Ideology, Politics and New Security Challenges in West Asia To Second West Asia Conference IDSA – New Delhi 19

Ideology, Politics and New Security Challenges in West Asia To Second West Asia Conference IDSA – New Delhi 19 – 20 January, 2016

To a chive peace and security, requires to promote the spirit of dialogue and negotiation.

Enhancing the Human Nobel Amis needs mutual understanding of tolerance, and to respect others opinion. Conflicts in contemporary world necessitate to be studied, why are these conflicts? Who are the victims? And how we can avoid it in the future?

The commitment to the spirit of peace and development comes through the contribution to reconciliation and to accumulate the factors of common interest in societies. Also the ensure of certain levels of honest justices and independent judjury are very much, needed besides combating Corruption, and the active role of the media to expose all attempts of agitating conflicts and confrontation.

International coalition to combat “daech ”

In west Asia, the threat of terrorism is escalating. It is shameful that terrorist is carrying their criminal acts in the name of religion. These phenomena should be fought by force and wisdom, and if it is neglected, it will be spread beyond West Asia region, to the world over. It requires a comprehensive strategic policy, as we notice how terrorism is spreading in West Asia including countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The establishment of terrorist "Daesh" extended along territories of Iraq and Syria. What we are facing is terrorism of Tran's border. And transnational type. Daesh attempts to full fill its aims under the cover of Islamic religion. Daish threat is not only in Iraq and Syria, but endangering west Asia and beyond, which requires a collective sprit of the international coalition to fight such a phenomenon, having in mind that such a fight might take long time, as terrorism did not end by eliminating bin Laden and it will not end by defeating "Daesh”.

In the International war against terrorism, Al Qaeda faced several defeats, and it is no more a consolidated organization as before.

Now it is "Daesh” that carries more violent and terrorist acts in the region and internationally, taking some Iraqi and Syrian territories as a base to extend its terrorist acts to Asian and African countries as well as to Europe.

This is a matter of concern to the world and the regions of West and south Asia including India particularly after the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008.

Mr. Kaine, a democrat and ally of Mr. Obama, dismisses the president's claim that the post-sept.11, 2001, authorization of force against Al Qaeda also gives him the power to go after the extremist of "Daesh" in Iraq and Syria, which didn't exist then.

Democrats want to avoid anything that is unpopular at the presidential election year. Some veteran Senate Democrats rember being burned by the 2002 Iraq Resolution, which was based on flawed intelligence, and even the UK ally at that time former PM Blair recently came publically to apologies for joining the US led coalition against Iraq at that time. Conversely, many republicans, eager for opportunities to criticize Mr. Obame want to avoid a resolution that supports his policy. Yet, Republican national security experts such as Stephan J.Hadley, a top adviser to president George.W.Bush who has been critical of this administration's policies, credit Mr. Obama for his decision to assemble a coalition of foreign allies and present a forceful case in a televised address last year, when "Daesh" toke large parts of Iraq and Syria.

Although there is a consensus that there shouldn't be as mush sectarian strife under the recently assembled Iraq government of Mr. Obadi, a number of questions remain: how to make the country's United States-trained military less likely to flater. And although several countries in west Asia region provided support in this fight, still the question remains: how to eliminate "Daesh" extensive oil, banking and extortion funding.

UNSC Resolution adopted in 19/12/2015 aims to punish those who help the financing of ISIS "Daesh" was an important joint international step. On 15 December 2015 an Islamic Military alliance with an operational headquarter in Riyadh-KSA to combat terrorism was declared composed 34 countries from Malaysia in the east to Muretiena in the west and from Turkey in the north to Gabon in the south and still some more Islamic countries will join, among Islamic countries that did not join are Iran, Iraq ,Syria and Oman. Also will the US president stick to his vow of no United States Combat troops on the ground? What if special operation and intelligence force are needed such as the one of October, 2015 US operation to release the Kurd hostage from "Daesh" in Iraq or how to react towoards the recent development of the strengthening of Russia Military presence to fight "Daesh" terrorist in Syria.

