Dean
Flairless
Variously accused of being a hilarious insufferable reactionary post-modernist fascist neo-conservative neo-liberal conservative classical liberal critical theorist Nazi Zionist imperialist hypernationalist warmongering isolationist Jewish-Polish-Slavic-Anglo race-traitor masculine-feminine bitch-man idiosyncratic party-line Fox News boomer. No one yet has guessed a scholar, or multiple people. Add to our list of pejoratives today!
User ID: 430
I have to ask- how competently do you believe this characterizes the situation?
The Saudi-Huthi conflict was in a pause during the recent year, and was a non-factor for the US-Iran conflict which both Saudis and Huthis largely stayed out of. It re-ignited post-MOU when the Saudis tried to block an Iranian flight from landing in Huthi-controlled territory by bombing an airstrip, which was either responded to or provoked to justify a retaliation depending on who you ask. In the last week(s), the Huthis and Saudis have had dueling offensives, with significant increases in missile and airstrikes as the southern front shifts to and fro.
Saudi Arabia and the Huthis have a separate conflict independent not only of the US-Iran war, but predating the Huthi-Iran alliance. Saudi is not 'still' being attacked by Iran's Huthi proxy as a continuation of the US-Iran war because Saudi was not attacked by the Huthis during the US-Iran war in the first place. And also calling the Huthi's an Iranian proxy is wildly misleading of the dynamic. The American war goals in the US-Iran war are orthogonal to the resumption of the Saudi-Huthi conflict, because the war-ending effort of the MOU had nothing in particular too say about the Saudi-Huthi conflict, unlike other Iranian proxies active at the time, and the Huthi-Saudi conflict predates the US-Iran war by a decade.
I get that Shakes' Trumpian triumphalism can be annoying, but this is the sort of pretty bad reading of regional dynamics that gives him more than a bit of a leg to stand. By trying to conflate a separate (and pre-existing) conflict into a rhetorical cudgel regarding the conflict you want to contest the characterization off, you're just giving Shakes a lot to (correctly) reject, and in the process letting him use (well justified) rebuttals to paint the counter-picture that annoys you.
More options
Context Copy link