Current Events: Saudi Arabia’s Emergency Defense Pacts Are Doomed to Fail

Current Events: Saudi Arabia’s Emergency Defense Pacts Are Doomed to Fail

    Wednesday, September 16, 2026   No comments

In the shifting sands of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the gradual erosion of unconditional United States security guarantees has left Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) rulers scrambling for alternatives. Recently, Saudi Arabia has sought refuge in new defense pacts with Pakistan and Turkey after it had signed one with just Pakistan. These agreements increasingly resemble the shade of a leafless tree: they offer the illusion of protection while providing no actual cover against the gathering storms. Unless these alliances are rebuilt on genuine, shared principles rather than reactive fear, they are destined to collapse.

The Seismic Shift: U.S. Engagement with Sanaa

The foundation of Saudi Arabia’s strategic anxiety lies in a profound shift in U.S. policy. According to recent reports, U.S. officials met directly with an Ansarallah (Houthi) delegation in Oman over the weekend (09/12/2026). The reported terms of this engagement are a stark departure from the past: the U.S. has reportedly promised the Houthis that it will not provide air support to Saudi-backed forces or strike targets in Houthi-held territories, in exchange for keeping the Bab Al-Mandab strait open to international shipping.

This marks a critical turning point. The U.S. administration is now engaging the Sanaa government in the same pragmatic manner it has approached the Julani-led government in Syria: recognizing them as the de facto rulers of the country. For Riyadh, this is a profound strategic shock. Saudi Arabia previously had opportunities to negotiate directly with Sanaa to end the war but refused, opting instead for prolonged military escalation. Now, as Washington bypasses Riyadh to deal directly with the Yemeni capital, the Kingdom’s leverage has drastically diminished.

The Illusion of the Pakistan and Turkey Pacts

In response to this perceived abandonment, Saudi Arabia has rushed to formalize defense pacts with Pakistan and Turkey. However, neither pact has been activated to defend Saudi Arabia against retaliatory strikes from Sanaa, revealing their inherent fragility.

Pakistan has historically maintained a cautious neutrality in intra-Gulf conflicts, acutely aware of the domestic and geopolitical costs of entangling its military in Yemen. Turkey’s position is even more fraught. Any assumption that Ankara will rush to defend Riyadh ignores the deep, unresolved wounds of recent history.

The Khashoggi Shadow

The idea that Turkey would risk its strategic standing to defend the current Saudi leadership is contradicted by the recent past. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has explicitly stated that the order to kill journalist Jamal Khashoggi came from the "highest levels" of the Saudi government. While Erdoğan initially stopped short of naming Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in official addresses, the Turkish state’s actions spoke volumes. In December 2018, the chief prosecutor’s office in Istanbul filed applications to obtain arrest warrants for Ahmad al-Assiri and Saud al-Qahtani, key allies and advisors to the Crown Prince, describing them as "among the planners" of the murder.

While Ankara and Riyadh have pursued a transactional diplomatic thaw in recent years, this relationship is built on economic and political convenience, not foundational trust. In a moment of genuine military crisis, Turkey’s strategic calculus will not prioritize the survival of a leadership it has previously accused of orchestrating extrajudicial killings on its soil.

The Backfiring Religious Narrative

Facing military vulnerability and diplomatic isolation, Riyadh has attempted to weaponize its geography. By framing Houthi missile and drone strikes as attacks on the sanctity of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia is attempting to galvanize sympathy from the broader Muslim world on religious grounds.

However, this narrative is fundamentally undermined by MBS’s own domestic trajectory. The Crown Prince has systematically curtailed the power of the religious establishment, sidelined traditional Salafi allies, and aggressively promoted a secular entertainment industry, including concerts and public events that were strictly barred on religious grounds just a decade ago. Attempting to rebrand a geopolitical conflict as a sectarian or religious war rings hollow to a regional public acutely aware of the Kingdom’s internal cultural revolution. The religious card is a bluff, and the Arab street is no longer buying it.

The Reality of Escalation

The consequences of this strategic miscalculation are already manifesting on the ground. The Yemeni Armed Forces recently announced qualitative military operations targeting Aramco facilities in Yanbu and the King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushait with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones. In their statement, the Yemeni Armed Forces affirmed they will continue to reinforce an equation of "blockade for blockade" and "escalation for escalation" until the aggression ends.

Concurrently, the vulnerability of the Kingdom has been underscored by the United States itself. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh recently issued a Level 3 travel advisory, urging Americans to reconsider trips to Saudi Arabia due to the risk of drone and missile attacks. The advisory explicitly restricts U.S. government employees from traveling within 20 miles of the Yemeni border and imposes restrictions on travel to Qatif, Jizan, Asir, and Najran. When the primary historical guarantor of Saudi security is warning its own citizens to stay away, the message to the world is unmistakable.

Principles Over Panic

A defense architecture cannot be sustainably built on the shifting sands of fear and reactive panic. The pacts with Pakistan and Turkey lack the ideological cohesion, mutual trust, and strategic alignment required to withstand actual combat pressures.

As the U.S. normalizes relations with Sanaa and focuses on its own broader strategic priorities, Saudi Arabia must confront a stark reality: the era of blank-check security guarantees is over. The Kingdom had its chance to end the war through diplomacy and chose escalation. Now, it is reaping the geopolitical harvest of that choice. Unless future alliances are forged on genuine, shared principles rather than desperate reactions to a waning American umbrella, they will remain exactly what they are today—the shade of a leafless tree.

Media Review: How the ‘Fait Accompli’ in Syria Undermines Saudi Arabia’s Narrative in Yemen and Beyond

Media Review: How the ‘Fait Accompli’ in Syria Undermines Saudi Arabia’s Narrative in Yemen and Beyond

    Thursday, September 10, 2026   No comments

As the Arabian Peninsula navigates one of its most perilous geopolitical crises in decades, the diplomatic and strategic contradictions at the heart of Saudi foreign policy are becoming impossible to ignore. With the war in Yemen reigniting, Saudi infrastructure—from ports to energy facilities—facing relentless strikes, and oil exports dropping to critical levels, Riyadh is urgently seeking an exit ramp through Omani and Iranian mediation.

