Yemen Escalates 12-Year War with Massive Aramco Strikes and Reciprocal Siege on Saudi Arabia, Threatening Global Economy

Yemen Escalates 12-Year War with Massive Aramco Strikes and Reciprocal Siege on Saudi Arabia, Threatening Global Economy

    Saturday, July 25, 2026   No comments

 “A Blockade for a Blockade”

After twelve years of relentless conflict, the war in Yemen has crossed a critical threshold, transforming from a protracted regional siege into an imminent international economic crisis. In a landmark strategic shift, the Sanaa-based government announced a comprehensive reciprocal siege on Saudi ports and airports, vowing to maintain the blockade until the Saudi-led embargo on Yemen is completely lifted.

The dramatic escalation follows a series of devastating, coordinated military strikes targeting sensitive Saudi Aramco facilities. Analysts and global market watchers warn that the sustained targeting of the Kingdom’s oil and gas infrastructure will severely cripple the Saudi economy—a system heavily built on resource extraction—and deepen the existing global energy crisis, sending shockwaves through international supply chains and driving energy prices to unprecedented heights.

The military offensive was announced in a sweeping statement by Major General Yahya Saree, Spokesman for the Yemeni Armed Forces, who detailed the retaliation against recent Saudi airstrikes and outlined a new doctrine of mutual attrition.

Retaliation for Hodeidah and Kamaran Island

The escalation was triggered by a series of Saudi airstrikes targeting the Yemeni city and port of Hodeidah, as well as Kamaran Island. According to the Sanaa government, these strikes resulted in significant material and infrastructural damage, prompting immediate engagement by Yemeni air defenses.

In a direct and forceful response, the Yemeni Armed Forces launched what they described as "two qualitative military operations" deep into Saudi territory.

Detailing the strikes in his official statement, Spokesman Yahya Saree said:

"In its continued siege of the Yemeni people and in yet another violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of Yemen, the Saudi enemy regime launched a series of unjust and criminal airstrikes last night on the city and port of Hodeidah and Kamaran Island.

These airstrikes resulted in material and incorporeal damage, and air defenses engaged with a formation of enemy aircraft after they violated Yemeni airspace, preventing them from committing further crimes against this great nation.

In response to this blatant and criminal aggression, the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out two qualitative military operations.

The first targeted sensitive Aramco-affiliated facilities in Jizan with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones.

And the second operation targeted sensitive Aramco-affiliated facilities in Yanbu with a number of ballistic and cruise missiles and drones.

Both operations successfully achieved their objectives, thanks to God Almighty, with accurate and direct strikes.

This escalation of aggression confirms the Saudi enemy's determination to continue its siege of our people and its violation of our country's sovereignty. This is unacceptable, and our free, faithful, and valiant people will confront it with unwavering resolve and strength.

We in the Yemeni Armed Forces, relying on Allah, are committed to fulfilling our duty of honorable and responsible defense of our beloved country and our noble people—the people of faith and wisdom, the people of Islam and Arabism.

This criminal enemy will find nothing from us but resistance and confrontation from our righteous position, while it stands on the side of falsehood. Indeed, falsehood is ever bound to perish.

We affirm that the naval blockade imposed on the Saudi enemy remains in effect, in response to its aggression and its unjust blockade that has persisted for twelve years. We will not hesitate to expand our operations and escalate our actions based on developments in the coming hours and days, within the equation of a blockade for a blockade and an escalation for an escalation."

Trump’s Push for Syria to Confront Hezbollah: A Recipe for Regional Chaos

Trump’s Push for Syria to Confront Hezbollah: A Recipe for Regional Chaos

    Friday, July 17, 2026   No comments

In a move that has sent shockwaves through an already fragile Middle East, U.S. President Donald Trump has reportedly been pressing the new Syrian leadership to take military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. According to recent reports, Trump has suggested that the Islamist-led insurgents, led by a former al-qaeda leader, who overthrew Bashar al-Assad a year and a half ago are better positioned to root out the Iran-backed militant group than the Israeli army. While the White House may view this as a convenient offloading of regional burdens, the reality is starkly different: greenlighting Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa (formerly known as Julani) to “take care of” Hezbollah will create a vastly larger and more intractable problem for the region than it could ever solve.

