The Bani Saud clan appears hell-bent on breaking the spirit of resistance of the Yemeni people. But will they succeed or lose their kingdom in the process?
In the wake of Aleppo’s liberation from the clutches of the takfiri terrorists in Syria, and Iraq’s advances against the Black Flag Army in Mosul, the terrorists’ patrons are likely to regroup elsewhere to secure at least some breathing space, if not their retreat.
With less and less territories to call its own, Wahhabism is in need of a safe haven somewhere outside the Arabian Peninsula, to still act as a weapon of mass-destabilization in the Muslim East (aka the Middle East). It is unlikely that Wahhabist Saudi Arabia will accept that its colonial agenda has failed before the determination of resistance fighters in both Syria and Iraq. One can, therefore, assume that Yemen will bear much of the Kingdom’s wrath moving forward.
If Britain’s recent zeal to provide Riyadh with an unlimited quantity of weapons and military expertise is anything to go by, Yemen could soon find itself in the throes of a furious fight to the death — unless of course fear of exposure will act as a deterrent. Looking at terror’s trajectory, and the disturbing truths that have emerged regarding the Western regimes’ role in aiding and abetting terror, Yemen could be the place where Wahhabism would meet its ignominious end. And though such demise will come as welcome respite, one cannot help but fear for Yemen, and those sacrifices a people will be called upon to make to defend their future.
Reduced to a bleeding scar on southern Arabia, Yemen has suffered as much misrepresentation as Syria has had to endure. The difference is that it is the rebels, its very own Resistance Movement that has been depicted as the evil to be brought down. In Syria’s case, the so-called rebels — terror’s stooges — were offered immunity on account of the call to topple the government in Damascus that has echoed the demands emanating from Western capitals. But what of the activists’ recent calls to halt all arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the sake of Yemen’s survival? Could it be that 21 months into this brutal war of attrition, the world public has grown tired of Yemen’s agony?
As Western capitals are slowly sinking in the stench of their own lies and propaganda, could it be that Yemen will finally be offered the courtesy of its truth? One can only hope that the oppressed will be vindicated, even if out of an imperious need to deny culpability. With Saudi Arabia losing ground to the broader regional Resistance Movement, old alliances could still disappear under the setting sun of Wahhabism, especially when exposed for the abomination they are.
Abandoned to Saudi Arabia’s military deluge, Yemen has witnessed many grave war crimes against its people. In between Riyadh’s hysterical bombing of civilians to the use of illegal weapons of war: cluster bombs and chemical agents, many questions will soon beg answers.
It is probably to anticipate such developments that some Western capitals have raised “concerns” over allegations that Riyadh has visited massive war crimes against its appointed enemy: Yemen. In mid-December Washington announced it would halt all weapon sales to Saudi Arabia.
Quoting a US official, Reuters, the British news agency, first reported that “systemic, endemic” problems in Saudi Arabia’s targeting drove the US decision, which officials acknowledged on December 13, to halt future weapons sales involving precision-guided munitions made by Raytheon. “We’ve decided not to move forward with some foreign military sales cases for air-dropped munitions, PGMs (precision-guided munitions),” the unnamed US official told Reuters. “That’s obviously a direct reflection of the concerns that we have about Saudi strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties.”
Since taking office in January 2009, President Barack Obama’s regime has offered more than $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals, more than any US administration in the 71-year history of US-Saudi relations, according to a report by the Center for International Policy. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics are the biggest beneficiaries of these deals. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the Obama regime has “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” in the conflict in Yemen.
Britain did not share Washington’s moral unease for whatever its worth. Nor incidentally did Canada where antiwar activist and law professor Daniel Turp has taken the Liberal Government to court. He is challenging the $15 billion (Canadian) contract to halt the export of armoured vehicles arguing that the Saudi regime could use these to violate human rights, including in its war on Yemen. While the Canadian arms contract was signed by the now ousted Conservative right-wing regime of Stephen Harper, the Liberal Government headed by Justin Trudeau endorsed it in April 2016.
Government lawyers made the incredible claim in court that the arms deal was aimed at helping Saudi Arabia as Ottawa’s “key military ally who backs efforts of the international community… in Iraq and Syria and the instability in Yemen.” Bani Saud have unleashed terrorists and convicted criminals in Syria and Iraq and the Bedouins from Najd have killed thousands of innocent people in Yemen, among them a large number of children. “To give arms to a country that uses them to violate human rights is to contribute to that violation,” Andre Lesperance, a former federal lawyer representing Turp, told a federal court in Montreal. Lesperance described the arms deal as being “beyond willful blindness.”
In Britain, meanwhile, Prime Minister Theresa May, keen to defend her country’s bottom line was quick to voice her unflagging military support of Riyadh. Saudi Arabia is by far the largest buyer of arms from the UK, which in turn is the largest military supplier in the world to the Saudis, selling equipment including night vision goggles, fighter jets, bomb components, machine guns, and tear gas.
On December 14, the SNP’s Westminster group leader Angus Robertson asked at Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, “Civilians have suffered grievously [in Yemen] with the [Saudi] bombing of hospitals, of schools, of markets. The UN believes 60% of civilian casualties are caused by air strikes. In the last 24 hours the United States has stopped the supply of precision guided munitions to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen. When will the UK follow suit?”
Instead of acknowledging a wrongheaded policy that has caused grievous harm to civilians in Yemen, Ms. May tried to justify British policy. “As I’ve said previously, where there have been allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law then we require things to be properly investigated.” But the UN has already said, as Robertson pointed out, that 60% of civilian casualties in Yemen are caused by Saudi air strikes so where is the proper investigation?
If Britain has cloaked itself in deniability, hiding behind its “stringent” rules and regulations, Riyadh’s own admission of using British-made cluster bombs against Yemen has made things a bit more problematic. On December 19, Saudi Arabia confirmed it carried out unlawful attacks on Yemen. Ahmed Asiri, a spokesman for the Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen, said, “It has become apparent that there was limited use by the coalition of the UK-manufactured BL755 cluster munition in Yemen.”
The admission came in advance of a statement by Britain’s defence secretary, Michael Fallon, admitting that UK-supplied cluster bombs had been used by Saudi Arabian-led forces. Fallon told the House of Commons that a “limited number” of BL755 cluster munitions exported from the UK in the 1980s had been dropped by the Arabian coalition against Yemen.
While it would be simplistic to assume that London will reform its position vis-a-vis the criminal Saudi regime, especially when billions of dollars are to be made in sales and profits, such public admissions of guilt and despicable wrongdoings will act as a wake up call for those communities enamoured with the mainstream media narrative.