Yet, as Saudi diplomats scramble to de-escalate a conflict that threatens to spiral into a broader regional war, they are finding their justifications severely constrained by their own recent precedents. Specifically, the convenient logic of the "fait accompli" adopted by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) allies in Syria is actively unraveling their ability to maintain a consistent narrative regarding their war on Yemen’s Sanaa government, and their broader posture toward Iran.

The Selective Sovereignty of the Arab Spring

To understand the current diplomatic trap, one must look back to the Arab Spring of 2011. For years, Saudi rulers had built their regional reputation on the twin pillars of absolute stability and strict respect for state sovereignty. The uprisings of 2011 shattered this monolithic commitment, forcing the GCC into a posture of selective intervention.

Riyadh condemned the popular uprisings that threatened its ideological and political allies, notably offering refuge in Saudi Arabia to Tunisia’s ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, where he lived until his death. Conversely, the Saudi rulers and their GCC partners threw their financial and political weight behind armed groups fighting regimes they viewed with suspicion or hostility in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. This selective application of sovereignty established a troubling precedent: international norms and state sovereignty were no longer absolute principles, but rather tools to be deployed based on Riyadh’s strategic preferences.

The Syrian ‘Fait Accompli’

This pragmatic, albeit inconsistent, approach reached its zenith in 2024 with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. As the Syrian government collapsed, Saudi Arabia moved swiftly to shore up the new authorities controlling Damascus. The new regime was headed by Sharaa (formerly known as Julani), a former al-Qaeda leader.

The logic Riyadh employed to justify this alignment was simple, if stark: regardless of the ideological background of Sharaa or the democratic legitimacy of his rule, he controlled the capital and the state apparatus. He was a fait accompli. By embracing this logic, Saudi Arabia signaled that de facto territorial control and the pragmatic need for regional stability trumped ideological purity or previous international designations. It was a calculated pivot to secure influence in a post-Assad Syria, but it came at a severe cost to Riyadh’s diplomatic consistency.

The Yemeni Contradiction

The consequences of the Syrian "fait accompli" are now casting a glaring spotlight on Saudi Arabia’s stance in Yemen. When Ansarullah (the Houthis) rose up and took control of Sanaa and the majority of Yemen’s populated areas during the height of the Arab Spring era, they established their own undeniable fait accompli on the ground.

However, Riyadh refused to apply the same pragmatic logic it would later use in Damascus. Instead, Saudi rulers took in members of the ousted Yemeni government, allowed them to preserve a government-in-exile, and insisted that this "internationally recognized" administration was the only legitimate authority in Yemen. This narrative was used to justify a devastating military intervention that pushed the impoverished country to the brink of famine.

Today, this double standard severely limits Saudi Arabia's ability to justify its continued war. If the logic of the fait accompli is valid enough to legitimize a former al-Qaeda leader in Syria because he holds the capital, why does it not apply to Ansarullah in Yemen, which similarly controls the capital and the most densely populated regions? By insisting that only the Saudi-propped exiled government is legitimate in Sanaa, Riyadh’s narrative appears not as a defense of international law or sovereignty, but as a selective enforcement of political compliance.

The Broader Regional Fallout and the Regime Change Paradox

The inability to reconcile these narratives is no longer just a diplomatic embarrassment; it is a strategic vulnerability. Despite previously agreed-upon ceasefires, the war in Yemen has restarted, with Ansarullah directly targeting Saudi ports, airports, and energy facilities, bringing the violence directly onto Saudi soil and crippling oil exports.

Worse, the crisis is expanding. The ongoing fighting on the GCC’s eastern border has intertwined with a broader confrontation involving Iran. Recent escalations have seen Iran attacked using military assets stationed in Saudi Arabia and other GCC states, with the initial stated goal of these operations being "regime change" in Tehran.

Herein lies the ultimate paradox of Saudi foreign policy. Riyadh insists on the preservation of the exiled government in Yemen, effectively positioning itself against regime change in Sanaa. Yet, in Syria, Riyadh actively supported the overthrow of the Assad regime, and in the current broader conflict, it has allowed its territory to be used for strikes against Iran with the explicit initial goal of regime change in Tehran.

If Saudi Arabia is fundamentally against regime change in Yemen, why is it for regime change in Syria and Iran? When confronted by mediators in Oman and Tehran, Saudi diplomats are finding it increasingly difficult to answer this question. The fait accompli logic that solved a short-term problem in Syria has exposed the hollow core of their justifications in Yemen and the broader region.

As September 2026 draws to a close, the Saudi leadership is realizing that foreign policy cannot be entirely reduced to transactional pragmatism. The "fait accompli" logic may have secured a working relationship with the new authorities in Damascus, but it has stripped Riyadh of the moral and legal high ground it desperately needs to justify the war in Yemen and manage the fallout of the conflict with Iran.

If no diplomatic breakthrough is reached in the coming days, the crisis in Yemen threatens to spiral into a full-scale regional war with profound global implications. To find a sustainable exit, Saudi Arabia will need more than just tactical pivots; it will require a coherent, consistent foreign policy narrative—one that the selective application of the fait accompli has severely compromised.

Houthi Precision Strikes Signal a Protracted, Low-Cost War of Attrition for Saudi Arabia

Houthi Precision Strikes Signal a Protracted, Low-Cost War of Attrition for Saudi Arabia

    Friday, August 21, 2026   No comments

A recent video broadcast by the Houthi-aligned Al-Masirah media network, circulated via its official Telegram channel, showcases what the Sanaa government claims are deadly precision strikes against Saudi-led coalition forces and their allied Yemeni factions. The footage, featuring coordinated launches of unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic missiles, is more than mere propaganda. It serves as a calculated strategic message, underscoring a stark reality for Riyadh: the Houthis have refined a doctrine of asymmetric warfare designed to sustain a long war "on the cheap."

