Diplomacy & Crisis News

Pour bénéficier de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici !

* * *

Profitez-en pour (re)découvrir le parcours de la revue depuis sa création en 1936 !

 

The MEK advocates for a non-nuclear Iran with free, democratic, and secular values, much in line with our own. Having been based in Iraq since 1986, they are now resettled in European countries, an effort in which the U.S. government played a major role. However, with the President-elect a vocal opponent of the nuclear deal with Tehran, charges against the dissident group and its many defenders—the stock and trade of the mullahs in Tehran—are conveniently resurfacing across the U.S. media.

As an academic and author of three empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles that examine the MEK—in addition to writing the foreword for an independent 2013 study undertaken by Ambassador Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. that addressed the misinformation campaign directed at Western government policies toward the Iranian opposition group—I feel that it is critical to set the record straight.

The US Department of State did not add the MEK to its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) until 1997. The purported basis was the killings of six American military personnel and defense contractors in Iran in the early 1970s. The State Department would later allege that the MEK played a key role in the February 1979 occupation of the US embassy in Tehran and that after fleeing to Paris, and then Iraq in the early 1980s, it conducted terrorist attacks inside Iran. Such claims, never verified with credible terrorism incident data, were formally debunked by French judicial review.

Two years later, in 1999, the United States went a step further by alleging that the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a political organization made up of several Iranian opposition groups that reject clerical rule, was a front for the MEK and designated it too as a terrorist group. Martin Indyk, then Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, indicated that the State Department added the National Council of Resistance (NCR) as an alias for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) because “The Iranian government had brought this to our attention. We looked into it and saw that there were good reasons for designating the NCR as an alias for the MEK.” The United Kingdom (UK) and European Union (EU) followed suit, pinning the MEK (though not the NCRI) to their terror lists.

The evidence, however, demonstrates that the US military officers and contractor killings that formed the basis of the original designation were carried out by a secular hard-left splinter group, with no ties to MEK leadership; that there was no proof that the MEK played a role in the 1979 embassy takeover; and that the armed resistance carried out by the MEK from Iraq was an insurgency directed at official regime targets, not innocent civilians, at a time that their relatives and sympathizers were being jailed, tortured and executed en masse.

There is also overwhelming evidence that Iran lobbied hard to get the United States and other Western governments to designate the MEK as terrorists, even though the allegations were baseless. Only a day after the US added the MEK to its FTO list in October 1997, one senior Clinton administration official said inclusion of the MEK was intended as a ‘goodwill gesture’ to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president Mohammad Khatami. Five years later, the same official told Newsweek: “[There] was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. At the time, President Khatami had recently been elected and was seen as a moderate. Top administration officials saw cracking down on the [MEK]—which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace, as one way to do so.”

Across the Atlantic, similar political considerations operated. In 2006, then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitted that the UK designation of the MEK in 2001 was specifically issued in response to demands made by the Iranian regime. That same year, classified documents, later unclassified by a UK court, revealed that senior foreign service officials were concerned about possible adverse foreign policy consequences if the terrorist designation was lifted since the Iranian regime prioritized “tough legal and political measures” against the organization. The EU too is now known to have bowed to pressure in designating the MEK in 2002.

Supporters of removing the terrorist designation took their case to courts. These efforts met with strong resistance, not only from spokespersons for Iran but also from representatives of a new Iran-tilting government in Iraq. By 2006, seven European courts had ruled that the group did not meet lawful criteria for terrorism. They also ruled that the terrorist designation should have been moot after 2001, when the group’s leadership ceased armed resistance to focus on a political and social campaign to bring about democratic change in Iran.

In the United States, where the courts similarly ruled repeatedly in favor of the MEK, and as many as 200 members of Congress signed statements endorsing its cause, the process was stalled until America’s second highest court granted the writ of mandamus filed by the MEK, and ordered the Secretary of State to take action or it would delist the group. Secretary Hillary Clinton, having been provided no credible basis for re-listing by the intelligence community, revoked the designation in September 2012.

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the MEK is a natural ally of the United States, one to which we have pledged our support. Unfortunately, if people are to believe the misleading media storm, it could have a dire influence on the selection of our next Secretary of State and the future of US-Iran policy.

Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Associate Professor of Public and International Affairs, is director of the graduate program in Global Affairs and Human Security at the University of Baltimore. Follow him on Twitter @ProfSheehan.

