On July 22, 2026, the Bulgarian parliament voted to authorize the deployment of up to eight U.S. Air Force KC-135 tanker aircraft and 250 U.S. military personnel at Bezmer Air Base.
Before the vote, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that allowing the deployment would make Bulgaria “an accomplice of aggressors.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei explicitly stated that any action facilitating U.S. military operations against Iran would make Sofia complicit in “aggression and war crimes.”
The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry responded that it was not “undertaking any hostile actions against Iran” and that “it is out of the question for any military operations in the Middle East to be conducted from Bulgarian territory.” The contrast between the official explanation and the operational role of the deployment is difficult to ignore.
Bezmer in the US Logistics Network
Bezmer Air Base, located in southeastern Bulgaria near the town of Yambol, is one of several joint-use facilities established under the 2006 U.S.-Bulgaria Defense Cooperation Agreement. The agreement allows U.S. forces to use three Bulgarian bases — Bezmer, Graf Ignatievo, and Novo Selo — for training and logistical purposes. Bezmer’s appeal is straightforward: it is close to the Black Sea, has a runway capable of handling large aircraft, and is situated in a country that is a full NATO member.
What makes Bezmer particularly useful is its position within the broader American logistics network. U.S. tanker aircraft operating from Bezmer can refuel fighter jets and bombers over the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Red Sea without returning to bases in Germany, Italy, or Greece. This reduces transit time and allows for sustained operations over a longer period. Bezmer functions as a forward refueling node in a system that stretches from Ramstein in Germany to Souda Bay in Crete to Kogălniceanu in Romania.
The base is not being used for combat operations, but it is enabling them. There is a difference between pulling the trigger and supplying the fuel, but that difference matters less to the pilots being refueled—or to the Iranians being targeted. The Bulgarian government argues that it is merely fulfilling its treaty obligations to its ally. Prime Minister Rumen Radev, often described as more skeptical of Western military adventurism, insisted the tankers would be used “exclusively for logistical and in-flight refuelling missions outside Bulgarian airspace.” The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry echoed this position, stating that no military operations would be conducted from Bulgarian territory.
Spain vs. Bulgaria
The contrast with Spain is instructive. In March 2026, Spain explicitly refused to allow its bases to be used for the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran. Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares stated that Spanish bases would not be used for operations “inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.” The Spanish government argued that using its territory for offensive operations against Iran would violate its constitutional obligations and its own foreign policy principles. Madrid made a sovereign choice to refuse Washington’s request.
Unlike Spain, Bulgaria ultimately chose to facilitate the deployment, reflecting its broader security dependence on NATO structures. It did not publicly question the legality of the operation, nor did it challenge the broader strategic rationale behind the request. The Bulgarian authorities chose to accommodate the request rather than contest it.
Several factors may explain this difference. Spain has traditionally pursued a more cautious approach towards military involvement in the Middle East, while Bulgaria places greater emphasis on demonstrating reliability within NATO. Different strategic cultures and security priorities appear to have shaped their respective decisions. Bulgaria, by contrast, is a smaller country more dependent on NATO guarantees for its security. It is also a country that has long sought to demonstrate its value as an ally, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine. For Bulgaria, saying no to Washington is not a luxury it believes it can afford.
There is also a domestic political dimension. The decision was approved by a parliament where the government holds a comfortable majority. Local opposition was minimal. Some Bulgarian officials have argued that refusing the request would have damaged Bulgaria’s standing in NATO. A Bulgarian official’s comment encapsulates the logic of alliance dependency: “We cannot want to be in NATO and then refuse to give anything in return.”
Local Concerns
The decision was not universally welcomed. Burnt-out trees from a fire at the Bulgarian military training ground in Koren were still smouldering during the parliamentary debate. Bezmer’s mayor voiced concerns about the region becoming a potential target. Local communities near Bezmer are not convinced by the official narrative.