The Iraqi Warning: A Line in the Sand

The profound dangers of this proposal have not gone unnoticed in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has recently issued a stark “advice” to Sharaa, explicitly warning Damascus against any involvement in the Lebanese file. According to regional sources, the Iraqi message carried a clear caveat: any Syrian encroachment into Lebanon will have direct, severe repercussions on Syria itself. Baghdad made it unequivocally clear that if Lebanese Shias or Hezbollah face any danger originating from Syrian territory, Iraqi resistance factions will not stand idly by. “Every Syrian step toward Lebanon may be followed by an Iraqi step toward Syria,” the warning read.

This is not an empty threat. It is rooted in recent, painful history. Syria is currently ruled by unelected rebel factions that have a documented track record of threatening and killing Iraqis. It was not so long ago that it took the massive, desperate mobilization of Iraqi volunteer forces—the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces)—to counter the very same Islamist ideologies that now hold power in Damascus. Crucially, this mobilization was authorized by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other prominent religious leaders to defend Iraq and protect Shia communities from existential threats. The memory of that defense remains vivid and potent.

The Disarmament Paradox

If the United States and Israel genuinely desire the disarmament of Hezbollah and the Iraqi Hashd forces, suggesting that a Syrian regime composed of former rebels will intervene in Lebanon to crush Shias is profoundly counterproductive. Rather than coercing these groups into laying down their arms, such a scenario validates their core narrative: that they are under imminent threat of annihilation.

For Hezbollah, a Syrian-led offensive would be framed as an existential war, guaranteeing fierce resistance. For the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq, the logic is equally clear. Faced with the prospect of Syrian rebels attacking Shias in Lebanon, Iraqi paramilitary forces will now insist, with heightened public and religious backing, that they must remain fully armed, mobilized, and ready to defend their brethren across the border. Any Western or Israeli hope of demobilizing these forces will instantly evaporate, replaced by a hardened resolve for self-defense.

Unleashing Internal Fragility in Iraq

The ripple effects of this destabilizing rhetoric extend far beyond the Hashd. Trump’s proposal inadvertently sheds harsh light on the fragile monopoly on force held by the central Iraqi government. If the state cannot guarantee the security of Shia communities regionally, it emboldens other armed groups operating outside Baghdad’s command.

This includes the Peshmerga and various other Kurdish armed factions. Whether these groups are anti-Turkey or anti-Iran, their entrenched bases in Iraq represent a complex web of localized power. A regional escalation triggered by Syrian intervention in Lebanon would provide these groups with both the pretext and the opportunity to expand their own military postures, further fracturing Iraq’s internal security and complicating any efforts at national cohesion.

A Pattern of Impulsive Diplomacy

Trump’s claim that he will greenlight Sharaa to handle Hezbollah fits a troubling trend in his on-the-spot, ill-conceived decision-making. Historically, such impulsive geopolitical gambits have generated cascading problems that their architects are utterly unequipped to solve. Treating the Middle East as a chessboard where rebel factions can be casually redirected to fight proxy wars ignores the deep-seated sectarian, historical, and political realities of the region.

Even Syrian interim president Sharaa has reportedly pushed back against this idea, telling Iraqi officials that he refused the U.S. request and that Damascus is not interested in reopening old fronts or returning to past policies of regional intervention. His priority, he stressed, is internal stability. Still, the mere amplification of this idea by the U.S. president is enough to destabilize the delicate balance of power.