The post Media Storm Resurrects Discredited Claims about Iranian Resistance Group appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today commended the people of Gambia for the peaceful and orderly manner in which yesterday&#39s presidential election was held and congratulated President-elect Adama Barrow.

Concerned by the increasing polarization in the Maldives, which has made dialogue among the Government and political parties increasingly difficult, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has encouraged all concerned to work toward an inclusive dialogue.

Welcoming the Colombian parliament&#39s ratification of the new Final Peace Agreement between the Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People&#39s Army, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council have expressed hope for its swift implementation for the benefit of all Colombians.

With the humanitarian crisis in Syria’s devastated city of Aleppo deteriorating by the day, the United Nations Special Envoy for the country appealed for a pause in fighting so that much needed relief can reach the city’s population and those with urgent medical emergencies can be evacuated.

(Own report) - Recent media reports have, for the first time, disclosed US American interference in German business deals with recalcitrant countries. US authorities intervene directly, if German companies carry out financial transactions, for example, with Iran. Repeatedly, Washington has successfully blocked business deals - even though they had been legal in Germany - and had the respective employees and board members fired from their jobs, using the justification that (German) companies with sites in the USA are subject to US law. This also applies to bilateral US sanctions imposed, for example, on Iran. This means that Washington actually succeeds in transposing US domestic law onto other countries, including Germany. The most recent example: Washington is considering a veto on a Chinese company's taking over Aixtron, a German chip equipment manufacturer. President Obama is expected to announce his decision today, Friday. These US-practices have been disclosed at a time of political transition, as Berlin is reinforcing its efforts to create an EU armed forces, to achieve "strategic autonomy" and become a world power. This arrogant US interference in the German-European economy is a taboo that cannot be tolerated on the road toward the long anticipated "superpower Europe."

But the monarch has big shoes to fill — at a time when Thailand needs steady leadership most.

Trump's pick for secretary of defense will require a congressional exemption to serve.

The French president says he will not seek re-election.

President-elect Donald Trump made his first overture to former Soviet Central Asia and may looking for ways to mend ties with Moscow.

Everyone wants to blame South Korea’s incestuous business culture for the recent failures of its massive conglomerates. But that’s not the reason they’re in a funk.

Can the hipster invocation of God’s will survive the coming wave of American Islamophobia?

Oops.

On World AIDS Day and every other day, AIDS is a worldwide phenomenon.

But it could be on the downswing from here, experts say.

Life is good and getting better in Putin's Russia, says Putin in his annual address.

Palestinian firefighters after helping to extinguish the Nahf fire. (Agence France Presse)

Last week, while Americans celebrated Thanksgiving, fires raged across Israel and on social media.

While Northern Israel was besieged by “unprecedented” fires, forcing tens of thousands of residents to flee their homes, another battle raged in the war of the Middle Eastern twitterverse.

Firefighters fought upwards of 250 large fires, with more than 1500 total fires burning across the region. People across Israel, the Middle East and the world began trading barbs about the fire, both mourning and rejoicing in the devastation.

Northern Israel had been extremely dry due to a severe lack of rain. These dry conditions and heavy winds helped readily spread the flames. While the initial fires were naturally occurring, many of the fires that followed are thought to have been acts of arson.

As the flames spread, people coalesced on social media around the hashtag #IsraelIsBurning. Throughout the Arab world, the fires were being equated with Israel’s controversial bill to ban outside loudspeakers from places of worship, clearly aimed at preventing mosques from making their 5-time daily Muezzin call.

The hashtag, in English and in Arabic, really began to take off when it started getting used by several Imams from Arab Gulf countries, including Kuwaiti preacher Mishary Rashid Alafasy who has 11.6 million Twitter followers.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to brand all such arsonists as “terrorists.” Education Minister Naftali Bennett stated that those lighting the fires could not be Jewish. “Only those to whom the country does not belong are capable of burning it.”

While Israel battled these fires, the world came together to offer assistance. The US, Turkey, Egypt, Ukraine, Greece, Russia and others sent aid, planes, trucks and manpower. But some assistance came from much closer to home; the Palestinian Authority sent eight firetrucks and four firefighting teams to help battle the flames.

Superintendent Micky Rosenfeld, the Israel Police Foreign Press Spokesman, sent a tweet with several pictures of Palestinian firefighters working alongside Israeli firefighters to “help put out fires and blazes.”