The concerns are not entirely theoretical. Iran has already shown its willingness to retaliate against countries it perceives as hostile. In the past, Iranian-backed groups have targeted American bases in Iraq and Syria, and Iranian cyber operations have hit European infrastructure. Bulgarians living near Bezmer now have reason to wonder whether their town might become a target in a future escalation.
Alliance Politics in Practice
The Bulgarian parliament’s decision illustrates a broader reality of the transatlantic relationship. European countries are not always eager participants, but they are deeply integrated into the logistics of U.S. military power. These are not signs of European unity—they are signs of fragmentation within a structure that still depends on the United States for security.
The deeper question is whether this arrangement is sustainable. Bulgaria has made a strategic choice to deepen its military integration with the United States. That choice has immediate operational consequences—a tanker base that enables strikes on Iran—and long-term implications for Bulgarian sovereignty. It may also have security consequences if Iran chooses to respond. The Bulgarian parliament’s decision follows a pattern: Europe increasingly functions as a platform for U.S. power projection.
The deployment at Bezmer therefore reflects a broader reality of contemporary alliance politics: even when European governments avoid direct participation in military operations, they increasingly provide the logistical infrastructure that makes those operations possible. As military logistics become increasingly central to modern warfare, the distinction between participation and support may prove more political than operational.
Adrian Korczyński, Independent Analyst & Observer on Central Europe and global policy research
After several days of increasing threats against Iran, including social media posts like “FINISH THE JOB!” and “Take the oil. No mercy!,” President Trump has over the weekend called off a planned major escalation in the Middle East. For now.
“The U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II,” he wrote on his social media account. “Despite this, we have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack in that the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to,” he added.
Iran denies any communication with the US and has threatened retaliation against energy infrastructure in the region if its energy infrastructure is attacked. Such destruction could plunge the world into an economic depression.
Iranian retaliation – including against critical water desalination plants – could also depopulate US allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and others. Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman personally called President Trump to request he not escalate against Iran.
According to various media articles, the US is running dangerously low on missiles, especially interceptor missiles such as the Patriot system. Our ability to protect our military bases in the Middle East appears to be gone.
Reportedly, President Trump was warned by his top military advisors that a ground operation against Iran would result in a high level of US casualties and would have no guarantee of success. Already the official totals are 18 US service members killed and more than 700 injured in the operation.
Over the weekend the US military completed its evacuation of a major military base in the Kurdish region of Iraq. This follows similar evacuations of virtually every US base in the region, including the home of the US 5th Fleet in Bahrain and “safe” US bases in Jordan.
The entirety of US military power in the region appears to have been relocated to Israel.
The war which was supposed to last a couple of weeks and “pay for itself” is entering into its sixth month and the price tag so far is above $100 billion. A war that was started to thwart an Iranian nuclear threat that according to US Intelligence didn’t exist has become a war to open a waterway – the Hormuz Strait – that was open before the war started.
Things are so bad that, according to the Washington Post, the US general in charge of the US European Command sent a message to senior Pentagon officials “saying that without another Navy destroyer he will be forced to choose defense of the United States ‘homeland’ over that of Israel.” How is defending a foreign country over our own country even a choice?
The US attack on Iran is the most unpopular major US military operation in history and is becoming more unpopular by the day. President Trump’s polling numbers have been dragged down to the low 30s by the conflict. Midterm elections are three months away.
President Trump is rapidly running out of options in his war of choice against Iran. There is no path to victory in the war. It is now only about how to manage defeat. That’s why the Constitution does not allow presidents to start wars on their own.
Get out now. Completely out. The foolish war on Iran must end!
The US military’s accelerated withdrawal from its base in Erbil, officially described as a scheduled redeployment, comes after Iranian precision strikes destroyed air-defense apparatus, including Patriot air-defense systems stationed there, a development supported by satellite imagery that has received limited attention in much of Western media coverage.
The hasty and unplanned withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq’s Kurdistan region has taken place amid a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes that have reshaped the security environment and military calculations in Iraq and across the region.