A Region Governed by Weakness and Trauma

The Iraqi government’s stern warning to Syrian rulers serves as a microcosm of how extraordinarily complex the Middle East has become. It is a region now characterized by weak central regimes and territories ruled by former rebels, all navigating a post-Gaza war landscape that has displayed a total disregard for human dignity and international law. The trauma of recent conflicts has left communities hyper-vigilant and deeply distrustful of external meddling.

True regional stability cannot be achieved by pitting one fragile, rebel-led state against another, nor by encouraging sectarian proxy wars. If the international community wishes to see the disarmament of militias and the stabilization of the Levant, it must pursue inclusive diplomacy, strengthen legitimate state institutions, and cease floating dangerous, half-baked military alternatives. Otherwise, Trump’s latest suggestion will not be a solution, but the spark that ignites the next, even more devastating, regional conflagration.

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

    Monday, August 25, 2025   No comments

The United States’ position in Lebanon suffers from a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, Washington insists that all weapons in Lebanon must be under the control of a strong central government. On the other hand, in neighboring Syria, the U.S. promotes a weak federal system that allows minorities—such as the Druze in the south and the Kurds in the north—to maintain their own weapons and autonomous security structures.

Logically, if the principle is that all arms should be monopolized by the state, then that principle must apply everywhere. By carving out exceptions in Syria under the pretext of “protecting minorities” and “preserving diversity,” the U.S. sets a precedent that can just as easily apply to Lebanon—a country already deeply divided along ethnic, religious, and sectarian fault lines. Lebanon fought a devastating 15-year civil war and still struggles to forge a national identity that transcends its sectarian divisions.

The deeper problem is that neither Syria nor Lebanon currently has a government that can claim full legitimacy. In Syria, today’s de facto rulers are not the product of popular mandate; they are rulers by force of war, caretakers until a fair election and an inclusive system produce a legitimate government. Lebanon, likewise, is governed not by leaders with genuine popular legitimacy but by a fragile power-sharing arrangement codified in the Ta’if Agreement. This deal distributed power along sectarian lines—giving the presidency to Christians, the prime minister’s office to Sunnis, and the speakership of parliament to Shia. It is, in effect, a three-headed system where no faction can claim full authority. Lebanon has even gone years without a president at all, underscoring the fragility of the arrangement.

A government that lacks legitimacy cannot be strong unless it imposes its will by force—and that is precisely why no group in Lebanon will truly give up its weapons. The same logic applies in Syria: until a representative system is built, demands for disarmament will be met with suspicion and resistance.

The bottom line is this: a country where power is historically acquired through war and violence cannot be remade into a cohesive state simply by granting a central government exclusive control over weapons. The evidence from recent history is overwhelming:

• Libya remains fragmented into three regions, each governed separately.

• Yemen, despite years of Saudi bombardment designed to enforce central authority, is divided into multiple competing power centers.

• Iraq, even after more than $3 trillion in U.S. investment and years of institution-building, still has a weak central government overshadowed by regional and sectarian power brokers. When ISIS surged in 2014, it was not the Iraqi state that rallied, but a new paramilitary force created by a fatwa from Shia religious authorities.

Countries torn apart by war rarely reunify quickly under strong central governments. More often, they remain weak or fragmented for decades. Even Germany—with its long history of national unity—took decades to reunify after division.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. attempt to engineer a powerful central government in Lebanon, while simultaneously promoting decentralization in Syria, is incoherent. No Lebanese Shia faction will willingly surrender its weapons to a government it views as illegitimate and incapable of protecting them—especially when extremist groups across the border in Syria have massacred minorities for not being Sunni.

If Washington continues to push for a centralized Lebanese government without real sovereignty or inclusive legitimacy, it risks destabilizing one of the most volatile regions in the world. The result may not be stability at all, but rather the ignition of another civil war in Lebanon—unless, of course, that is the unspoken objective of U.S. policy.