And Israel’s official Twitter account shared a video of Palestinian firefighters at work.

But when Israel made a professional and official graphic stating that “Israel is thankful for all the support and assistance from around the world!” (shared over Thanksgiving weekend), the Palestinians were not included. They received merely a footnote.

Other than Israel, no one was more directly threatened by these fires than the Palestinians themselves. While Israel was quick to condemn Palestinians lighting the fires as terrorists, they were reluctant to label those fighting the fires as heroes.

Belarus, Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Georgia, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland are all included in the above graphic for simply offering assistance.

But while the Palestinians stood alongside Israelis fighting the flames, on social media they were but a footnote.

Other related hashtags in use: #Israel_IsBurning, #TelAviv_Is_Burning, #IsraelFires, #IsraelBurns and #IsraelUnderAttack.

Follow me on Twitter @jlemonsk.

The post #IsraelIsBurning appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Tous les sondages donnaient le « oui » gagnant avec une marge confortable. Le 2 octobre, les Colombiens ont pourtant rejeté l'accord de paix entre le gouvernement et les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC), qui orchestrait la fin d'un conflit vieux de plus d'un demi-siècle. Tout aussi étrange, la participation n'a atteint que 37,4 %. Le pays préférerait-il la guerre à la paix ?

Comprendre le rejet de l'accord entre le gouvernement et les Forces armées révolutionnaires de Colombie (FARC) lors du référendum du 2 octobre dernier implique de saisir les raisons qui ont conduit les deux parties à engager des pourpalers et, surtout, d'analyser le contexte dans lequel ceux-ci se sont déroulés. Le pays est en effet engourdi par cinquante-deux ans de conflit, et quatre années de négociations n'ont pas suffi à le sortir d'une torpeur politique entretenue par les grands médias.

Si les FARC et le gouvernement ont entamé ces discussions, c'est parce que les deux parties avaient compris qu'une solution militaire était impossible (1). Les FARC ont essuyé de lourdes pertes, notamment du fait de la surenchère répressive de l'ancien président Álvaro Uribe (2002-2010), qui avait mobilisé toutes les ressources de l'État pour anéantir les mouvements de guérilla. À l'époque, M. Juan Manuel Santos, l'actuel président, occupait le poste de ministre de la défense. Il était parvenu à faire exécuter plusieurs grandes figures des FARC, tandis que diverses mesures d'accompagnement invitaient les guérilleros à déposer les armes. Leurs rangs s'étaient éclaircis, mais ils n'avaient pas disparu.

L'État a compris que ses offensives ne suffiraient pas. Depuis la politique d'« ouverture économique » amorcée par le président César Gaviria (1990-1994), la Colombie entend participer davantage aux échanges mondiaux en rendant son économie plus « attractive » : réduction des droits de douane, déréglementation, privatisation, libéralisation des échanges et production destinée à l'exportation (2). Ce tournant néolibéral a cependant été contrarié par la guerre civile : les FARC et les autres acteurs du conflit ont imposé des taxes aux propriétaires terriens ; les enlèvements avec demande de rançon se sont multipliés ; les entreprises ont dépensé des fortunes pour assurer leur sécurité…

Autre facteur déterminant : la création, au début des années 1990, de forces paramilitaires d'extrême droite, notamment les Autodéfenses unies de Colombie (AUC). Leur objectif affiché était d'aider l'État à combattre les guérillas. Mais elles ont également mené une violente campagne d'assassinats politiques et œuvré au déplacement de millions de personnes qui dérangeaient l'oligarchie foncière et freinaient l'extension de l'exploitation agricole et minière tournée vers l'exportation. De sorte que paramilitarisme et néolibéralisme ont longtemps marché main dans la main.

Ce binôme s'est révélé si efficace qu'il a fini par perdre de son utilité. Au début des années 2010, l'élection de M. Santos, incarnation de l'élite néolibérale cosmopolite, suggérait que cette dernière souhaitait « moderniser » le régime d'accumulation colombien. L'heure était venue d'entamer des pourparlers avec les FARC.