Media reports indicate that US military convoys have been moving from Erbil toward neighboring countries in recent days, with a significant portion of American troops and heavy equipment already withdrawn from the military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The official explanation, promoted by regional officials and reflected in Western reporting, presents the move as a routine redeployment consistent with Washington’s obligation to remove all US forces from Iraq by the September 30 deadline agreed upon with Baghdad.
However, this account does not address a key factor behind the reported withdrawal: the large-scale destruction of Patriot air-defense systems that had served as a central element of US force protection in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Satellite imagery dated July 16 and July 24 provide clinching evidence that Iranian drone and missile strikes targeted and destroyed Patriot launchers at Erbil International Airport. Despite this, the imagery has received limited coverage in mainstream Western media.
The removal of these systems reflects not merely a planned redeployment but an acknowledgment that the air-defense assets had become increasingly vulnerable in the face of Iran’s precision-strike capabilities.
Evidence of Patriot system destruction
Satellite imagery captured on July 16 and analyzed by independent observers shows a US Army Patriot air-defense launcher at Erbil International Airport destroyed following an Iranian drone strike in response to the US military aggression against southern Iran.
The imagery shows significant damage to a Patriot PAC-3 system, with smoke visible at the reported impact site, rendering it completely dysfunctional.
The strike was attributed to Shahed-136 one-way attack drones launched by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force – loitering munitions that have demonstrated the cutting-edge ability to challenge advanced and multi-layered air-defense networks.
A second strike on July 24 followed, with additional satellite imagery indicating the destruction of another component of the same Patriot air-defense battery.
A fire reported at Erbil International Airport was linked to damage involving one or more Patriot launchers. Images from the aftermath have been described by military analysts and OSINT researchers as evidence of a precision strike that damaged one of Washington’s most advanced defensive systems and highlighted the challenges posed by Iranian drone capabilities.
The IRGC Aerospace Force announced the destruction of a Patriot air-defense system at Erbil as part of the 27th wave of Operation Nasr-2, carried out under the code phrase “Ya Aba Saleh al-Mahdi, Adrikni.”
In its statement, the IRGC said the operation involved a “surprise” strike that also destroyed a US surveillance balloon and targeted facilities used to accommodate American military personnel.
Declining effectiveness of American air defenses
The devastating strikes against Patriot systems in Erbil exposed vulnerabilities that have been a growing concern for American military planners throughout the war of aggression against Iran.
The Patriot batteries, which have an operational range of between 100 and 160 kilometers, were originally deployed to protect American occupation forces but had become targets themselves.
While US interceptors succeeded in preventing some attacks on the Erbil compound, other attacks proved sufficient to disable the most advanced air-defense systems in the American inventory.
The near-total destruction of Patriot launchers in Erbil was part of a broader pattern of Iranian military successes against American air-defense infrastructure across the region, which prompted war hawks in Washington to look for alternatives and forced Trump to end the bombing campaign.
A study documented the diminishing resources available to American forces, revealing that 55 percent of the Patriot stockpile had been depleted by April, with a further 10 percent reduction following the collapse of the US-Iranian ceasefire in recent months.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute estimated that the United States produces around 600 Patriot interceptors annually, noting that existing stockpiles had already been strained by transfers to Ukraine prior to the escalation of unprovoked hostilities against Iran.
The Iranian success against Patriot systems reflects the inherent asymmetry in modern drone warfare, where expensive air-defense interceptors are depleted by relatively low-cost loitering munitions.
The Shahed-136 drones used in the Erbil strikes are estimated to be thousands of dollars each, while each Patriot interceptor costs millions, making it extremely costly for the aggressor.
This economic imbalance, combined with the demonstrated vulnerability of high-end air-defense systems to drone saturation tactics, has created a fundamental challenge for American force protection that cannot be resolved through redeployment alone.
Accelerated withdrawal: facts on the ground
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil appears to have been the catalyst for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi Kurdistan, according to military sources.
The US military began drawing down its last remaining forces stationed near Erbil International Airport, with the pullout starting in the final week of July and continuing at the time of filing this report.