Syria Reaches Agreement to Integrate SDF into State Institutions

Syria Reaches Agreement to Integrate SDF into State Institutions

    Monday, March 10, 2025   No comments

It seems that the massacres in the coastal region of Syria compelled the governing regime and other factions to work out their differences faster.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), established in October 2015, is a coalition primarily composed of Kurdish fighters, with some Arab and other minority groups, operating in northeastern Syria. The SDF has been a key ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS, receiving significant military and logistical support. The group has also been involved in the establishment of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), which has governed large parts of the region since the Syrian government lost control during the civil war.

The SDF's relationship with the Syrian government has been complex, marked by both conflict and occasional cooperation. The Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has long viewed the SDF with suspicion, considering it a separatist movement that threatens Syria's territorial integrity. However, with the decline of ISIS and the shifting geopolitical landscape, including the partial withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, there has been increasing pressure on both sides to find a political solution.

Summary of the Agreement:

On Monday evening, the Syrian Presidency announced that an agreement had been reached to integrate the SDF into state institutions. The agreement aims to address key issues to ensure the rights of all Syrian citizens and maintain the country's unity. The executive committees are expected to implement the agreement by the end of the current year.

Key Points of the Agreement:

• Ceasefire: A nationwide ceasefire across all Syrian territories.
• Equal Rights: Guaranteeing the rights of all Syrians in state institutions based on merit, regardless of religious or ethnic background.
• Kurdish Rights: Recognizing the Kurdish community as an integral part of Syria, ensuring their constitutional rights and citizenship.
• Political Participation: Ensuring the representation and participation of all Syrians in the political process.
• Institutional Integration: Merging all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria, including border crossings, airports, and oil and gas fields, under state administration.
• Return of Displaced Persons: Ensuring the safe return of all displaced Syrians and their protection by the state.
• Security Cooperation: Supporting the Syrian government in combating remnants of the previous regime and other threats to national security.
• Rejection of Division: Opposing calls for partition, hate speech, and attempts to sow discord among Syrian communities.
• Diplomatic Efforts:
• Earlier reports from informed sources indicated that Western diplomatic efforts and visits were underway to push for an agreement between Damascus and the SDF. These efforts aimed to prevent ISIS from exploiting the power vacuum following the fall of the previous regime or the anticipated U.S. withdrawal.

Previous reported

Last month, media outlets leaked information about a preliminary agreement between the SDF and the new Syrian administration. The leaked agreement outlined the integration of the SDF and security institutions of the Autonomous Administration into the structure of the Syrian army, as well as the reactivation of state civil and service institutions in northern and eastern Syria.

The agreement marks a significant step towards resolving the longstanding conflict between the Syrian government and the SDF. By integrating the SDF into state institutions, the Syrian government aims to strengthen its control over the northeastern region while addressing the rights and representation of the Kurdish community and other minorities. The success of this agreement will depend on the effective implementation of its terms and the continued cooperation of all parties involved.

More background

The recent agreement between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian government, facilitated by US mediation, marks a potentially significant turning point in the Syrian conflict. This preliminary agreement, as outlined in the provided article, aims to cease military operations and foster national reconciliation. However, its implementation faces numerous complexities and uncertainties.

Central to this agreement is the integration of the SDF into Syrian state institutions. This move, as stated by the Syrian presidency, signifies a crucial step towards unifying the country. The agreement addresses several critical issues, including the deployment of Syrian government forces along the border, the resolution of prison issues through joint councils, and the management of educational matters, particularly for students who have studied the Kurdish language. Crucially, the SDF will maintain its responsibility for dealing with the ISIS threat, indicating a continued role in regional security.  

The primary objective of this agreement, according to Kurdish sources, is to halt the ongoing war and facilitate the safe return of displaced persons. The Kurdish sources emphasized the need to stop demographic changes in areas like Afrin, Serekaniye, and Tel Abyad, reflecting a commitment to restoring the pre-conflict demographic balance. Furthermore, the agreement seeks to ensure the inclusion of Kurds and all Syrian components in the political process, promoting a more inclusive and representative governance structure. 