The released footage highlights the targeting of troop concentrations, weapons depots, and strategic military infrastructure. Over the past several years, the Sanaa government has progressively shifted from basic guerrilla tactics to employing sophisticated precision-strike technologies. These media releases are carefully curated to project operational competence, demonstrating an ability to coordinate complex attacks and penetrate heavily defended airspace. By publicly showcasing these capabilities, the Houthis aim to challenge the narrative of coalition air superiority, boost domestic morale, and signal resilience to external adversaries.

The most alarming aspect of this evolving capability for Saudi Arabia is the profound economic asymmetry of the conflict. The Houthis have mastered the deployment of relatively inexpensive, often Iranian-supplied, drone and missile technology. A typical attack drone can cost between twenty thousand and fifty thousand dollars to produce. In stark contrast, Gulf countries must expend approximately four million dollars per Patriot interceptor missile just to neutralize these low-cost threats.

This cost disparity creates a severe economic attrition dynamic. Even if Saudi air defenses successfully intercept the vast majority of incoming threats, the financial burden of sustaining such a high-tech shield over years is staggering. The Houthis, operating with a fraction of the budget of a petro-state, can afford to launch sustained volleys. They understand that each interception drains millions from the Saudi defense treasury, while the attackers absorb only a fraction of that cost. This turns the very act of defense into a financial vulnerability for Riyadh.

This reality presents a formidable strategic challenge for Saudi Arabia. Despite deploying advanced air defense networks, including Patriot and THAAD systems, the Kingdom has historically struggled to completely deter the onslaught of cross-border attacks. The Houthis' ability to maintain this pressure indicates that they are well-trained, logistically entrenched, and prepared for a protracted conflict.

Furthermore, these persistent strikes complicate Saudi Arabia’s broader geopolitical objectives. Riyadh has actively sought a diplomatic off-ramp from the Yemen conflict to focus on its ambitious Vision 2030 economic diversification plans. However, low-cost Houthi military actions continue to threaten border security, disrupt regional economic stability, and risk drawing the Kingdom back into full-scale escalation. While open hostilities have seen periods of managed de-escalation, the underlying military threat remains a potent lever for the Sanaa government.

The latest video release from the Al-Masirah network is a clear demonstration of tactical patience and strategic foresight. It signals that the Houthis possess the asymmetric tools necessary to wage a long war of attrition without breaking their financial capacity. For Saudi Arabia, this underscores the limitations of a purely military solution. Countering an adversary that weaponizes cost asymmetry requires not only the development of advanced, low-cost defense innovations, such as directed energy weapons, but also a renewed, urgent push toward a comprehensive and sustainable diplomatic resolution in Yemen.

A New "Sunni Axis" and the Search for a Post-American Security Umbrella

A New "Sunni Axis" and the Search for a Post-American Security Umbrella

    Friday, August 07, 2026   No comments

 The Mecca Pact

In a landmark event following prayers at the Great Mosque of Mecca, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formalized a trilateral defense agreement. This pact arrives at a critical geopolitical juncture, as the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the Middle East. The conflict has not only destabilized the region but has also cast severe doubts on Washington's long-term security guarantees, prompting traditional US allies to seek alternative, indigenous security architectures.

The Subjectivity of "Defense" and "Legitimacy"

The formation of this alliance raises immediate questions: Is this newly forged "defensive" pact directed against Iran, or is it a hedge against another regional power—perhaps even Israel? To understand the nature of this alliance, one must first examine how "defensive" interventions and state "legitimacy" have been historically interpreted by the pact's signatories.

State narratives in the Middle East are highly subjective and heavily dictated by geopolitical convenience. For instance, Saudi Arabia launched its devastating war in Yemen under the pretext of "restoring the legitimate government" after Ho

uthi rebels took over the capital, Sana'a. Yet, this narrative clashes starkly with the actions of both Riyadh and Ankara in Syria. In Damascus, the Saudi and Turkish governments actively participated in the overthrow of the internationally recognized, "legitimate" government, throwing their weight behind rebel factions led by Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Joulani, a figure with historical ties to al-Qaeda). Today, the rebel government in Syria is increasingly recognized and legitimized, while the Houthi authority in Yemen—which achieved a nearly identical military feat by capturing the capital—remains in pariah status. This glaring double standard reveals that "legitimacy" and "defense" are not objective legal terms in regional politics, but flexible instruments used to justify intervention against perceived adversaries while supporting identical tactics when aligned with strategic interests.

The "Sunni Axis" and the Nuclear Umbrella

Given this fluid approach to regional security, the trilateral pact strongly resembles the very "Sunni axis" that Israeli strategists have long warned against. The most telling aspect of this new alignment is the inclusion of Pakistan—the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons.

For decades, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have relied implicitly on the United States' conventional and nuclear umbrella. However, recent escalations have shattered this illusion. The US security apparatus failed to protect Gulf infrastructure from Iranian-backed proxy attacks, and more pressingly, Gulf leaders are increasingly convinced that Washington would not risk its own security to protect them from a nuclear-armed Israel. In this new reality, Pakistan’s inclusion provides a crucial strategic asset: an independent, regional "Islamic nuclear umbrella." By integrating Islamabad into their defense matrix, Riyadh and Ankara are effectively insulating themselves against both Iranian retaliation and the unchecked military dominance of Israel.

A Pivot Away from Western Protection

This trilateral defense pact represents a profound strategic pivot for Gulf nations, born out of a deep-seated loss of faith in Western protection. The realization that American security guarantees are conditional and often unreliable has forced Saudi Arabia and Turkey to look inward and toward regional partners. Turkey brings formidable military industry and geopolitical weight, while Pakistan brings strategic depth, manpower, and nuclear deterrence. Together, they form a triad capable of projecting power independent of Western oversight.