Les arrière-pensées d'Álvaro Uribe

Les négociations, qui se sont ouvertes en septembre 2012 à La Havane, visaient six grands objectifs (3) : fixer les modalités d'un cessez-le-feu et d'un dépôt des armes ; rendre justice aux victimes de la guerre civile, qui a fait 220 000 morts ; résoudre le problème du trafic de drogue ; soutenir le développement rural, la pauvreté dans les campagnes étant l'un des principaux facteurs déclencheurs du conflit ; permettre aux anciens combattants de s'engager dans la vie politique et, plus largement, favoriser la participation de la population ; enfin, assurer la mise en place et le suivi de l'ensemble des accords. Soucieux d'en renforcer la légitimité, M. Santos a tenu à organiser un référendum national au sujet du document final — une proposition que les FARC, surmontant leurs réticences initiales, ont fini par accepter. Il s'en mord sans doute les doigts.

L'accord ne prévoit ni la transformation du système économique ni la résorption des inégalités foncières, dans un pays où 1 % de la population possède plus de 50 % des terres. Autrement dit, il ne traite aucun des problèmes qui sont à l'origine du conflit : il se borne à favoriser le statu quo, sans toutefois prétendre rétablir la situation d'avant-guerre. Compte tenu du nombre de Colombiens que le conflit a déplacés, les négociateurs ont convenu que la récupération des terres serait un processus délicat à mettre en œuvre.

D'emblée, la campagne en faveur des accords de paix s'est trouvée confrontée à une difficulté majeure : il fallait synthétiser un document de trois cents pages en très peu de temps, car six semaines seulement séparaient la fin des négociations (24 août) du référendum (2 octobre). Le camp du « oui » a également souffert d'une autre faiblesse : l'impopularité du président Santos, liée aux difficultés économiques du pays, où le chômage atteint 9 % et l'inflation, 7 %. Quelques semaines avant le scrutin, sa cote de popularité dépassait à peine les 20 %. Enfin, au vu des sondages, qui donnaient le « oui » largement gagnant, ses partisans ont cru leur victoire acquise et n'ont pas pris l'opposition suffisamment au sérieux.

Les handicaps de la campagne du « oui » ont rendu celle de l'autre camp d'autant plus facile. Lors d'un entretien accordé quelques jours après le référendum au quotidien La República, M. Juan Carlos Vélez, le responsable de la campagne du « non », en a révélé — accidentellement, peut-être — les dessous avec force détails (4). L'une des principales stratégies consistait à susciter « l'indignation » en diffusant des informations partielles ou fallacieuses. Les partisans du « non » ont par exemple attiré l'attention sur l'aide financière que recevraient les membres des FARC tant qu'ils n'auraient pas d'autres sources de revenus. Ils n'ont cessé de rappeler le montant de l'allocation — 212 dollars par mois, soit 90 % du salaire minimum —, jugé excessif pour un pays pauvre.

Des allégations plus pernicieuses prétendaient que les accords incluaient des clauses visant à renforcer la légalisation du mariage homosexuel en Colombie (5), pays où 30 % de la population appartient à une Église évangélique. En réalité, le texte ne mentionne ni le mariage ni l'homosexualité. Ses détracteurs ont par ailleurs proclamé qu'il transformerait la Colombie en un pays « castro-chaviste », c'est-à-dire semblable à Cuba ou au Venezuela. Enfin, l'un de leurs arguments les plus efficaces portait sur le programme de justice transitionnelle, grâce auquel les membres des FARC pourraient bénéficier de remises ou de commutations de peine s'ils avouaient leurs crimes. Cette disposition a particulièrement scandalisé une population dont la perception du conflit a été biaisée par les médias.

Une étude de la chercheuse Alexandra García (6) portant sur plus de cinq cents articles publiés dans les grands journaux (El Tiempo, El Colombiano, El Heraldo, etc.) entre 1998 et 2006 a montré que le terme « paramilitaire » ou le nom des organisations d'extrême droite n'apparaissait pas dans 75 % des articles se référant à des violences qui leur étaient imputables ; il était seulement question d'« hommes armés » ou d'« hommes encagoulés ». Dans le cas d'actes de violence impliquant la guérilla, en revanche, 60 % des articles la mentionnaient explicitement. De sorte que, pour 32 % de la population, les FARC sont les principales instigatrices de la violence en Colombie, alors que toutes les études s'entendent pour établir une autre hiérarchie des responsabilités : l'État ; la population en général ; les paramilitaires ; les narcotrafiquants ; et enfin la guérilla (7).