Statements from key figures highlight the significance of this agreement. The SDF spokesperson stressed its preliminary nature and the US's essential role in its formation. The co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council emphasized that the agreement is a step towards national reconciliation and transitional justice. The Syrian presidency’s announcement of the integration of the SDF into state institutions underscores the government’s commitment to this process.  

However, the situation in northern Syria adds a layer of complexity. Turkey's military buildup in the regions of Tishrin and Qaraqozaq signals a potential escalation, threatening the stability of the region and the implementation of the agreement. This external factor highlights the delicate balance that must be maintained to achieve lasting peace.

The agreement between the SDF and the Syrian government represents a crucial step towards ending the conflict and fostering national reconciliation. However, the agreement's success hinges on overcoming significant challenges, including the implementation of its provisions, managing external pressures, and ensuring the participation of all stakeholders. While the agreement offers a glimmer of hope for a more stable and unified Syria, its long-term impact remains to be seen.

The Escalation of Violence in Syria: A Path to Deepen Syria's fragmentation

The Escalation of Violence in Syria: A Path to Deepen Syria's fragmentation

    Monday, March 10, 2025   No comments

Syria has witnessed its most violent outbreak of conflict since the ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, with over 1,300 deaths reported in just three days. The clashes between forces aligned with Syria’s new government and remnants of Assad’s loyalists have resulted in widespread civilian casualties, particularly affecting the Alawite community, which previously supported the former regime. The intensity of the violence has drawn international concern, as reports of field executions, communal massacres, and forced displacement emerge.

The conflict ignited when HTS-led government forces attempted to arrest what it calls members of the former regime. The attempt was met by armed resistance, which escalated when government brought it more of its armed militias from nearby Idlib, most of whom are not Syrian fighters. While the government aimed to restore order, retaliatory attacks by armed groups have further escalated tensions, leading to mass executions and acts of revenge against Alawite civilians. Human rights organizations, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Syrian Network for Human Rights, have documented atrocities, including systematic killings and the destruction of homes.

Eyewitnesses and video evidence reveal harrowing acts of violence, with reports of militants conducting executions and vowing to "purify" Syria of perceived enemies. Civilians, including elderly residents and families, have been caught in the crossfire, facing persecution irrespective of their allegiance to Assad’s regime. Many Alawites, who have distanced themselves from the former government, continue to suffer the consequences of sectarian retaliation.

Despite Syria’s Ministry of Defense announcing the end of security operations, reports from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicate that armed groups continue to commit atrocities against civilians in the coastal regions. Armed factions, some of whom entered towns alongside government forces, have been accused of looting, arson, and indiscriminate violence in areas such as Harisun in Baniyas. Residents from multiple villages in Latakia have pleaded for protection as killings, kidnappings, and destruction persist, highlighting the deteriorating security situation.

Survivors and local witnesses describe an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing, with entire villages being targeted. Calls for international intervention and independent investigations have grown louder as displaced civilians report being too afraid to return home. Some refugees have sought shelter in the Russian-operated Hmeimim Airbase, refusing to leave due to ongoing threats from armed groups. The humanitarian crisis is worsening, with severe shortages of food, electricity, and water reported across affected regions, exacerbating the suffering of civilians trapped in the conflict.

Syria’s interim leadership has vowed to hold accountable those responsible for the civilian massacres and has called for national unity. However, the government faces significant challenges in maintaining security, especially as extremist factions continue to exploit the instability. Al-Sharaa’s administration, which emerged from an Islamist insurgency, faces scrutiny over its ability to protect minorities and establish a functioning security apparatus.

The United States has condemned the extremist violence, particularly the involvement of foreign jihadists, and has expressed solidarity with Syria’s diverse religious and ethnic minorities, including Christians, Druze, Alawites, and Kurds. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has urged Syria’s interim authorities to ensure accountability for those responsible for the massacres.

