Yemen: Indicators of intransigence of the US-Saudi-Emirati coalition of aggression and its international sponsors continue to mount regarding the demands of the Yemeni People and their legitimate entitlements. Sana’a repeatedly warns about the repercussions of this intransigence, which would push peace efforts towards a dead end. This may lead to surprising new changes in the reality of the confrontation battle.

Increasing Insistence on Continuing Blockade:

During the past short period, Sana'a sent many messages of warning about the consequences of the aggression's insistence on procrastination and delay in implementing the demands of the Yemeni People represented in lifting the blockade, allocating the country's revenues to disbursing employee salaries, and addressing various aspects of the humanitarian issue in order to move towards a sustainable and comprehensive peace. Sana’a made it clear in those messages that it might have to take alternative deterrence measures if the enemy insisted on its position.

Although these warnings brought back to the fore the worst fears of the countries of aggression, the latter is still - as it seems - sticking to its erroneous assessments. Its practical behavior during the last period did not include any indication of positively assimilating Sana’a's messages. Indeed, the aggressive steps and measures witnessed in the arena recently reflected an increase in insistence on intransigence.

One of the most prominent of these aggressive steps was the retraction of additional flights between Sana’a and the Jordanian capital. Although these very limited flights would not have changed much in the reality of the criminal air blockade imposed on the country, their cancellation represented a clear message that the countries involved in aggression are not ready to even come a little closer to implementing the demand to lift the blockade. Rather, it is determined to use every flight and every travel destination as an independent bargaining chip to obtain gains.

It is clear that the minimum that the countries involved in aggression seek to obtain from these “gains” is more time. The announcement of the approval of the additional flights came in conjunction with the escalation of Sana’a military warnings about the consequences of procrastination. It reflects an open and miserable attempt on the part of the coalition of aggression to “contain” Sana’a’s impatience. It is a goal that the countries involved in aggression may have thought they had achieved, but in fact they only achieved a reaffirmation of their lack of seriousness in dealing with the demands of the Yemeni People.

Escalation of Economic War:

In addition to the indications of intransigence in the Sana'a airport issue, the collapse of the currency in the occupied regions came to confirm that the countries involved in aggression and their sponsors are also determined to proceed with the economic war against the Yemeni People and deepen the financial division between the occupied and free governorates. This means insisting on rejecting national solutions and demands represented in ending this division and using the country's main revenues to pay salaries and address the service and living conditions of citizens in all governorates.

It was no coincidence that this deterioration came in parallel with the aggression's rush to search for new sources of financing that would allow their mercenaries to loot more money under the pretext of "confronting the economic crisis". It seemed clear that the United States was seeking to exploit the deterioration in the occupied territories. In order to push for more measures of economic warfare and mercenary enrichment operations at the expense of the interest of citizens, such as plundering the Special Drawing Rights at the World Bank.

In this regard, many reports indicate that the Saudi-backed government intends to raise the price of the customs dollar again on goods and merchandise imported through the ports under its control by 100%. The move will be supported by the US and Britain, of course, as they did previously when they announced their support for the decision to raise the price of the customs dollar to 700 riyals. Their pretext was doubling the resources of the Saudi-backed government. There was a widespread rejection of that decision, even in the occupied territories themselves, due to the catastrophic risks it entailed on the living conditions there.

Through these data, it appears clearly that the US -whose ambassador has significantly intensified his movements in the course of the economic war during the recent period- is working to block the way before any solutions to address the economic situation. It imposed starvation to blackmail Sana’a, and turned any negotiations into mere “bargaining” over rights.

Continuous Attempts to Shuffle Political Cards:

Indicators of intransigence and escalation in the humanitarian and economic issues are inseparable from indications of insistence on shuffling the political cards. The occupied territories are still witnessing escalating movements and trends sponsored by the countries involved in aggression to perpetuate the project of fragmenting and dividing the country.

It has also become clear that the obstacles placed by the enemy in the way of peace efforts in all aspects are clearly aimed at prolonging the state of no war and no peace. This is to allow for other aggressive projects, most notably the division project.

In addition, all the recent positions of the international sponsors of the aggression, headed by the US, Britain and the UN, have explicitly confirmed their adherence to providing mercenaries as a main party in the negotiations. They insist in removing the countries involved in aggression from the forefront of the scene, and linking the legitimate entitlements of the Yemeni People, such as salaries, to these impossible conditions. Which means that the coalition of aggression will not even come close to the requirements of a just peace.

Risks of Miscalculation:

Data and indicators of intransigence, escalation, and shuffling of cards mean that the coalition of aggression still see the continuation of the state of calm as a success for its games and not as an opportunity for the success of peace efforts and reaching actual solutions.

However, this reading relies on one main hypothesis, which is that Sana'a is "bound" to calm and cannot do anything. It is a completely false hypothesis. Because Sana’a's options are diverse, open and without red lines. The military and combat preparations witnessed in the past period clearly confirm this. It is also confirmed by the warnings of the national leadership, which was remarkably keen to address detailed concerns of the countries involved in aggression, such as the safety of Saudi oil facilities and ports.

Moreover, there is still a fact that it is impossible for the coalition of aggression to transcend its consequences. It is the fact that Sana’a is not the party that is “forced” to resort to calm or truce. This means that if necessary and matters reach a dead end, the countries involved in aggression may suddenly find themselves facing unexpected shocks.
At that time, it may be too late even to respond to what is on the table today. This was explicitly confirmed by Sana’a recently.