Iran’s Warning and the Post-Abraham Accords Era

Tehran is acutely aware of this shifting paradigm. Responding to the Mecca agreement, Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei issued a stark reminder of the region's realities, stating that a "paper agreement" with Turkey and Pakistan will not guarantee Saudi security. Rezaei noted that years of "one-sided nursing" from the Americans failed to protect Riyadh, urging the Saudis to reform their policies rather than "beg for security from others."

Iran understands that the underlying driver of this pact is the Gulf’s loss of faith in Washington. Ultimately, the Saudi-Pakistani-Turkish trilateral is much more than a mutual defense treaty; it is a declaration of strategic autonomy. It signals a decisive step toward a regional security arrangement that operates entirely without Israel and serves as a direct repudiation of the US-brokered Abraham Accords. As the Middle East fractures under the weight of war and shifting alliances, the Gulf is quietly building its own fortress—one defined not by Western guarantees, but by regional, nuclear-backed deterrence.

Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

Saudi Arabia’s New Naval Alliance Masks an Old War and Risks Global Catastrophe

    Thursday, July 30, 2026   No comments

The announcement from Riyadh on July 30, 2026, of a 14-nation "multinational defensive naval alliance" is being sold to the international community as a necessary measure to protect global maritime trade. However, a closer look at the geopolitical realities on the ground reveals a familiar, dangerous playbook. This repeated scenario is clearly designed to provide political cover for Saudi Arabia to launch a wider military offensive against the Yemen government in Sanaa.

Far from securing the waterways, this initiative is highly unlikely to stop the Houthis or successfully open the strait. Instead, if this militarization drags on, it will be catastrophic for the global economy and will ultimately isolate the 14 countries that have signed on to support this Saudi initiative.

The Ghost of the 2015 Coalition

To understand the current maneuver, one must look at the recent past. More than ten years ago, in 2015, Saudi Arabia announced a coalition of 10 Muslim states with a stated mission to overthrow the Sanaa government and restore its own allied government, which was operating first out of Riyadh and later from Aden.

The reality of that war, however, was starkly different from the diplomatic optics. During that period, it was just Saudi Arabia and the UAE who actually conducted the war on the ground and in the air. The broader coalition largely stayed on the sidelines, and the military campaign went nowhere, resulting in a protracted stalemate and a devastating humanitarian crisis.

Today, Riyadh is attempting to recycle this strategy under a new facade. The new coalition boasts a different stated mission—protecting transit in the Red Sea—but the underlying objective remains the same: to build a multinational shield behind which Saudi Arabia can escalate its conflict with Sanaa.

A Chokepoint Turned Crisis Zone

According to the founding charter announced in Riyadh, the alliance will focus on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden. While the 14 founding members—including regional heavyweights like Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan—claim the alliance is "purely defensive," the practical effect will be the exact opposite.

Rather than securing the region, this massive naval buildup is likely to increase the cost of transit in the Red Sea and turn that tight, vital waterway into a permanent crisis point. The presence of a large, Saudi-led multinational naval force will inevitably be viewed by the Sanaa government and its allies as a direct blockade and a prelude to invasion. This will spook global economic systems, driving up insurance premiums, forcing shipping reroutes, and injecting massive volatility into global energy and supply chain markets.

If this standoff takes longer than a few weeks, the resulting disruption will be catastrophic for the global economy, which is already struggling to absorb the shocks of ongoing US-Iran tensions and broader Middle Eastern instability.

Diplomatic Isolation for the 14

By joining this coalition, the 14 founding nations are inadvertently signing up for a diplomatic disaster. The international community is increasingly wary of endless Middle Eastern conflicts. By providing political and military cover for a Saudi initiative to start a wider war with the Sanaa government, these 14 countries risk severe diplomatic isolation.

They will be viewed not as defenders of global trade, but as complicit actors in a regional land grab and an aggressive expansion of the Yemen conflict. Nations like Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt, which have their own complex geopolitical balancing acts, will find their international standing severely damaged if this naval alliance is used as a Trojan horse for bombing campaigns against Sanaa.

The Internal Saudi Tinderbox

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this new military venture is how it intersects with Saudi Arabia’s fragile internal landscape. Given the current global and regional context, this round of Saudi violence can easily backfire and destabilize the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is currently undergoing radical internal changes. The kingdom, traditionally a very conservative society, is rapidly abandoning aspects of its historical culture in a aggressive push for economic gains and foreign investment under Vision 2030. This rapid social engineering has created underlying friction within Saudi society.

Furthermore, the political foundation of the current leadership remains susceptible to internal shocks. The current trajectory was set when the young prince, Mohammed bin Salman, sidelined the more traditional crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, in what was widely seen by regional observers as a bloodless coup within the halls of power in the Kingdom. This consolidation of power relied heavily on the promise of economic prosperity and regional stability.

Dragging the Kingdom into another unwinnable, expensive war in Yemen—disguised as a maritime defense pact—threatens to shatter those promises. The financial drain of a prolonged naval and aerial campaign, combined with the risk of retaliatory strikes on Saudi oil infrastructure (as seen in the recent attacks on the Eastern Province), could ignite domestic unrest.

The 14-nation naval alliance announced in Riyadh is a geopolitical mirage. It promises security but delivers a roadmap for escalation. It will not stop the Houthis, it will not secure the Red Sea, and it will not bring stability to the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, it threatens to crash the global economy, isolate its member states on the world stage, and push the Saudi Kingdom toward an internal and external crisis from which it may not easily recover. The world should not be fooled by the "defensive" label; this is the opening salvo of a much wider, and much more dangerous, war.

Who are the member-states of the Saudi Coalition against the Houthis?

