Yemeni Leader Warns Against Misleading Perceptions of De-Escalation
In his latest speech, the leader of the revolution, Sayyid Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, issued warnings that were consistent with the reality of the current situation on the ground. He described it as a continuous war with all parties of aggression, led by the Saudi regime. During the past period, the Saudi regime attempted to create a different picture by investing in the absence of military operations. This was an attempt to create a false impression among the public that the stage of war has been overcome, even if it does not mean moving towards peace. This is a dangerous attempt to prepare public opinion for acceptance and coexistence with the state of no peace and no war, and thus divert attention from priorities and open the field for all attempts to manipulate public mood and direct it towards paths that serve the enemies’ directions.
Between “de-escalation” and “peace”:
The countries of aggression, led by Saudi Arabia, tried to draw a misleading image during the past period. They relied on several false main ideas and assumptions, most importantly the idea that the current truce is in itself the most important positive diplomatic achievement and the biggest fundamental step on the road to achieving comprehensive peace. In other words, they claimed that stopping military operations is the most critical thing and everything else is just details. However, this is not accurate because for Sana’a, military action was and still is necessary to confront attacks on the country and people, as well as practices of siege, starvation, occupation, and violation of sovereignty. Therefore, stopping military operations while continuing those attacks and practices cannot be even close to the concept of real peace.
The leader of the revolution was keen from the beginning to give a real and practical description of the current situation through the title “de-escalation”. He continued in his various speeches during the past period to emphasize this title and clarify it with the aim of removing any ambiguity. The warnings he issued during his last speech would undermine all remaining deception or intended exaggeration in describing the current situation. These warnings clearly emanated from a battle that has not ended, neither militarily nor in its other aspects. In fact, he was keen to emphasize that military power still represents a main guarantee for obtaining rights and liberating the country. Sana’a worked on exploiting the period of truce to develop this power in preparation for completing the battle against an enemy whose experiences, data, and indicators continue to confirm that they do not want real peace, no matter what excuses or justifications they keep promoting.
Therefore, it cannot be said that recent warnings were surprising or that they were launched only for mere pressure at a moment in negotiations. This is not how national leadership deals with matters. On another hand, the leader of revolution had previously given important clarifications regarding current situation which are completely consistent with recent warnings. Among these clarifications was his talk about “the margin” allowed by America for countries of aggression in order to enter into de-escalation. He confirmed that countries of aggression wanted through truce and what followed it from de-escalation to devote themselves to implementing other aggressive projects against Yemeni people; which means peace was not in their calculations at all.
The Saudi position between propaganda of “mediation” and excuses of “pressure”:
One of the main false assumptions that countries of aggression tried to promote during the past period which were undermined by recent warnings from leader of revolution is that Saudi Arabia has changed its position on Yemen. This assumption was relied upon in two paths of deception: first is path of claiming that Kingdom is playing the role of “mediation between Yemeni parties”, second: what was mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister for Defense and Security Affairs General Jalal Al-Ruwishan last May when he said: the countries of aggression are talking about being subjected to pressures considering it “illogical”. In both instances, Saudi Arabia attempted to reinforce the notion that it had moved beyond the phase of intentionally targeting Yemen. They sought to portray a state of tranquility and de-escalation that stemmed from a genuine commitment to peace, rather than being a deceptive tactic. However, the reality contradicts this narrative.
In fact, the leader’s recent warnings unequivocally confirmed that the countries of aggression, led by Saudi Arabia, willingly comply with American directives and objectives, and are fully aware of the costs and consequences involved. They persist in implementing these directives in Yemen while maintaining a facade of calmness. This indicates that Saudi Arabia’s position has not undergone any substantial practical change. The crucial aspect here is that Sana’a is not inclined to wait for Riyadh to be morally and emotionally impacted by the realities it has come to acknowledge.
In this context also leader’s talk about available opportunity for mediators reaching “sufficient level” comes within framework dealing with real data removing exaggerations deceptions from scene; here leader confirms state de-escalation continued only; give mediators opportunity search convergences understandings can built upon journey reach peace out caution not because stage military fighting been overcome forever.