Russia strengthening presence in W.A Most likely Obama administration, would review its policy towards "Daesh" as the results of last year of coalition was not the best. Also the millions of US Dollars for the training of Syrian opposition forces and the training of Iraq army were not successful till now. Above all the enhance of Russian Military presence in Syria is a new challenge to the coalition.

Moscow has stated that the purpose of strengthening its military presence in Syria is to fight Islamic state militants "Daesh". Mr. Putin defended the Russian presence as a broad stroke against terrorism, "The only right way to fight international terrorism - and its gangs of international terrorist that are fighting in Syria and in neighboring countries - is to act preventively, to fight and destroy terrorist on the territories that they already occupied, not wait for them to come to our house "he said. Some analysts have warned that Russia's military activities are likely to prolong and complicate the war, as well as they could face situations similar to the soviet war in Afghanistan.

John Kirby, the state Department spokesman, told reporters at the United Nations that Russia had warned the United states before the attacks, and that it had requested that American and allied aircraft avoid airspace during the strikes. Most likely the NATO did not welcome the idea, and the incident of the bringing down of the Russian Sochi fighter jet by an attack of Turkish F16 was considered by Mr. Livorov as a preplanned incident as Russian fighter was only for few seconds in the Turkish spaces.

"The U.S. - led coalition will continue to fly missions over Iraq and Syria as planned, in support of our international mission to degrade and destroy ISIL" Mr. Kirby said.

Other analysts sees that the maneuvering of President Vladimir V.Putin of Russia continues to fascinate and exasperate the west in equal measure. His decision to put forces on the ground in Syria, which the united state and its allies have hesitated to do, is only the latest example of Mr. Putin displaying Russian power and frustrating the west.Mr. Putin acted now in Syria, informed analysts say, for two main reasons.

First, to express that the Damascus leadership, enjoy Mr. Putin strong support. Some of the Russian targets have been supported by Washington, which is just added spice to the real motivation for Mr. Putin - to show Russian influence internationally, to show that Russia stands by its allies and to show that Mr. Putin is a man of decisive action. That is in contrast, perhaps, in Syria, to President Obama and European leaders.

The Russians also know that at this point, even the United States does not want a collapse of the Syrian government. To create a vacuum in Damascus would invite a takeover by radical Islamists, perhaps even by the Islamic state.

Second, Mr. Putin has closed off Western options that might have threatened the Syrian leadership. The flow of refugees had begun to concentrate European minds on how to resolve the underlying problem. Britain, France, Turkey and Washington were talking previously about creating "no fly zones" over Syria. Now EU is providing Turkey with three billion Euro to convince Syrian refugees to stay in Turkey.

And those previous zones were intended to create safe areas inside Syria for many thousands of displaced people, reducing the Syrian refugee flow to neighboring countries in West Asia and Europe.

Syrian refugees Syrian refugees undiminished determination to escape war and persecution and to seek a better life is shared by growing numbers of people from the West and South Asia, as well as Africa, whose push to reach Europe is creating a moral and political challenge for the European Union. Europe's spirit of tolerance appeared to have been trumped by an increasingly influential strain of anti-immigrant politics. With the number of migrants making the hazardous sea crossing last summer raised sharply, Europe's leaders have struggled to find solutions that can accommodate both the political pressures they face at home and their legal and moral duties to provide shelter to those making for their shores. Refugee agencies argue the measures do not go far enough. They say political leaders seem more concerned about keeping them safe, at a time when anti immigration parties are playing with the factor of popularity. Amnesty International's Europe and Central Asia director John Dalhusien described the E.U. summit proposals as " a face – saving not a life – saving operation. "

Critics also say the new measures are a sign of continuing divisions within Europe about how to absorb migrants. Under European low, the first country that an asylum seeker arrives in, is responsible for documenting and hearing his or her application, if successful, the claimant has right to remain only within that country. Southern European countries, especially Italy, Malta and Greece, receive the majority of migrants. Overwhelmed with the task of housing and processing the new arrivals, they are pushing northern countries, like Britain, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, to change the rules and take in more refugees.