Tout au long de la campagne, le principal représentant du camp du « non », M. Uribe, a martelé son opposition aux dispositions en matière de justice transitionnelle. Human Rights Watch (HRW) a soutenu le camp du « non » pour les mêmes motifs. Les membres des FARC qui avouent avoir commis des crimes pendant la guerre civile ne devraient pas pouvoir commuer leurs peines de prison en simples travaux d'intérêt général ou en assignation à résidence, disent-ils tous. Pourtant, la plupart des accords de paix — par exemple ceux signés au Salvador ou en Afrique du Sud — prévoient de tels dispositifs de justice réparatrice.

L'hostilité de M. Uribe envers les accords de paix a probablement des motivations différentes de celles de HRW. Son bilan en matière de droits humains pendant son mandat de gouverneur de l'Antioquia, puis de président, laisse penser que la justice ne figure pas au nombre de ses priorités. En outre, en 2005, lorsqu'il était chef de l'État, n'avait-il pas fait en sorte que les paramilitaires bénéficient de mécanismes de justice transitionnelle encore plus généreux que ceux prévus pour les FARC ?

Ce qui le préoccupe est plus probablement la question de la restitution des terres. M. Uribe entretient en effet des liens étroits avec l'oligarchie, qui craint de devoir rendre leurs terres aux paysans déplacés. Après le résultat du référendum, il a présenté des propositions de modification du texte, et la principale porte sur ce sujet : « Les accords doivent reconnaître l'existence d'une production commerciale à grande échelle, son importance dans le développement rural et l'économie nationale et l'obligation de l'État de la promouvoir (8).  » Selon lui, il faudrait renoncer à la saisie de terres privées en friche qui appartenaient auparavant à des paysans déplacés. On ne devrait pas obliger ceux qui les ont achetées « de bonne foi » à les rendre à leurs anciens propriétaires, même si ces derniers avaient été contraints de fuir par des incursions de paramilitaires ou par la guerre civile.

Néanmoins, le rejet de l'accord s'explique surtout par le faible taux de participation : 18 % des électeurs ont voté « non », tandis que 63 % n'ont pas voté du tout. Les intempéries du 2 octobre dans les régions côtières ont sans aucun doute joué un rôle dans cette abstention massive, qui a atteint 75 % dans le département de Magdalena et 80 % dans celui de La Guajira. Mais elle résulte sans doute également de la dépolitisation de la société, fruit de la répression et de la manipulation médiatique qui caractérisent l'histoire récente du pays. Les « escadrons de la mort » des paramilitaires ont pratiquement éliminé toute une génération de militants et de défenseurs des droits sociaux. Dans ces conditions, il n'est guère étonnant que la Colombie présente l'un des taux de participation électorale les plus faibles d'Amérique latine...

La victoire du « non » place les deux camps dans une situation inconfortable. Les FARC avaient déclaré qu'elles seraient prêtes à retourner à la table des négociations, en précisant toutefois qu'elles ne reviendraient pas sur le volet de la justice transitionnelle, un point crucial pour les opposants. Ces derniers marchent également sur des œufs. Si M. Uribe a fait campagne contre la justice transitionnelle, il visait en réalité la restitution des terres. M. Santos pourrait peut-être sauver l'accord en apportant des rectifications sans conséquence à la partie consacrée à la justice, et en obtenant des FARC des concessions plus importantes sur la question agricole. Les guérilleros devraient alors accepter de concentrer leurs efforts sur la mise en œuvre de la loi sur la restitution des terres votée en 2011.

Pendant ce temps, dans toute la Colombie, les mouvements sociaux se sont mobilisés en faveur de l'application des accords de paix tels qu'ils ont été signés. Ils ont commencé à occuper l'une des plus grandes places de Bogotá et entrepris de contester le référendum auprès de la Cour suprême en arguant du caractère malhonnête de la campagne du « non ». Mais le recours risque de ne pas avoir le temps d'aboutir : l'attribution du prix Nobel de la paix 2016 à M. Santos lui confère une légitimité supplémentaire pour conclure rapidement le processus. Et un autre facteur pourrait ajouter à l'urgence : l'ouverture de négociations avec une autre guérilla, l'Armée de libération nationale (Ejército de Liberación Nacional, ELN), prévue pour le 27 octobre, à Quito, sous les auspices du gouvernement équatorien.

(1) Lire « Pourquoi la Colombie peut croire à la paix », Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 2012.

(2) Cf. Forrest Hylton, « Peace in Colombia : A new growth strategy », NACLA Report on the Americas, vol. 48, no 3, New York, 2016.