1. Saudi Arabia Lead nation and host of headquarters
2. Qatar
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain 
5. Pakistan 
6. Turkey 
7. Egypt
8. Jordan
9. Yemen  Note: This refers to the Saudi-backed government, not the Sanaa government
10. Bangladesh
11. Nigeria 
12. Sudan 
13. Djibouti 
14. Somalia 

Regional Breakdown:

• Gulf States: 4 (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain)
• Middle East/North Africa: 4 (Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan)
• Horn of Africa: 2 (Djibouti, Somalia)
• South Asia: 2 (Pakistan, Bangladesh)
• Other: 1 (Turkey - transcontinental), 1 (Nigeria - West Africa)

Yemeni counternarrative:

Meanwhile, the Houthis are already actively weaponizing a potent propaganda narrative to galvanize religious and regional opposition to this new coalition. Capitalizing on recently surfaced allegations and documents suggesting that pieces of the sacred Kaaba cover (the Kiswa) were gifted or shipped to Jeffrey Epstein’s residence, Houthi media and allied outlets are accusing the Saudi ruling elite of defiling Islam’s holiest sites and beliefs for corrupt, secular ends.

This narrative is sharply amplified by the circulation of photographs showing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman alongside Epstein, which Houthi supporters are using to frame the Saudi leadership not as defenders of the faith, but as participants in an "alliance of criminality" with Western predatory elites.

By framing the impending conflict as a moral and religious defense of Islamic sanctities against a corrupt monarchy, the Houthis aim to severely undermine the religious legitimacy of the Saudi state, transforming a geopolitical dispute into a profound ideological flashpoint that could resonate dangerously across the broader Muslim world.

Leader of Yemen's Ansar Allah, Sayyed Abdul-Malik al-Houthi: 

The Saudis gave Epstein the curtain of the Holy Kaaba, intending for him to use it as a mat to walk on with his shoes, and to incorporate it into his satanic rituals.

Unfortunately, Islamic governments and religious authorities in the Muslim world have remained silent regarding the gift of the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

I call for the formation of an Islamic committee to investigate this betrayal of giving the Kaaba's curtain to the Jewish criminal Epstein.

Media Review: Yemeni strikes shift pressure from Hormuz to Saudi Arabia's Red Sea workaround

Media Review: Yemeni strikes shift pressure from Hormuz to Saudi Arabia's Red Sea workaround

    Monday, July 27, 2026   No comments

Yemeni Armed Forces announce targeting critical Saudi Aramco Oil infrastructure in Jazan and Yanbu

Yemeni Armed Forces Spokesperson Brigadier General Yahya Saree has announced that military units successfully struck multiple sensitive and vital installations tied to the crude oil supply line running from eastern Saudi Arabia in Jazan to Yanbu.

The operation was executed using a swarm of drone aircraft and served as a direct retaliation against the Saudi-led coalition's ongoing violations of Yemeni airspace.

Economic cost

Tech Times reported on 26 July that Ansarallah's coordinated strikes on Saudi Aramco's Jazan refinery and Yanbu oil facilities have exposed the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's alternative export route after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. 

Satellite data from NASA's FIRMS and SoarAtlas confirmed major fires at Jazan, while Reuters, citing Greek security sources, reported that two ballistic missiles targeting Yanbu were intercepted by Saudi air defenses.

According to the report, Saudi Arabia has spent months rerouting crude exports through the East-West (Petroline) Pipeline to Yanbu to bypass Hormuz. 

However, because tankers departing Yanbu must still transit the Bab al-Mandab, where Ansarallah has declared a naval blockade, the strikes have effectively shifted, rather than eliminated, Saudi Arabia's strategic maritime vulnerability.

The report noted that Yanbu handled around 92% of Saudi Arabia's seaborne crude exports in June, citing Kpler data reported by AFP, making it the kingdom's primary export outlet during the Hormuz disruption. 

While the full extent of the damage remains unclear, Reuters reported that Asia-based trading sources had received reports of damage at Jazan, as Saudi Aramco had not yet issued an official assessment.

Tech Times added that the attacks pushed Brent crude back above $100 per barrel and intensified concerns over global energy supplies, warning that simultaneous disruptions at Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab could place a significant share of regional oil exports at risk and further tighten global energy markets.

The cisis may get worse before it is resolved

Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia reports intercepting drones attempting to target petroleum facilities

The official spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense, Major General Turki al-Maliki, stated that air defenses intercepted and destroyed a number of drones over the past few hours that attempted to target petroleum facilities in the Eastern Province and Riyadh.

Major General Maliki alleges that these attempts originated from Iraqi territory and were carried out by 'militias affiliated with Iran.'

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."

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

A dramatic escalation between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has laid bare the fractures within the once-unified Gulf coalition, revealing a deepening strategic schism over influence in Yemen—and, by extension, the broader Middle East. The latest trigger came on December 30, 2025, when Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes on the Yemeni port of Mukalla, targeting vessels it alleges were carrying weapons from the UAE destined for separatist militias. Simultaneously, Riyadh issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding the UAE withdraw all military forces from Yemen and cease financial and logistical support to factions operating within the country.

The implications of this confrontation go far beyond Yemen’s fragile borders. They expose the UAE’s increasingly assertive—and often destabilizing—foreign policy, fueled by vast petro-wealth and an ambition to project power disproportionate to its small geographic size and population. More critically, they spotlight the contradictions at the heart of the Emirati state: a gleaming global city built on the backs of a disenfranchised foreign workforce, ruled by a hereditary elite that constitutes just 14% of the population, while the rest—millions of expatriates—are denied basic civil and political rights.

The Yemen Flashpoint

Yemen has long been the proving ground for Gulf rivalries, but the Saudi-UAE split has now reached a breaking point. While both nations ostensibly joined forces in 2015 under the banner of the “Arab Coalition” to restore Yemen’s internationally recognized government, their objectives diverged sharply over time. Saudi Arabia prioritized border security and countering Houthi influence, while the UAE invested heavily in southern separatist groups like the Southern Transitional Council (STC), viewing a fragmented Yemen as strategically advantageous.