The UNHCR and other agencies expect more migrants to attempt to cross as record indicated that high numbers of people flee their home countries and tighter border controls on land, anticipate more of them to try the sea routes. The International organization for migration warns that if the current rates continue, Europe will face many challenges.

Europe is all too familiar with the kinds of tragedies that drive people from their homes. Indeed, International laws dealing with the world's refugees were drafted in response to a catastrophe that took place at the heart of Europe: the Second World War. By the end of the war, millions of Europeans had been been killed or displaced by the war need new homes.

Soon after that, the major world powers established organizations like the U.N. to promote international cooperation and hold government to account. In 1950 the U.N. formed its refugee agency, the UNHCR, whose mandate had one legally binding rule: If persecuted people land in your country, you are obligated to protect and find lasting solution for them. Countries are not, however, legally required to give homes to economic migrants, those people seeking a better way of life who enter a wealthier country illegally.

As the numbers of migrants of both sorts rise, rich countries are becoming less welcoming even to legitimate asylum seekers. No single catastrophe has prompted today's crisis, but the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes surpassed 51 million, the most since the end of second World War .

UNSC Resolution in 19/12/2015 on Syria includes a road map of a transitional period and process of peaceful solution with time table base on Vinnie agreement.

The stability of west Asia will depend on the results of Syria peace talks based on UNSC on 19/12/2015 to be attend by the representative of the government and opposition who mostly attended Riyadh conference held begging of December 2015.

Iran role

The stability of West Asia includes the stability of Iran as well. Also Iran stability requires its realization that the era of exporting of resolution has gone, and that the support of the poor's including workers and peasants is within the basic human rights that emphasis the necessity to achieve social Justs. Yet, today the tendency to achieve social Justs is preferably through peaceful means.

Iran witnessed among different stages, the one of Mohammed Khatmi openness and his intellectual publications, and that of conservative Ahmedi Najad.

Today, president Dr.Hassan Rohani said that GCC leaders should have gone to camp Mohammed Rather than camp David, which is an argument. Yet, that requires to analyze who sent them to camp David, and if it has to do with those who encragad the conflict such as the one in yemen. Also an Iranian statement released in Beirut was referring to the Houthies demands of partnership in the government of Yemen. Yet, partnership would not be achieved by the house arrest of president and the government that win the vote of confidence of the parliament or the occupation of Houthies militia to the capital Sana’a and many other cities including the city of Aden and the ongoing siege of the city of Taiz.

Iran stability can be enhanced by its good neighborhood with GCC countries and the respect of theirs and others national sovereignty and the non interference of internal affairs, and by this the stability of West Asia region could be achieved among other things. Also as Iran has carried talks with US to achieve the Nuclear Deal, we hope that it will carry talks with other West Asian countries to achieve stability in this region.

Nuclear Deal

A Deal was required to stop fighting that could happen as it serves nobody’s interests. The fighting could have caused further instability and widens the door for extremists bent on reshaping the West Asia under a plan of fear, hate, abuse, dishonesty, and none of the region’s influencers can sustain any position of prominence beyond a few short years. We’re already seeing evidence to support the notion that some regional regimes, have undertaken ‘regime survival tactics’. They are forgoing implementation of initiatives to integrate their respective minorities (Saudi’s Shiite population and Iran’s Sunnis) in favor of blaming one another for respective minority unrest and engaging in proxy wars – both overt and covert – to protect their leadership structures. Throughout human history, these schemes have always proven to end in failure and they are failing now in West Asia as well. The evidence of which are extremist groups successes like ISIL, etc. The worst part about this is that it causes a ripple effect across the region that places stress on countries that are otherwise much more prone to neutrality and cooperation.