(3) Lire Maurice Lemoine, « En Colombie, “pas de justice, pas de paix” », Le Monde diplomatique, février 2013.

(4) « El No ha sido la campaña más barata y más efectiva de la historia », La República, Bogotá, 5 octobre 2016.

(5) En avril 2016, la Cour suprême colombienne a légalisé le mariage homosexuel, arguant qu'il était inconstitutionnel de réserver le mariage aux couples hétérosexuels.

(6) Auteure du blog La Perorata, http://laperorata.wordpress.com

(7) Adriaan Alsema, « How Colombia's newspapers consistently misinformed the public on the armed conflict », Colombia Reports, 18 octobre 2016, www.colombiareports.com

(8) Adriaan Alsema, « Uribe formally presents proposals to revive Colombia peace deal », Colombia Reports, 13 octobre 2016.

The Arleigh Burke Class guided missile destroyer USS Mason (US Navy)

Since March 2015 U.S. allies, led by Saudi Arabia, have been increasingly involved in a military campaign in Yemen against the Zaydi Shia fundamentalist rebel movement known as the Houthis, and their ally, former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Yemenis forced to flee their homes because of it.

Yemen’s collapsing state holds negative implications for international maritime trade, as the conflict is occurring near a major trading artery for the global economy, the Suez Canal-Red Sea shipping lane, and for regional security for countries on both sides of the Red Sea, including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf of Aden.

The lack of a deep Yemeni national identity means that the incomplete fall of Saleh has seen multiple competing power centre re-emerge. Owing to the lack of national cohesion, events could yet see the country break up entirely, pushing nation building into to the far future. Militarily, NATO should therefore stay out of this bitter factional civil war between multiple sides. However, the Alliance should seek to mitigate the effects of the conflict at sea where international shipping could be affected by the belligerents or a fresh wave of piracy.

A multisided struggle

The real roots of the present civil war stem from Yemen’s complex regional and tribal politics, long predating the Arab Spring which led to the toppling of Saleh, Yemen’s long-time dictator. Following months of protests against his rule, a Saudi-backed deal saw Saleh step down in 2012 in favour of his Vice President, Field Marshal Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.

Hadi took office after running in an election as the only candidate for a transitional presidency, but in 2015 he was overthrown in turn by the Houthis who allied with the deposed Saleh. Their long-running insurgency had first developed in the early 2000s under the former dictator’s rule, but the Houthis saw the chaos of the Arab Spring as a chance to expand at the expense of the weakened central government of Saleh’s successor.

Hadi bitterly denounced the Houthi move against him as a coup, eventually fleeing to Saudi Arabia. A massive Saudi-led intervention against the Houthis and Saleh followed in March 2015, by nine Arab states and assorted mercenary forces. Djibouti and Somalia open their airspace, waters and military bases to the coalition whilst the U.S. accelerated its sale of weapons to coalition states and provided intelligence and logistical support. The U.S. and UK have also deployed their military personnel in the command and control centre responsible for Saudi airstrikes.

Saudi influence has galvanized regional states to defend the internationally recognized Yemeni government. However the kingdom’s military campaign has also provided an opening for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Islamic State (IS) to seize territory in Yemen from which they operate in relative safety, and threatens to internationalize the Yemeni civil war.

A regional battle for influence

An example of this internationalization came on October 12 when the U.S. alleged that Houthi forces had fired missiles on American naval assets and struck back by targeting the rebel’s radar systems. Previously American attacks in Yemen had been limited to targeting members of Sunni militant groups in the fragmented state such as AQAP, al-Qaeda’s local franchise, which found refuge in Yemen after largely being driven out of neighboring Saudi Arabia in 2009.

Houthi hostility to America predates the U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia during its intervention on behalf of President Hadi’s feeble regime in March 2015. As a minority Shi’a community in a Sunni majority nation, they are fierce enemies of Sunni fundamentalist movements such as IS or AQAP, which view them as apostates to be exterminated. But they also oppose U.S. military involvement in the fight against the Sunni radicals as an unacceptable infringement of Yemeni sovereignty.

Now that the U.S. has supported direct military intervention against the group, this position has hardened and allegedly led to the recent missile attacks against U.S. navy ships. Though the Houthis deny their forces carried out the attacks, analysts speculate the rebels might have acquired Iranian anti-ship missiles or seized these from captured Yemeni army stocks. The result is direct hostilities have occurred between the Houthis and the U.S. for the first time.

