundation for US participation in Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear energy program.

That expanding relationship provides context for Rubio’s assurances, but does not in itself define at what point Washington would commit forces to another military campaign. Quilliam said any such decision would be shaped by the administration’s approach.

“We should bear in mind that the Trump administration is focused on ‘America First’ and it will only intervene if to do so serves that interest,” he added.


According to Quilliam, Gulf “decision-makers have learned over the past decade — and even more so during the current Trump administration — that US policy is now unpredictable and poorly served by an overarching strategy, and so must plan for all eventualities and take regional security into its own hands and share the burden with regional partners.”

Sager said the most immediate measure of the partnership remains the practical support available to Saudi Arabia across the connected threats it faces.

“Riyadh would expect its defense partner to recognize the links between the threats and provide timely intelligence, equipment and operational support where they are needed,” he added.

“Protecting navigation in the Gulf while leaving the Red Sea exposed would address only part of the security challenge.”

The test, then, is how assurances from Washington translate into the capabilities Sager identified — and whether those capabilities help protect Saudi territory, critical infrastructure and access to both waterways.

America’s Arsenal: While Supplies Last

American imperial overstretch is coming home to roost in Saudi Arabia.

by | Sep 25, 2026

Smoke rose over Riyadh last week as Houthi forces launched strikes on the Saudi capital, as well as on crucial oil infrastructure in major coastal cities.

It has been a disastrous month for Saudi Arabia as Houthi forces have made substantial gains along the west coast of Yemen. The Yemeni group scored massive victories in early September, capturing the port city of Mocha along with other key islands in the Red Sea. This will allow the Houthis to more effectively restrict Saudi transit through the Bab Al-Mandeb strait, dealing a severe blow to the already battered global oil market.

The problems for Saudi Arabia don’t come solely from their south, however. Militia groups in Iraq have gotten involved, and they’ve begun launching missiles from Saudi Arabia’s north. Targets have included crucial oil infrastructure, most notably the East-West Pipeline – a crucial means of getting oil trapped in the Persian Gulf across the country to the Red Sea.

Saudi Arabia is in a moment of serious peril. Pinched between militias from Yemen in the south and Iraq in the north, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has sought the assistance of President Donald Trump. MBS called Trump two times on September 10 urging him to take military action against the Houthis, a request Trump has refused thus far.

Mohammed bin Salman’s plea for help highlights a broader dynamic in his relationship with the U.S., one which places Saudi Arabia in the position of relying heavily on America for their military. This is not only true offensively for Saudi, but also defensively. Their ability to shoot down incoming missile fire is reliant on American-made defensive systems, such as Patriot interceptors. Their supply of these systems has been dramatically reduced in recent months due to the conflict in Iran.

With America being similarly low on crucial defensive systems, which are needed to protect U.S. bases, Saudi Arabia is now left unable to effectively defend key oil and military sites. Iran – which is aligned with the Yemeni and Iraqi militias in a coalition known as the Axis of Resistance – is able to watch as economic pressure builds on Saudi Arabia, and by extension the United States.

Conventional strategic thinking is being thrown into question due to this war. America’s military bases in the region have been a burden rather than an asset. They’ve served as easy targets for Iran to strike, helping them climb the escalation ladder at their own pace. The Gulf Arab nations – who were under the impression that these bases would deter Iranian attacks on their soil – are now reconsidering their close ties to the United States. The decision by these nations to become reliant on America for their defense is also being questioned. They’ve been battered by Iranian missiles and drones all throughout the conflict, and have been left largely defenseless due to the shortage of American-made interceptor systems.

America has served as the world’s arms salesman for decades. Our government has built up a long list of clients who rely on our country for their defense, as Patrick Buchanan pointed out in his book A Republic, Not an Empire. After going down a list of the many foreign entanglements Washington has roped us into, Buchanan pointed out that we have become, in effect, a global empire.

“Nothing can destroy this country except the overextension of our resources, Republican Senator Robert A. Taft once said. Indeed, it would be an understatement to describe the commitments above as an overextension of our resources. In their totality, they make the nineteenth-century British Empire look isolationist; truly, this is imperial overstretch.”

“Our situation is unsustainable. The steady expansion of global commitments, as relative national power declines, is a prescription for endless wars and eventual disaster.”

Buchanan’s decades-old assessment has been proven correct.

What has been made apparent by the shortage of defensive weapons is that we cannot maintain this posture of perpetually arming nations across the globe. Not only are we being tasked with ensuring the defense of nations in the Middle East amid the Iran war, but we also must protect our own troops – stationed at U.S. military bases – from incoming fire.

Of course, we must also supply Israel with the defensive systems necessary to strike at Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and elsewhere while enjoying protection guaranteed by the United States.

Escalation also continues in eastern Europe, as Ukraine’s provocative strikes on Moscow will undoubtedly lead to a Russian response. America will once again feel obligated to ensure Kyiv’s defense, not only by supplying them with weapons, but also intelligence assistance. In the Pacific, American weapons stationed in South Korea and Japan were relocated at the beginning of the Iran war due to the lack of defensive systems in the Middle East, further proving that American attempts to police the entire world are futile. The U.S. does not possess infinite resources.

American troops at bases across the Middle East have tragically been killed by Iranian strikes, as the military is forced to ration the remaining stockpile of defensive weapons. Just days into the war, America’s client-states in the Gulf were said to have depleted years worth of munitions. In the months of conflict that followed these dire reports, the effects of what Buchanan called “imperial overstretch” were being felt. Bases faced an onslaught of Iranian missiles and drones. Damage was so severe that many will likely not be returned to by the U.S. military. A chaotic withdrawal, of sorts.

The American regional order in the Middle East is collapsing in real time. In this period of chaos, there is the option to change course. Our leaders could realize the errors of their ways and bring the troops home.

This is not what Washington is known for, however.

My fear is that rather than acknowledge the failures of imperialism and chart a new path of restraint, the War Party will dig its heels in. The tendency of those at the helm of all failed government programs – especially war – is to blame every factor but themselves for the disaster. We often hear “if only we stayed longer,” or “we just needed more funds.” Many war hawks are more appalled at the act of leaving a war than they are at the decision to launch one unnecessarily. Take the neoconservative’s response to Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal or Trump’s attempts to leave Syria, for example.

If every crisis is met with another new foreign commitment, this cycle of imperial overstretch will never end. Eventually, something has to give. We can only hope that somebody in power can recognize that the empire is decaying, accept this reality, and guide us back to a sane foreign policy with grace.

It would be delusional and reckless of me, however, to tell you that I am hopeful. Our leaders possess no such humility.

Nolan Denaro is a political analyst, writer, and host of “The Quest For Clarity” podcast, available on YouTube and Spotify. He is a columnist at Antiwar.com, and his work has been published by Responsible Statecraft, the Libertarian Institute, The Daily Caller, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He writes on U.S. foreign policy, economics, and current events, with a particular focus on war and imperialism. He maintains a personal Substack blog, and you can follow him on X @nolandenaro. Nolan can be reached for correspondence at nolansdenaro@icloud.com.