A ‘no deal’ on peace = abolition of the West Asia as we know it. It means regime collapses and security upheaval in every country in the region that is not already suffering this despair. It means, that the entire region will face challenge like Syria, Iraq and Yemen today!

Worst case scenario (likely the expected scenario) Let’s assume the worst case scenario – which we argue has a high degree of probability given all of the geo-economic facts as they are today; the global economy sinks back into recession. Most of the world’s economies slow considerably, likely for 4 – 5 years and perhaps longer, before the massive debt structure in place begins to dissipate via asset swap and allow for modest recovery. This, assuming war does not break out between superpowers over defaults that have no viable solution beyond write-downs or complete write-offs. In this case, a plan such as the Middle East renaissance plan( The authors: Hardy F. schloar and Chris Edwards with research by the SCG think tank report- November 2015 ) MERP becomes even more critical to enact now as enactment could also have a ripple effect that would likely prolong an inevitable economic downturn, thus prolonging the time the Middle East has to reconstitute itself – time that is now truly invaluable. The early redrawing of borders in many countries is already underway and governments are falling in the regions where the largest number of humans are most affected. As goods and services decisively drop in demand, energy consumption drops accordingly. All this at a time when Iran has come online with enough new production to expand the supply glut by some measure of time and price. Iran and most every other producer is prepared to sell at near any price and to mine it at near any cost to maintain cash flow as revenues everywhere have constricted vastly or disappeared altogether. Regardless of the knowledge of the world’s citizens that there is a major recession/depression, people are deeply disillusioned and suffering. The response will be wide scale unrest that no country will be able to withstand. Sovereign nations could fall and the rise of extremism would accelerate exponentially and choke the entire region in “Daech” style living standards. The perfect recipe for extremists is developing with the passing of every day where the fighting continues. Evidence this is true is that “Daech” have ‘achieved’ what they have in less than 18 months’ time and we’re no closer to degrading or destroying their existence or their ideology – to the contrary. We likely see a future where regional instability is a defining factor, adversely affecting the ability of GCC countries to effectively carry out its development and stablyty. In a depressed regional environment, reforms deflate or collapse due to a lack of attention to the root cause of internal issues and a tendency for governments to focus on short-term stability at the expense of long-term solutions. Caught in a shifting, violent environment, the GCC countries are challenged to navigate their way out of a continued regional depression and identify opportunities for prosperity for their populations. The West Asia problems will bleed into other regions and markets, having and adverse effect on the global economy causing further stress on the entire global ecosystem. By 2025 In the worst case scenario within 10 years – and this is plausible - the West Asia will be one large conflict zone and fighting will have spilled over into adjoining regions – likely Europe. This will embolden Russia to strengthen its former presences states despite its current economic position. A second and much more violent Arab wave of change will have begun inside this period because citizens of many countries will be tired from a lack of opportunity for improved standards of living. A slowdown of the global economy due to the deteriorating West Asia region will weaken the appetite for the already heavily indebted west and NATO will seriously be tested. The worst refugee crisis in the history of the world will have been realized, heavily taxing every country on the periphery of the conflict zone that are allowing refugee entry. The West Asia will not harm only itself, but also Europe at least for a certain time. If a caliphate will be established in what used to be Syria and Iraq and extend beyond, If this happens, Turey and Iran will not look at Syria and Iraq as the now complete instability across the region without action. Who with adequate motivation would be capable of stopping this if it happened? It is further possible under this scenario that the world’s largest crude consumers would favor working with a single supplier who could potentially be more easy – and less expensive – to manage. How would the rulers of GCC response. The West Asia’s current borders will have already have begun to be redrawn where Iraq, Syria and Lebanon once resided. In next decade, the GCC will be challenged to persuade an ascending Iran and Turkey from its borders. There will be little or no mutual tolerance at this point. By 2035 Within two decades , Iran and Turkey will be looking to return to its previous Empires. Global consumption of crude oil is more than halved to 9 billion barrels. Oil exploration is a trade of the past and wells are being replaced with photovoltaic farms in oil producing countries of West Asia. Would Russia survive challenges of NATO, and would the west be weakened – partially because of the military exercise, but mostly because of a shrinking global economy that exacerbates their debt burdens. A steadily developing US relationship with its Latin neighbors to the south will save it from collapse, but it will be in the process of turning over the status of ‘empire’ to the Chinese . Now, it is true that neither of these scenarios sound probable, but they are completely plausible given what the facts are today and what tendencies are currently on display by the various actors involved. To answer the question of probability of the above outlined scenario, let’s ask ourselves how probable it was just 5 years ago that:

Iran would strike a deal with the world’s 6 most powerful countries on its nuclear program, freeing it from 35 years of sanction by the west – and that it would be the United States that lobbied for it?
Syria would be involved in a civil war for the next 5 years where thousands of people will have died and more than 11 million of its citizens displaced (half the country’s 2011 population)?
That the Arab coalition would be involved in war in Yemen?
That Russia would annex Crimea by way of referendum?
An extremist religious group o “Daech” would have taken and controlled half of Syria by May 2015 and 37,000 square miles between Syria and Iraq with a population under its control of 5 – 6 million and a projected 200,000 soldiers?
That GCC countries would have a budget deficit of 20% of its GDP in 2015, and GCC member like Oman will for the first time will borrow a loan to cover its deficit ?
That the price of crude oil would drop to $40 in 2015?
That a mobile phone developer would become the largest company in the world by market value at almost ¾ of a trillion $USD by 2015? So it begs the question, why not hedge against the worst case scenario? Our history is replete with ‘the impossible’ actually happening. And our description of the West Asia is far more probable than impossible on its current trajectory. Best case scenario (unlikely to happen) The global economy is able to stave off a downturn of any consequence for several more years.

Diminishing demand for oil and gas will begin to accelerate ( many analysts agrees this, the only debate is “when”). Public revenues are shrinking across the oil producing states of the West Asia faster than economic diversification can accelerate – an absolute fact in every country, except for the region’s leading diversification case study in the emirate of Dubai. No other entity has a reasonable probability of achieving an adequate-enough offset to maintain sustainability – many countries of West Asia has waited too long. Add to this that, without a cease in the ongoing conflicts, all of the region’s leaders are spending inordinate amounts of money fighting wars and proxy wars. Added billions are being spent on security budgets every year as fear grows that an impending collapse is looming and those that can afford it right now, are hunkering down with the view they’ll fight their way out of any sustained chaos. Plus, most of the the GCC+Iran are still spending inordinately on social welfare programs to suppress social tensions that are already unsustainable at just 14 months into oil price softening that has averaged about 60% of what it was pre-June 2014. As countries have limited bandwidth, proxies are sucking economic diversification bandwidth and domestic opportunity improvements are now much slower to implementation, as a result. The Middle East Renaissance Plan (MERP) is a concept solution for the countries of the region to ascend from the systemic fear, violence and economic malaise that has plagued the region for decades. This plan is centered around the region’s current influencers, identified as the countries of the GCC and Iran, uniting in a peace agreement that is constructed of a long-term comprehensive social and economic plan that pins everyone’s prosperity on the GCC+Iran working together for the region Renaissance. Despite the immense wealth of the GCC countries, it is believed that without a peace agreement, the West Asia will soon fail. It is also believed that , as goes the GCC+ Turkey+Iran, so goes the entire region + north Africa for the reason that the GCC+Turkey+Iran create a vacuum that sees all of the other countries fall into its gravitational pull, to varying degrees. For example, it would matter much less if counties such as Iraq and Syria, fared really well in today’s West Asia as these countries simply don’t possess enough geopolitical or economic critical mass to positively lead the other countries into regional prosperity – nuclear weapons or not. Thus, the MERP is designed around the GCC+Turkey+Iran with little mention of the other countries in the region, albeit they’re designed to participate equally under a leadership framework of this states regularly referenced as the GCC+turkey+Iran. So the fundamental principles of the Middle East Renaissance Plan are: Cooperation, Opportunity, Prosperity, Equality, and Peace.