Recent developments confirm Saudi Arabia’s worst fears. The STC, with evident Emirati backing, has seized large swaths of land in Hadhramaut and Al-Mahra—governorates adjacent to Saudi territory. Riyadh interprets this not as a local power grab but as a direct threat to its national security. The Saudi Foreign Ministry’s unusually blunt language—calling UAE actions “extremely dangerous” and “incompatible with the foundations of the coalition”—signals a dramatic rupture in bilateral trust.

Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, under President Rashad al-Alimi, responded by declaring a 90-day state of emergency, revoking a security agreement with the UAE, and imposing a comprehensive blockade on ports and crossings. These measures underscore the extent to which Emirati interference is now seen as an existential threat to Yemeni sovereignty—even by a government that once welcomed UAE support.

The UAE’s Destabilizing Regional Ambitions

The Yemen crisis is not an isolated case. The UAE has consistently leveraged its financial might to back proxy forces across the region—often in defiance of international law and regional stability:

Sudan: The UAE has been accused by the UN and Western intelligence agencies of supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), intensifying the brutal civil war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. Abu Dhabi sees the RSF as a counterweight to Islamist and Turkish influence, but its intervention has prolonged and deepened the conflict.

Libya: The UAE openly backed Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) in its failed 2019 assault on Tripoli, providing drones, air support, and mercenaries. Its actions contradicted UN arms embargoes and undermined diplomatic efforts to unify the country.

Somalia: Emirati military presence in Berbera and its port investments have fueled tensions with the Somali federal government, which accuses Abu Dhabi of undermining national sovereignty and cultivating separatist sentiment in Somaliland.

This pattern reveals a consistent Emirati strategy: exploit regional chaos to install pliable local actors, secure strategic ports and military bases, and project influence far beyond its borders—all while avoiding democratic accountability at home.

A Domestic System Built on Exclusion

The UAE’s aggressive external posture is mirrored by a deeply hierarchical internal order. Despite hosting over 9 million foreign workers—many of whom have lived and labored in the country for decades—they are systematically denied pathways to citizenship, political representation, or even basic labor protections. Human rights organizations have long documented systemic abuses: wage theft, passport confiscation, unsafe working conditions, and the absence of collective bargaining rights.

Meanwhile, the Emirati citizen elite—roughly 14% of the population—enjoy immense privileges, including state-funded housing, education, and employment guarantees. This de facto caste system is rarely scrutinized due to the UAE’s carefully cultivated image as a modern, tolerant hub. Yet beneath the skyscrapers and luxury malls lies a rigid social contract: obedience in exchange for wealth, with dissent tolerated only when it comes from the palace, never the pavement.

The Danger of Emirati Supremacism

What makes the UAE’s regional behavior particularly alarming is its ideological underpinning. Unlike Iran or Turkey, whose regional ambitions are framed in religious or civilizational terms, the UAE promotes a form of Gulf-centric supremacism: the belief that small, oil-rich monarchies have the right—and duty—to shape the political destiny of larger, poorer nations through coercion, patronage, and covert warfare.

This worldview is not merely opportunistic; it is imperial in spirit. And it thrives in the absence of accountability. While Saudi Arabia, despite its own human rights record, is increasingly aligning with international diplomatic frameworks the UAE remains defiantly opaque, operating through shadowy networks of private military contractors, offshore finance, and media manipulation.

A Turning Point?

The Saudi ultimatum may mark a historic inflection point. For years, Abu Dhabi skillfully played Riyadh and Washington against each other, presenting itself as a reliable counterterrorism partner while quietly undermining Saudi interests in Yemen and beyond. But with Saudi Arabia now asserting red lines and Yemen’s government turning against its former Emirati patrons, the UAE risks diplomatic and strategic isolation.

More importantly, this crisis could force a long-overdue reckoning with the UAE’s role in the region. If the world continues to treat Abu Dhabi as a benign economic hub while ignoring its role in fueling wars in Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, it will only embolden further adventurism. The cruelty of the Emirati model—both at home and abroad—must no longer be excused by its skyscrapers or sovereign wealth funds.

Saudi Arabia’s warning is clear: destabilization has consequences. Whether the UAE heeds it—or doubles down—will determine not just the fate of Yemen, but the future balance of power in the entire Middle East.

Updated: UAE claims it is ending its presence in Yemen

  UPDATE:

 In an official statement released by the United Arab Emirates' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UAE expressed "deep regret" over statements made by Saudi Arabia over the Saudi airstrike on Yemen’s Mukalla port, calling for restraint and warning against further escalation between the two Gulf partners. The UAE also rejected claims that the targeted shipment included weapons and denied that it was supplying arms to local factions.

The statement further reads:

"The Ministry affirms that the shipment in question did not contain any weapons, and the vehicles unloaded were not intended for any Yemeni party but were shipped for use by UAE forces operating in Yemen."

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

A Turning Point in the Yemen Conflict: U.S. Airstrikes Halt, Regional Repercussions, and Yemen’s Continued Alignment with Gaza

    Tuesday, May 06, 2025   No comments

Media Review of Current Events:

In a surprising and consequential move, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the cessation of American airstrikes on Yemen. This development marks a significant shift in U.S. policy in the region and has prompted strong reactions from multiple stakeholders—particularly Israel, whose leadership was caught off guard. The halt comes amid Omani-brokered negotiations and is framed within a broader narrative of de-escalation, albeit with complex undercurrents of continued resistance from Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement against Israeli aggression in Gaza.

The U.S. Halt of Airstrikes and Omani Mediation

Trump’s announcement came during a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, where he claimed that Yemeni forces had made a verbal commitment to cease attacks on ships in the Red Sea. Despite the absence of a formal agreement, the Trump administration interpreted this as a positive development and ordered the U.S. military to stand down. Defense officials confirmed that the military had received instructions to halt operations the previous evening.

This breakthrough was facilitated by Oman, a regional actor known for its neutral diplomatic posture and history of mediating between the U.S. and Yemen. The Omani Foreign Ministry confirmed its successful efforts in brokering a ceasefire agreement that ensures the safety of maritime routes, particularly in the strategic Bab al-Mandeb and Red Sea corridors. Oman praised both sides for their constructive approach and expressed hope that the de-escalation would pave the way for further regional stability.