The ongoing bloodshed underscores the fragile nature of Syria’s post-Assad transition and highlights the deep-seated sectarian divisions that continue to fuel violence. Without immediate and effective intervention, Syria risks descending further into chaos, jeopardizing any hopes for stability and peace in the war-torn nation.

Morocco's Islamist Benkirane: The role of Islamists is not to seek power

Morocco's Islamist Benkirane: The role of Islamists is not to seek power

    Monday, November 25, 2024   No comments

Morocco is a country of political contradiction, and the interview with a former head of government show how and why.

Former Moroccan Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane stated in an interview with Aljazeera that he has a philosophy that others do not agree with him on, as he does not believe in the saying that “Islam is the solution.” In this context, he considers that the saying “Islam is the solution” contains a contradiction, and asks, “Why is Islam the solution? People’s problems are related to housing, good education, good health services, and other demands.” Benkirane opposed the idea that Islamists can dispute power and rule according to Islamic law, and this is in his view a “dead end,” adding that “what Islamists say is not what they call for: Islam is the solution.” 

Former Moroccan Prime Minister, who was a guest on the program “Al-Muqabla,” confirmed that he has a philosophy that others do not agree with him on, as he does not believe in the saying that “Islam is the solution.”

Benkirane, who is the Secretary-General of the Justice and Development Party, considers “the conflict between Islamists and the ruling authority a sin,” because it leads Islamists into the labyrinths of seekers of authority throughout history, and whoever seeks authority and rule will either be killed, imprisoned, marginalized, or victorious and ruled. Benkirane believes that the Islamists made another mistake when they interpreted what happened to them in the way of seeking the Sultan as a trial for the sake of God, and he says that this prevented them from paying attention to their mistakes.

The former Moroccan Prime Minister stresses that the role of Islamists is not to seek the Sultan and rule, proving his position by saying, “I did not find in the Holy Quran or in the hadith of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, anything called seeking the Sultan or rule,” and he noted that he only found the saying of God Almighty: “I only want reform as much as I am able,” meaning that the role of the Muslim is to contribute to reform.

On the other hand, the former Moroccan Prime Minister addresses the issue of normalization between Morocco and the Israeli occupation in his speech on December 10, 2020.

Benkirane responded to a question about the signing of the normalization agreement by an Islamist party (the Justice and Development Party): “We were surprised, as was the whole world, by the signing of Saadeddine El Othmani (the Prime Minister), and none of us had any knowledge, and I personally did not know.”

On the other hand, the Moroccan Islamist described the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation as “a gift from God Almighty,” because “the Palestinian cause was almost over and Al-Aqsa Mosque was almost lost,” and he considered that the lessons of the Al-Aqsa Flood are endless. Benkirane also reviewed his political career that began in the sixties and seventies, where he began this path in the ranks of the left, then joined the “Islamic Youth” organization in 1976, from which he separated in 1981, to establish with others the “Islamic Group,” and among those who were with him were Mohamed Yatim, Saadeddine Othmani, and Abdullah Baha, leading to the establishment of the “Islamic Group Association” in 1983.

Although politicians who participate in the political process in the country perpetuate the myth sharing political power or the power of the people derived from "elections", the reality points to the fact that all power rests with the King. As colloquial language in Morocco shows, the King's palace is the store of power, makhzen, and the power of the king comes from God, which explains why a 10 year old son of the king is more powerful than an elected head of government: Moroccans bow and kiss the hand of the child future king, and that includes the head of the government who also must bow and kiss the hand of the child.

Aware of problem of seeing a child's hand kissed by everyone including elected leaders, but still wanting to benefit from the gesture of obedience at the same time, the King's Palace launched a PR campaign claiming that the prince does not want to have his hand kissed. If that was the case, the Palace could have made it against protocol to even attempt to kiss the hand. But then, that would force the King to give up a source of power. So, instead, they decided on having their cake and eating at the same time... a common strategy that has been used by the monarch in Morocco to continue to rule and force Moroccans to submit to his rule.