Meanwhile the Saudis see the Shi’a Houthis as coming under the influence of Iran, though proof of Iranian backing to the rebels remains limited. As such Riyadh perceived the overthrow of the Hadi government through the lens of its struggle for influence in the Middle East with Tehran, rather than an internal development in Yemen’s turbulent politics. Thanks to forceful Saudi and U.S. support, President Hadi’s forces have been able to retake Aden and hold onto large parts of central Yemen. But the Houthis still hold the capital Sana’a and the Saudi led coalition has been unable to dislodge the rebels from the parts of Yemen unsympathetic to the internationally recognized government.

The exact extent of any Iranian backing for the Houthis is unknown but likely to remain small. The Houthis do not follow the same branch of Shi’a Islam as the Iranian regime and the Yemeni militia is not influenced by Tehran to anywhere near the same extent that Lebanon’s Hezbollah is, for example. Nonetheless there are credible reports that weapons transfers sent through neighboring Oman, said to include missiles, ammunition and small arms, have been stepped up by Iran to the Houthis in recent months. Yemeni and senior regional officials accuse the Omanis of turning a blind eye to the flow of arms through their territory and of failing to aggressively crack down on the transfers.

Western officials have been more skeptical about the scale of Iranian backing, pointing out that the Houthis secured an arsenal of weaponry when entire divisions of Yemen’s army, allied to former Yemeni President Saleh, defected to them at the start of the civil war last year. These included the crews of three Chinese-made Type 021 missile boats armed with C.801 anti-ship missiles. Some analysts claim that an unknown number of these C.801 missiles and their launchers were installed on trucks by Houthi forces and coupled with various surface-search radars to create an improvised missile system.

The Houthis had been using these weapons without success to strike at the Saudi coalition’s naval blockade against Yemen for about a year until they managed a direct hit against the catamaran Swift, a former U.S. Navy catamaran now in Emirati service. This system was destroyed in retaliatory strikes by American forces after the Houthis targeted U.S. ships but Tehran can easily supply its proxies with Iranian made replacements and the training to use them.

Since Iran offers a quasi-recognition of the Houthis as Yemen’s legitimate government and certainly sees the civil war in Yemen through the matrix of its regional conflict with Saudi Arabia, this would not be impossible to envisage. Tehran believes backing the Houthis in Yemen against Saudi Arabia is a counter move offsetting Saudi Arabia’s support for Syrian rebels fighting Iran’s ally Bashar al-Assad.

It carries the risk of potentially antagonizing the United States at a time the two countries have warily cooperated over Iran’s nuclear program, but Tehran may think of Washington’s approval of Saudi action in Yemen as a sop from the Obama administration to Riyadh. When the nuclear deal was signed in 2015 skeptical Gulf countries warned Washington it would only embolden Iran in conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. The Iranians may be gambling that at least in Yemen the U.S. will not care enough to do anything except continue reassure the Saudis that they remain committed to defending Saudi Arabia’s interests.

No Kosovo

The U.S. and other Western nations are right to hesitate before committing themselves, either individually or collectively though NATO, to a military campaign aimed at resolving Yemen’s intractable differences. Yemen was only formally united as a country in 1990 and has remained deeply divided even during the height of Saleh’s dictatorship. . The new Houthi Revolutionary Committee has been unable to defeat tribesmen opposed to it in central Yemen despite holding its ground against the Saudis and their allies on its home ground in Yemen’s north-western areas.

Meanwhile, although Saudi money did much to keep Yemen afloat before the war, this has now gone. As a result, the Yemeni economy is in freefall while civilians are on the brink of starvation. Yemen’s feuding factions include hostile southern secessionists and IS and AQAP militants who would react violently to any Western intervention on behalf of the Hadi regime. Heavy casualties would be inevitable and any post-conflict clean up would take years and cost billions, particularly one aiming at a Kosovo or Bosnian style nation building program to bring a permanent end to civil war. No Western government would be willing to meet this commitment at present and any failure would damage the prestige and perceived value of NATO.

The presence of major regional powers backing different sides in the present civil war also means that Yemen makes an especially poor choice for a major NATO intervention. Admittedly Yemen is lower on the Iranian priority list than it is for Saudi Arabia; Iran is ultimately much more willing to relinquish Yemen than cede influence in Iraq or Lebanon. But it is a useful card to have, and Tehran will keep playing it for as long as it can, because the Iranian regime knows how weak its proxies are, making Iran’s major rival look through their defiance. Riyadh has always considered Yemen to be in its backyard, and insisted that foreign countries, including the United States, follow the Saudi lead when making deals with its troublesome neighbor.