 "Trump announces the end of the U.S. bombing campaign on Yemen, likely due to disappointing results and high costs" – Politico

The Yemeni Perspective: A Tactical Pause, Not a Strategic Retreat

Yemeni officials, including top political leaders such as Mohammed Ali al-Houthi and Mahdi al-Mashat, responded to Trump’s announcement with guarded optimism but clarified that their resistance remains rooted in principle. Al-Houthi underscored that Yemeni military operations were primarily acts of solidarity with Gaza, undertaken in response to American and Israeli aggression. He described the U.S. halt as a potential tactical victory that "disconnects American support from Israel" and called it a setback for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A senior member of Ansarullah movement Mohammed Abdul Salam: We did not submit any requests to the Americans, but rather we received messages via our brothers in the Sultanate of Oman.

Echoing this, al-Mashat issued a stern warning to Israel, asserting that Yemen’s support for Gaza would not waver and that retaliation for Israeli attacks on Yemeni infrastructure—including airports and power stations—would be “earth-shaking.” His remarks came after an Israeli airstrike on Sana’a and amid heightened tensions between Yemen and the Israeli military.

Member of the Supreme Political Council in Yemen, Mohammad al-Bukhaiti: "We tell the Americans, the British, and the Zionists that our military operations in support of Gaza will continue, no matter the sacrifices. The Zionists have crossed red lines and must await Yemen's response."

Israeli Shock and Strategic Isolation

The Israeli reaction to the U.S. decision was one of astonishment and concern. According to reports from Israeli media outlets such as Channel 14 and Channel 12, the political establishment in Tel Aviv was blindsided by Trump’s announcement. Analysts suggested that this shift could signify a broader American intention to disengage from direct involvement in regional conflicts, particularly those perceived as primarily serving Israeli strategic interests.

Israeli commentators interpreted the decision as a symbolic abandonment. Channel 12’s Amichai Segal remarked that the move sent a clear message to the region: "Target Israel if you must, but leave us [the U.S.] out of it." This sentiment highlighted fears of growing Israeli isolation in the face of coordinated regional hostility, particularly as Yemen declared it would not relent in targeting Israeli assets.

Moreover, uncertainty lingers in Israel regarding whether the ceasefire includes an implicit U.S. endorsement—or at least tolerance—of Yemeni attacks on Israel, even if American assets are no longer directly involved. Analysts warned that such ambiguity could embolden Iran and its allies, including the Houthis, to escalate attacks against Israeli interests.

Israeli Media:  The United States started bombing Yemen in March, in order to force the Houthis to stop their attacks on Israel. Instead, they started attacking American ships too. Now, suddenly Trump has made peace with them, without involving Israel, throwing away the original intention of the campaign. 

A Conditional Truce and the Resilient Yemeni Stance

While the agreement is framed by the U.S. and Oman as a de-escalatory measure, Yemeni officials have insisted it does not alter their fundamental position. Yemeni Information Minister Dhaifallah al-Shami emphasized in a televised interview that the conflict with the U.S. was merely a consequence of American intervention on behalf of Israel. If the U.S. withdraws, he explained, Yemen would logically stop targeting American ships—but their conflict with Israel remains unchanged.

Al-Shami’s statements clarified that Yemeni attacks on maritime targets began as a response to U.S. airstrikes, not as an independent escalation. With the U.S. potentially stepping away, Yemeni focus may shift entirely back to Israeli targets. He characterized the U.S. decision as a retreat and reaffirmed that Yemeni resistance is fundamentally aimed at countering Israeli aggression and supporting Palestinians in Gaza.

A Shifting Regional Equation

These developments reflect a shifting balance in the Middle East. The U.S. decision to pause airstrikes in Yemen, facilitated by Omani diplomacy, is a notable step toward de-escalation in one arena of conflict. However, the underlying tensions remain, particularly due to Yemen’s unwavering support for Gaza and its framing of the conflict as a broader resistance against what they see as Zionist aggression.

For Israel, the move signifies a strategic recalibration by its closest ally—one that may force Tel Aviv to confront its adversaries with less external military backing than before. For Yemen, the truce with the U.S. is tactical, not strategic; the commitment to Gaza and opposition to what they see as Israeli aggression remain resolute. As the region braces for possible new escalations, the ramifications of this agreement could reverberate far beyond the Red Sea.

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

    Monday, April 08, 2024   No comments

With news reports about US administration reaching out to Iran with an offer to stop its promise of retaliatory strikes against Israel for the latter's attack on Iran's diplomatic facility in Syria, and with Iran's foreign minister making an unscheduled trip to Oman yesterday, it appears that Biden used the killing of aid workers to mask his anger with Israel crossing a red line and carrying out what is essentially a direct attack on Iran.

There is no doubt that Iran can retaliate directly against Israel. It did so against the US when Trump assassinated Soleimani in January 2020. An Iranian retaliatory attack against Israel could set new course for the entire region, however. 

If Iran attacks Israel directly, the right-wing government in Israel will be forced to retaliate or it will collapse. If it were to retaliate to the retaliation, the armed confrontation enters a new phase, similar to the active front with Hezbollah. That will be catastrophic for Israel for many reasons.

Israel cannot invade Iran and if the US does not get involved directly, all Israel can do is to trade rockets and bombs from distance. That formular favors Iran for many reasons, too.  

First, Iran is a much larger country, and its weapons systems are dispersed all over the country. It will not be possible for Israel to take out all weapons systems. If that was possible, US could have done that in Yemen where a much smaller and less prepared group, the Houthis, have overcome a military Western coalition that has been bombing them for months.

Second, Iran has a formidable array of weapons, rockets and drones, that can be launched for months or even years. In addition to these long-distance weapons, Iran can rely on its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to provide support.

