Yemen: Washington no longer has much to preserve what remains of its dominance in the region, which is the most turbulent and dynamic.

This article, related to recent events in the region, attempts to overlook the reality of America, where the confrontations in the context of the Gaza war seem to be tools for testing and measuring the impact of the faint American influence and weakness in various aspects, especially regarding confrontations in the Red Sea and Yemen's mobilization to defend Gaza residents, pressure to stop the genocidal crimes there, and asserting naval sovereignty in Yemeni waters.

There is a dramatic image highlighted by the leader of the revolution, Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din in his speech recently, discussing how U.S. ships are hiding behind "Marshall Islands" flags in the Red Sea, attempting to pass through Yemeni waters after Yemen expanded its targets to include U.S. and British ships. This is despite the Anglo-American insistence on the passage of Israeli shipping.

Three days before this incident, U.S. warplanes were bombing Yemen, claiming that their airstrikes had achieved what the coalition's aggression against Yemen had not accomplished in nine years. If that were the case, why lower the American flag and hide behind the flags of distant surrounding states?

The story of U.S. ships with "Marshall" flags in Yemeni waters explains part of the deception of the world by the dominant force today, where American lies are more apparent. Washington, London, and Tel Aviv, after their recent aggressions, use all kinds of lies and fabrications.

This means that the choice of confrontation pursued by Washington in its aggression against Yemen must be characterized by exaggeration, trying to compensate for the real defeat with a public relations victory. This implies that the United States is failing in every detail of the event, and what comes after that in terms of repercussions, but with the presence of Britain, it presents a propagandistic approach that markets a fake victory.

This is the best that remains for these two countries, as they persist in defending the butcher "Tel Aviv" and meticulously wage a war of extermination against the people and children of Gaza from behind Israel's racist curtain.

The new aggression launched by the United States and Britain on Yemen since January 11 until February 3 has not changed the prevailing assessment of the effectiveness of the airstrikes started by the two countries, and those hiding behind them from the region's countries.

After the U.S. and London's aerial aggression on Yemen on January 11, the U.S. and British defense ministries claimed that these strikes were successful and would weaken and disable the military capabilities of the Yemeni armed forces.

However, reports from American media indicate that the announced goal of reducing the capabilities of Sana'a's forces and the Higher Political Council's system to launch more attacks will not be achieved this way.

After these strikes, a report by the American news agency "Associated Press" spoke of what it called "the chaotic wave of attacks that included the United States and its allies," and pointed out that retaliatory strikes did not prevent the Yemeni armed forces from continuing their campaign against Israeli shipping in the Red Sea, and Aden Gulf and the blockade on Israel.

The Pentagon's statements about the attacks on Yemen indicate that they will not succeed in achieving the goal of stopping Sanaa's forces' operations because they are linked to the war in Gaza. This creates a paradox!

As the British newspaper "The Guardian" states, the Yemeni armed forces "are not a classic army fighting within fixed military rules; they rely on changing their rules and have spent years fighting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and their mercenaries. They now have the ability and experience to manufacture drones domestically."

Describing them as "blind," according to The New York Times, the capabilities of Sanaa are still intact, and the launch platforms in Yemen can be easily moved and hidden. This clearly indicates that the Americans and the British, described by the newspaper as "blind" to the capabilities of the armed forces to adapt to all conditions and their pre-preparedness for various war situations that have not stopped for nine years.

Despite attempts by the United States and Britain to portray their aggression on Yemen as a significant and impactful blow to Yemen's supportive stance for the Palestinian people, some American-British exaggerations have emerged, turning into material for ridicule for observers.

The Wall Street Journal quoted a Pentagon official as saying that about a quarter of the Houthi arsenal has now been destroyed! British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also spoke, stating that Britain is assessing the results of the strikes in Yemen, with Sunak's initial indicators claiming that the Yemeni armed forces' ability to threaten commercial shipping received a "strong blow."

Despite the official American and British insistence on lying and exporting illusions, this fabricated image has not proven marketable, as it quickly fades due to the reality on the ground. The Yemeni armed forces are capable of facing challenges much greater than the recent American-British airstrikes, proving the failure of American and British calculations in their aggression against Yemen over the past nine years.

Yemen remains the most difficult and complex issue. In a report on the aggressive strikes on Yemen, The New York Times quoted American officials saying, "Finding targets for the Yemeni armed forces has proved more challenging than expected," citing that American and other Western intelligence are ignorant of much about the location of air defenses, command centers, ammunition depots, storage and production facilities for drones and missiles.

Even if they are not ignorant, Yemen's complex geography ensures the safety of the Yemeni arsenal. The United States and Britain have been actively and directly involved in the criminal Saudi-Emirati war on Yemen for more than nine years. There are piles of reports, investigations, and admissions that clearly confirm that Americans and the British were the ones determining targets, gathering intelligence, along with supplying weapons, maintenance, and operating the fighter jets.

The response of the leader of the revolution, Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, was accurate and clear: “the American-British aggression will not affect our military capabilities; it is just a propaganda and media illusion, and this response was sufficient.”

Readiness for the Worst:

Foreign media outlets such as "The Wall Street Journal" and "Reuters" have put forth assumptions suggesting that the American-British attack on Yemen might give Yemenis exactly what they want: direct confrontation. This assault is seen as a kind of "trap" that nullifies the principle of "deterrence" that Washington and London attempted to establish through the aggression, implying that all calculations based on this attack might be wrong, thus increasing the likelihood of unexpected and negative results.

Paul Pillar, a researcher at the Security Studies Center at Georgetown University, says that the American escalation complicates the situation and will have a negative impact on the Yemeni peace prospects. He suggests that the attack on Yemen may bolster the Israeli escalation in Gaza, warning of the costs and risks associated with expanding the war in Gaza. This could increase American military activity, leading to unintended incidents beyond control.

He emphasizes that the American bombing will be seen as a larger American support for Israeli destruction in Gaza, undermining Arab willingness to cooperate with the United States. This increases the likelihood of retaliatory actions against the United States, especially from those who view its involvement as contributing to what many consider a genocide.

These indicators and facts point to a state of American weakness, countered by the image that the Yemeni arsenal is still in good condition. The warnings from the Yemeni leader serve as an effective response to American-British misinformation.