Iran this week has thrown a one-two diplomatic punch in the matter of Yemen’s insurgency problem. It remains to be seen if the Islamic revolutionary state is punching above its weight; that may depend on what, if anything, the U.S. does. But Arabs in the region have taken Iran’s initiative badly, seeing it as the continuation of a trend toward Iranian meddling in Arab nations’ affairs.
On November 5, Saudi Arabia launched a counteroffensive against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Shias with Iranian backing who have violated the Saudi border in the course of their fight against the central government in Sana’a. A Saudi officer was reportedly killed by the Houthis last week, and the Saudis are losing confidence in the ability of the Saleh government to quell the insurgency. On November 10, Iran — the Houthis’ supplier — warned “Yemen’s neighbors” against meddling in Yemeni affairs. Since “Yemen’s neighbors” amount to Saudi Arabia and Oman, this warning was quite pointed.
Today Al Jazeera reports that Iran has offered to “aid Yemeni security,” proclaiming Tehran ready to help restore peace to the insurgency-torn nation. Al Jazeera’s hostile view of this disingenuous initiative is a reliable reflection of sentiment in Arab capitals. The proposal is also a direct challenge to America’s network of partnerships in the region. Iran advancing itself as a moderator of an Arab nation’s internal affairs is, in fact, a power play, one that would not be mounted in an environment of American alertness and determination.
Iran has conducted its foreign policy for years through the sponsorship of terrorism against Israel and Lebanon. It’s through gaining an insidious foothold in other nations, through coming in the back door, that Iran has sought regional influence. Now the mullahs propose to be admitted through the front door in Yemen, and have their support to the Houthi guerrillas validated by a recognized diplomatic process.
With Iran already an established presence in Eritrea, Sudan, and Somalia, will the Obama administration discourage this fresh initiative with any level of firmness? Or will it leave the Saudis and Yemenis to make their own arrangements for resistance to Iran’s outreach? See what you think (from the Huffington Post piece linked above):
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters [on November 5] he had no information about whether the conflict had spread across the border but expressed Washington’s concern over the situation.
“It’s our view that there can be no long-term military solution to the conflict between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels,” Kelly said. “We call on all parties to the conflict to make every effort to protect civilian populations and limit damage to civilian infrastructure.”
That doesn’t sound to me like a posture Iran would have to worry about colliding with. It probably didn’t sound like one to Iran either.
“He is Bill Clinton without the interns.”
Sounds like he’ll make a good president.
For all who consider this piece news, here’s another nugget: Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox.
He’s a good soldier sent in to split the Obama vote so Hillary can win. Otherwise, where would the money come from?
He may be overplaying his hand, though.
Not that I’m opposed to bashing John Edwards, but a certain amount of phoniness comes with running for office. As a general rule, Americans want to see their best ordinary features reflected in their leaders. They loved Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan–ordinary people identified with them–even though the first two were patricians and the third was a movie star.
The problem with John Edwards isn’t so much that he’s faking, but that he’s faking badly.
Shmuel: The money comes from the American Trial Lawyers’ Association, many of whose members, enriched the same way as Edwards, can well afford it. Also, he has reportedly received more bucks from Wall Street, probably through connections made during his stint with Fortress Investment Group, a huge hedge fund manager. Dividing Clinton from Obama? Unlikely. The only thing Edwards divides is the ambulance chasing constituency of donors. On the other hand, they will do well no matter which of their candidate shills wins. The advantage to backing a likely loser like Edwards is that he may well apply whatever influence he amasses during this campaign to one of those phony foundations whose purpose is to demonize a new industry to sue.
John Edward is now waging a War On Prosperity.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/07/john_edwards_war_against_prosp.php
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/07/john_edwards_school_plan_gets.php
We can only hope that someone like Edwards becomes the Democratic candidate, thereby provoking a McGovernesque defeat. Hillary, by contrast, is so much more skilled at dissimulating the ideology she shares with Edwards and the Kos crowd. She would swing many more voters with her phony centrism.
For a website that promotes Rudy Giuliani as our saviour, complaints about John Edwards or anyone else about being a phony is hilarious. What’s Rudy’s position on guns this minute?
Actually, I’m a staunch Second Amendment fellow who doesn’t especially care what Rudy’s positions on guns are this minute, or any other minute—if the choice is between any Democrat and Rudy. The reason is that I value my right to die peacefully in my own bed above my right to bear arms. And Rudy may be fake–probably is on lots of things–but not in the way it really matters when it really matters, like on what to do about defending this country. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are worse than empty suits—they’re Trojan Horses filled with a gaggle of Lefty hackademics and appointees, race hustlers, EUphiles and suicidal Peace Processors—just the kinds of people who hate the voters only slightly more than they hate this country. As a relgious matter, I don’t believe in Saviors or saviors, and Rudy is just a politician. But he’s one with a finger I’m far more comfortable with on the national trigger than any Democrat since Scoop Jackson.