Iran will respond given that the highest authority in the country already stated that Iran will receive “a slap”. The question is whether US diplomacy will manage to limit Iran’s response to limits of Israel’s attack. That is, an attack on Israeli diplomatic missions and perhaps an attack on military installations in occupied territories to end the cycle. Iran has the option to attack Israel directly because it considers its diplomatic facilities sovereign territories of Iran. However, attacking Israel diplomatic facilities places Iran outside International norms, too, which it has been using to get the world community to condemn it. 

All these factors give credence to the reporting about the US offer to Iran, possibly through Oman. Because all these indicator show that Israel committed a grave mistake when it attacked a diplomatic facility. It may not just US acting to prevent the widening of a conflict, it is likely that Israel wants to limit the damage too. 

The following media reports provide more contect to what might be behind the scene negotiations.

Iranian diplomatic sources say the US is trying to convince Iran not to retaliate against Israel for its bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month, Al-Jarida newspaper reported on 8 April.

The Israeli strike targeted a building attached to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. It led to the killing of the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, his deputy, and five other IRGC officers.

A source in the Iranian foreign ministry told Al-Jarida that Washington offered Tehran direct negotiations with Tel Aviv to de-escalate the conflict.  

According to the source, Washington will guarantee to persuade Tel Aviv to stop its military operations in Syria and Lebanon on the condition that Iran commit not to retaliate against Israel for the Damascus attack.

At the same time, a diplomatic source in Beirut told Al-Jarida that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected an American proposal to pledge to stop attacks in Syria.

The source added that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is reviewing the US offer but is not expected to accept it if it does not include guarantees for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza and to stop all Israeli and US attacks on Iranian targets or those belonging to Iran's allies in the Axis of Resistance.

The source revealed that the Iranians had also previously received a verbal Israeli proposal via a Gulf state. In the proposal, Tel Aviv claimed it was ready to stop operations against Iranian targets in Syria and Lebanon in exchange for Tehran abandoning retaliation for the killing of Zahedi, whose killing was considered the most significant blow to Iran since the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

According to the source, the Iranian Foreign Ministry responded to the Israeli message by saying that the proposal must also include a ceasefire in Gaza.

However, some IRGC leaders were unhappy with the foreign ministry's response, viewing the Israeli proposal as a trap. The IRGC leaders argued that any negotiations with Israel must take place only after Iran has retaliated.

The source stated that IRGC commanders believe that Israel's targeting of the Iranian consulate is an opportunity that should not be missed to strike a strong blow at Israel, especially since the consular building in Damascus is considered sovereign Iranian territory and was targeted in a clear violation of international law.

The source said that the IRGC leadership believes Washington will not enter a war with Iran even if it retaliates against Israel. They also consider that an adequately harsh strike against Israel will compel it to accept a ceasefire in Gaza and abandon any plans to invade Lebanon or escalate its bombing in Syria.

Western government continue to lose credibility

Despite the fact that the attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria violated global treaties including the Vienna Conventions regulating diplomatic and consular relations and the immunities of diplomats and headquarters (1961, 1963, 1969) and the Rome Statute, US government and its Western allies did not explicitly condemn the attack. Instead, they called on Iran to exert “self-restraint.” 

On Thursday, the German Foreign Ministry called, through a statement, on all parties in the Middle East to calm down, exercise restraint, and act responsibly, following a call by Minister Annalena Baerbock who discussed the matter with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian.

On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned of “expanding conflicts”. During a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, according to a statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that was reported by local media outlets, including the private “Tasnim” agency.

According to the agency, the Iranian Foreign Ministry quoted Cameron as saying that he asked Iran to exercise restraint, and said that “lack of restraint on the part of the parties could lead to further expansion of conflicts in the region.”

Regional powers on the other hand voiced condemnation, directly accusing Israel of violating international norms.

Turkey denounced, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the bombing and considered it a violation of international law, warning that the attack may lead to an exacerbation of the conflict in the region.

Saudi Arabia also condemned the targeting in a Foreign Ministry statement, expressing its “categorical rejection of targeting diplomatic facilities for any justification, and under any pretext.”

In a brief Foreign Ministry statement, the UAE condemned “the targeting of the Iranian diplomatic mission in the Syrian capital, Damascus,” without any additional comment.

Qatar also condemned, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack, and considered it “a blatant violation of international agreements and conventions,” stressing “its complete rejection of targeting diplomatic and consular missions and the necessity of providing protection for their employees in accordance with the rules of international law.”

Egypt said, in a statement to the Foreign Ministry, “We categorically reject the attack on diplomatic facilities under any justification, and we stand in solidarity with Syria in respecting its sovereignty and the integrity of its lands and people.”

Kuwait also considered, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack a “flagrant assault,” renewing its call on “the international community and the Security Council to assume its responsibilities towards taking the necessary measures and exerting the necessary efforts to preserve the safety and stability of the countries of the region and reduce tension and escalation.”

In a statement condemning the attack, the Omani Foreign Ministry stressed “the need to stop the escalation in the region and reject aggression and other actions that threaten security and stability,” expressing condolences to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery to the injured.

Iraq also confirmed in a Foreign Ministry statement that the attack “represents a clear and flagrant violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty,” warning that “the expansion of the cycle of violence in the region will lead to more chaos and instability.”

China and Russia, on the other hand, took advantage of Western reluctance to denounce the flouting of international law

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said that his country strongly condemns the Israeli attack and stresses that the security of diplomatic institutions cannot be violated. He stressed in a press conference in Beijing that “China opposes any actions that lead to escalation of tensions in the Middle East region.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday strongly condemned the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus earlier in the day, denouncing the action as "unacceptable."

"We consider any attacks on diplomatic and consular facilities, the inviolability of which is guaranteed by the relevant Vienna Conventions, to be categorically unacceptable," the ministry said in a statement.

Noting that the attack was carried out in a densely populated metropolitan area with a high risk of mass civilian casualties, the ministry said such "aggressive" actions by Israel are "absolutely unacceptable and must be stopped."