From Alliance to Confrontation: How Yemen Became an Open Arena for Saudi–Emirati Conflict

🔴**From Alliance to Confrontation: How Yemen Became an Open Arena for Saudi–Emirati Conflict**

The war on Yemen is no longer merely an externally imposed military campaign led by Saudi Arabia. Over time, it has evolved into a **revealing laboratory of intra-Gulf contradictions**, exposing the structural fragility of alliances built on coercion, rentier power, and external patronage. The recent crisis between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi—brought into sharp relief by the **Saudi targeting of a vessel allegedly carrying weapons in Yemeni waters and its classification as a “security threat”**—signals not an isolated incident, but a deeper strategic rupture within the coalition that launched the war.

What was once marketed as a unified “Arab coalition” has unraveled into a **competition over spoils, influence, and post-war positioning**, with Yemen reduced to contested terrain rather than recognized as a sovereign political entity.

**I. How the Alliance Was Formed—and Why It Collapsed**

When the war on Yemen began in 2015, Saudi–Emirati coordination appeared firm, backed by full American and Western political cover. The intervention was framed through familiar rhetoric: restoring “legitimacy,” countering Iranian influence, and safeguarding Arab security. Yet this narrative concealed the absence of a shared strategic vision.

Saudi Arabia entered the war driven primarily by **border security anxieties and regime survival logic**. Its objective was to impose a weakened, compliant Yemeni authority incapable of exercising independent sovereignty. The UAE, by contrast, approached Yemen as a **long-term geopolitical investment**—a gateway to ports, islands, maritime routes, and influence extending from the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa.

What initially appeared as coordination soon gave way to **latent rivalry**, then to indirect confrontation. The current crisis merely brings into the open what had long been evident beneath the surface.

**II. Yemen: Not a Civil War, but a Contested Prize**

The Saudi attack on the alleged arms ship cannot be understood as a routine security measure. It is, rather, a **symptom of collapsing trust** between former partners. Riyadh’s framing of the shipment as a threat implicitly acknowledges that **control over weapons, territory, and proxies inside Yemen has slipped beyond Saudi command**.

The UAE’s sustained backing of local militias—particularly separatist forces in southern Yemen—has actively contributed to **state fragmentation**. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, remains trapped in a war of attrition, unable to claim victory yet unwilling to withdraw. Yemen, in this calculus, is neither a nation nor a people, but a **divisible geopolitical asset**.

**III. Competing Regional Projects: Borders versus Ports**

At the heart of the Saudi–Emirati rift lies a clash between two distinct regional strategies: • **Saudi Arabia** seeks a centralized but weak Yemeni state, functioning as a security buffer along its southern border. • **The UAE** favors a decentralized Yemen, dominated through ports, islands, commercial corridors, and loyal militias—particularly in Aden, Socotra, and along the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Southern Yemen has thus become a focal point of this rivalry, stripping the coalition discourse of any remaining credibility.

**IV. Washington and Tel Aviv: Managing Disorder, Not Resolving It**

The United States has historically viewed intra-Gulf tensions not as liabilities, but as **tools of control**. Under Donald Trump’s administration—defined by transactional diplomacy and arms-deal politics—Washington showed little interest in resolving structural conflicts. Its priority was preventing escalation only insofar as it threatened energy markets or Israeli security.

Israel, meanwhile, emerges as the **silent beneficiary** of Gulf fragmentation. Saudi–Emirati discord enhances: • Israeli leverage over Red Sea maritime security, • intelligence cooperation with Gulf states, • and Israel’s role as a pillar of the anti–Axis of Resistance architecture.

Normalization, in this context, is not peace-making—it is **regional reengineering at the expense of popular sovereignty**.

🔴**V. Yemen and the Axis of Resistance: Strategic Reversal**

Ironically, fractures within the aggressor camp have **strengthened Yemen’s resistance forces**, which—despite siege and devastation—have imposed new deterrence equations. The Saudi–Emirati split exposes: • the failure of the US-backed Gulf intervention, • the fragility of alliances grounded in opportunism, • and the limits of military superiority when confronted by organized popular resistance.

Yemen has shifted from being perceived as the weakest link to becoming a **site of systemic exposure** for the regional order imposed by Washington and its allies.

**VI. Where Is the Crisis Headed?**

The Saudi–Emirati rift is not a temporary misunderstanding. It is **structural and enduring**, even if temporarily managed through American mediation. As long as Yemen remains under indirect occupation, conflict among occupiers is inevitable.

Future trajectories include: • managed rivalry below open warfare, • proxy-based escalation, • or forced strategic retreat driven by battlefield realities favoring the resistance.

In all scenarios, one conclusion is unavoidable: **the war on Yemen has failed**, and its internal contradictions now pose a greater threat to its architects than to their adversaries.

**Conclusion**

What is unfolding between Saudi Arabia and the UAE marks the **end of an era**. The illusion of a cohesive Gulf-led regional order is dissolving, while resistance movements continue to consolidate power and legitimacy. Yemen—once targeted for submission—has become a **witness to the collapse of hegemonic fantasies** and a pivotal arena in the reconfiguration of regional power.

**🔵**[Link to the article in Arabic ](https://t.me/almuraqb/338)