Inserting NATO forces into this conflict would be unlikely to end the fighting in Yemen entirely as long as Riyadh remains determined to end the war on its terms. Iran could step up its support to compensate for any NATO troop surge, setting the stage for a wider escalation beyond Yemen if Western armies are being constantly attacked by Iranian weapons. At a time when Europe is already strained by refugees from the war in Syria, any escalation of war in the Middle East would be a disaster which would expose divergent U.S. and European interests.

A job for NATO: Maritime security

The Houthi attacks on shipping passing through the Gulf of Aden have highlighted one valuable role for NATO forces— maritime security. Indeed, the Houthis gained access to missile systems which present a real danger to international shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the nearby strait, Bab al-Mandeb. The strait is a major shipping lane between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden leading into the Indian Ocean, and any Houthi attempt to disrupt the passage of international shipping would have massive financial implications for logistics and insurance companies involved in the maritime sector.

It would also be an economic disaster for Egypt, which controls the Suez Canal connecting the Gulf region and Asia to Europe and North America. Egypt has committed warships to support coalition operations against the Houthis and the rebels may calculate that targeting the economies of Saudi Arabia’s allies would be a good way to weaken the coalition supporting its domestic enemies.

Missile launchers and their radar systems have proven vulnerable to U.S. countermeasures but there are also reports that the Houthis have used small speed boats to support their missile attacks on coalition and U.S. vessels. These only present a danger to unarmed support ships like the Swift or to civilian vessels but these are precisely the vessels which would be vulnerable if the Houthis decided to switch tactics and start performing suicide attacks or hijackings in the Gulf of Aden or the straits.

There are precedents for this—in 2000 the USS Cole was hit by a speed boat packed with explosives while it was being refuelled in Yemen’s Aden harbour. Meanwhile hijackings by Somali pirates using small boats to approach and board undefended civilian vessels mean ships passing through the Gulf of Aden have required a permanent international naval taskforce to protect them. Even before Yemen’s civil war reached its present heights there were fears that a devastated Yemen could serve as a new hub for piracy.

NATO should consider the possibility that the Houthis could adopt this tactic or encourage and tolerate the emergence of pirate groups on their territory as a form of economic warfare against the Saudi coalition and its Western supporters. This would function similarly to the way Iran presently sponsors the Houthi ‘government’ as a means of pressuring Saudi Arabia without fighting an open war against them.

This could be modeled on the effort to suppress Somalian piracy, which NATO has been helping to deter and disrupt since 2008, protecting vessels and helping to increase the general level of security in the Gulf of Aden, off the Horn of Africa and in the Indian Ocean. As part of this, NATO is currently leading Operation Ocean Shield in the region and working in close collaboration with the European Union’s Operation Atalanta, the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151 and individual country contributors. Ocean Shield is scheduled to terminate in December 2016 but with the rise of the Houthi threat the alliance should shift its attention to the other side of the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

Conclusion

Yemen would be a highly unsuitable place for NATO intervention by air or on land. The interests of the Alliance at stake in Yemen are simply not high enough yet to justify intervening in what is essentially a civil war between Yemeni factions, aggravated by the sectarian struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The cost of maintaining peace and security in Yemen would be staggering at a time when the Alliance needs to focus on more urgent matters, such as deterring Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe.

This could change if there is an emergence of a jihadist emirate along the style of the IS caliphate declared in Iraq and Syria or the takeover of northern Mali in 2012. But for now, AQAP and IS in Yemen have not reached such threatening heights, while the arrival of NATO units to Yemen would merely provide targets of opportunity and ideological justification to the Sunni terrorist networks currently operating there.

What would be of great value in light of the demonstrated Houthi interest and ability to hit vessels passing through the Bab al-Mandeb strait is the creation of a new NATO naval task force modeled on its Somali predecessor to help deter future attacks and enforce freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, the Bab al-Mandeb and elsewhere around the world.

A version of this article appeared earlier in the Atlantic Voices journal of the Atlantic Treaty Association and reappears here with kind permission.

The post Yemen: A Regional Problem With Regional Consequences appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.