Israel-Palestine conflict

West Asia situation will continue to be influenced by the impact of Israeli occupation to the Palestinian territories.

In the wake of last Israeli election, the longtime peace activists and diplomats who have devoted much of their professional lives to achieving a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more depressed and demoralized than ever before.

Well before Mr. Netanyahu declared during the last election complain that Palestinians would remain under Israeli military occupation as long as he is Israel’s prime minister.

Mr. Obama understood that the Israeli government’s enthusiasm for continued peace talks with the Palestinians served no purpose other than to provide cover for Israeli’s continued expansion of Jewish settlements and to preclude the emergence of anything resembling Palestinian state in the west bank.

Mr. Netanyahu has wasted no time providing that offense by appointing as his justice minister a Knesset member, Ayelet Shaked, who approvingly posted an article on her Facebook page that called for the destruction of “the entire Palestinian people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure”.

The victory of Israel’s far right has this provided an unexpected, if narrow, opening for Mr. Obama, allowing him to call for a reassessment of America’s peace policy.

Such a reassessment must begin by abandoning the old assumption that Palestinians can achieve statehood only by negotiating with Mr. Netanyahu. Because of Mr. Netanyahu statements and behavior during and after the election (not to mention the continued construction in the settlement, and the use of excessive force in East Jerusalem) that belief has been irreparably discredited. It is now certain that a two-state agreement will never emerge from any bilateral Israel’s-Palestinian negotiations.

Such an agreement can only be achieved if the United Nation Security Council, with strong support from the United States, presents the parties with clear terms for resumed peace talks that will produce an agreement within a specified time frame (This would go far beyond a French expected proposal).

The U.S. government has never made an unconditional commitment to Israel to block a Security Council role in bringing about a two-state peace accord. It committed to blocking a Security Council role only so long as there is a reasonable prospect that the parties might reach such an accord on their won that prospect no longer exists.

U.S. has made an unconditional commitment to Israel’s security. But that commitment is in danger of eroding if the U.S. administrations continues to prevent the security council from pursuing a two-state agreement while continuing to provide Israel with the military assistance that helps it keep the occupation in place.

U.S. would then be seen as collaborating with Mr. Netanyahu’s government in the continued subjugation of the Palestinians. That would irreparably damage the United States’ honor and its nations interests. U.S. administration’s commitment to Israel’s security obliges it to push Security Council to seek and end to the occupation and pave the way for Palestinian statehood.

India as the largest democracy in Asia and the world over, can play as soft power role in bringing peace and stability to West Asia region particularly with it’s relocation with all parties concern. India proved through all the times its principle position on the Palestinian issue, including in the United Nation, with different forces which came to rule India since its independent. Yet, some analysis raises that Modi government’s policy towards West Asia are still undefined. Because Honorable PM., Modi has never explicitly articulated any grand strategy towards the region, others have ventured into the vacuum.

India’s abstention on a UNHRC resolution that condemned Israel, to some analysts, has argued Indian had broken with the traditional hyphenation of Israel and Palestine.

In 1950, India recognised Israel and initiated discussions towards the exchange of embassies; however, India indefinitely deferred formal diplomatic ties following Israel’s participation in the operation to regain control of the Suez Canal in 1956. New Delhi recognised the Palestine liberation organization in 1974 and thereafter, conditioned rapprochement with Israel on progress in the Israel- Palestine dispute. It’s in the early 1990s that India established diplomatic relations with Israel.

Since then, India moved to a policy of engagement of both. Defence and economic relation between India and Israel have thrived despite India’s enduring support to Palestine.

While Israel become among India’s arms supplier, Delhi continued to be one of the most important aid donors to the Palestinian Authority.

The honorable President Mukherjee visit last October 2015, would be interpreted as an additional guarantee from Modi’s government that India will stay the course.

Honorable PM Modi by making his first West Asian stopover in the UAE, declaring explicitly design in other regional contexts ( Act East), the government has seemingly opted for pragmatic ambivalence on West Asia.

Honorable President Mukherjee went beyond symbolical gestures of support to the Palestinian cause prior to the visit, he referred to Gandhi’s 1938 statement about Palestine belonging to the Arabs he also specified “ East Jerusalem” was to be the capital of an independent Palestine.

Yemen war

In Yemen a Saudi Arabia-led military coalition fighting Houthis militias.

The coalition has operated an air and sea blockade of Yemen since shortly after lunching airstrikes in March 2015, in a bid to dislodge the Housthis from the capital Sana’a and restore President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to power.

Ground battles in July 2015 raged between pro-government fighters clashing with Houthi militias. Gulf-backed forces have pushed the Houthis and allied Saleh’s military units, out of city of Aden and retaken most of the South.

Last September 2015, fighting took place between Bab Al-Badab (the strategic entrance to the Red Sea) and the port city of Aden on the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. Yemen Prime Minister Khaled Bahah visited the area of Bab Al Mandab after pro-government fighters pushed Houthis Militias out of it.

Houthis have controlled the area near the strait for several months. They have been in control of the capital Sana’a since 21 Sept 2015, and are at war with the international recognized government.

UN SG Ban Ki-moon, announced that Houthis and its ally the former president Saleh will join talks with government on UNSCR 2216. Proposed talk sponsored by UN in Geneva, June 2015 has failed. And the next talk was held in Swisserland last December 2015 to prepare for future meetings this year.

The Saudi-led coalition and President Hadi government view the Houthis as proxies for non-Arab Iran and regard Saleh as a spoiler trying to undermine a political accord based on GCC initiative that allowed him to step down following the protests in 2011.

President Hadi in response to UN invitation to peace talks in the region, demanding that the Houthis publicly accept the UN Security Council Resolutions including UNSCR 2216.

Analysts see the unprecedented attack on Yemen’s government site claimed by the “Daesh” terrorist group has raised a fresh challenge for the Saudi-led coalition backing the embattled president.

“Daesh” bombings on last Sept 2015 that hit the government’s headquarters and military installations used by the coalition supporting the government in the southern city of Aden taken as the temporary capital. The attack killed more than 15 people.

The attacks are “likely to spark some debate within the coalition about the direction of policy” said Jane Kinninmont, deputy head of the Middle East programme at London’s Chatham House think tank.

They will also “place more emphasis on the need not just to confront the Houthi-Saleh alliance but to rebuild the Yemen, state “said Kinninmont, containing this was “easier said than done”.

Although Daesh is “new to Yemen”compared to ALQEDA, the conflict and the worsening humanitarian situation “create fertile ground for radicalisation” she said.

According to Mathien Gudere, a professor and Middle East specialist at University of Toulouse in France” these attacks were lunched by tribal elements of Daesh, with old connection to the camp of Saleh”.

His theory is that Saleh has “reactivated his old connections with those elements to divert the efforts of the coalition towards fighting terrorism”.

“ If the Saudis fall into this trap and change their priorities , the camp of Saleh and Houthis would win some respites” Mathien added.

Arab coalition challenge goals in Yemen is threating of security vacuum and potentially undermining the their national securities ” said. Neil Patrick from Carnegie Endenment for International peace.

The United Nations say around 5000 people have been killed and 25000 wounded, many of them civilians, in Yemen’s conflicts since March 2015.

Manama Dialogue held on 1/11/2015 GCC SG stated six excess in GCC approach to deal with situation in Yemen which indeed the military action to support the legal government in the face of the militias, the humanitarian assistance to the Yemeni people suffering from this conflict and to compact the terrorist groups are among them.