The bulk of US troops and heavy equipment have already been removed from the compound, according to the Al-Monitor website, which claims that all Patriot anti-missile batteries have been redeployed to an undisclosed destination.
However, sources told the Press TV website that the Patriot anti-missile batteries don’t exist anymore at the highly fortified base, which was the main trigger for the hasty military withdrawal.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the reports of its military’s withdrawal, citing “operational security reasons” for refusing to discuss specific movements.
They also remain tight-lipped about the existing condition of air-defense systems, including Patriot, and how they intend to protect their troops in other regional countries with American bases.
This evasive response has done little to reassure Kurdish authorities, who have been left to interpret the withdrawal without clear guidance from their American allies.
Attack context: sustained Iranian pressure on Iraqi Kurdistan
The withdrawal of American forces from Erbil must be understood within the broader context of Iranian military pressure on the Kurdistan Region throughout July 2026.
Iranian forces maintained sustained retaliatory attacks on US military infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the bulk of attacks targeting armed Kurdish militant groups based in the region as well as the US military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The attacks on the Erbil compound specifically targeted the Patriot systems and other military assets, with the IRGC launching multiple waves of Operation Nasr-2 that pounded US-run bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Local media outlets reported that the Kurdistan Region was subjected to dozens of drone and missile attacks in July, with the city of Erbil facing repeated air-raid warnings and interception attempts.
Iranian and Kurdish sources confirmed renewed strikes against infrastructure associated with coalition forces, with the attacks focused on operational infrastructure rather than saturation bombardment.
The attacks on Erbil International Airport included strikes on a ground support station and maintenance facility belonging to US surveillance aircraft, along with the destruction of the Patriot systems.
This precision targeting reflects the sophistication of Iranian intelligence gathering and the ability to identify and strike high-value American assets with accuracy.
The IRGC’s statement that “almost all” US military infrastructure in Erbil had been destroyed during the conflict, while not independently verified, is consistent with the subsequent American withdrawal.
Regional realignment: from Iraq to the Persian Gulf
The withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan is part of a broader American reassessment of its military posture across the region, driven by the recognition that large, permanent military presences have become liabilities rather than strategic assets.
The priority for the US has also shifted toward Persian Gulf states, particularly Kuwait and Jordan.
The United States has been reviewing the extent of its military presence in Kuwait following developments in the war against Iran, with reports indicating that analysts believe “a large, permanent military presence in Kuwait is no longer vital or militarily wise”.
This reassessment has been driven by the reality that US installations and bases have been repeatedly targeted by Iran during the war, with the Patriot systems themselves becoming magnets for Iranian strikes rather than reliable defensive shields.
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil ahead of the troop withdrawal has raised further questions about US interceptor stockpiles and how the military seeks to protect troops elsewhere in the region.
The successful Iranian strikes on Patriot systems in Erbil demonstrated that these assets are vulnerable to drone attacks, making their deployment to other locations a matter of risk assessment rather than simple repositioning.
Strategic implications: victory for Iranian deterrence
The American withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan, following the destruction of Patriot systems by Iranian precision strikes, represents a significant victory for the Axis of Resistance and a demonstration of the effectiveness of Iranian deterrence strategy, according to defense analysts.
The IRGC’s official statement on the Erbil strikes warned that “should the unlawful and bullying US regime continue its hostile actions, it will face different and stronger responses,” a warning that has been validated by the American decision to withdraw rather than reinforce its position in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurdish Regional Government, which has benefited from the American military umbrella while not being the primary target of Iranian attacks, now faces an uncertain future without the protection of US air-defense systems, including Patriot.
The withdrawal also carries significant implications for the broader regional balance of power. The US, which has maintained a military presence in Iraq for over two decades, is now completing a withdrawal that has been accelerated by Iranian military pressure rather than strategic planning.
The annihilation of Patriot systems from Erbil, and the subsequent withdrawal of American occupation forces, represents an acknowledgment that these systems were no longer capable of protecting American personnel in the face of Iranian precision strike capabilities.
The official narrative of a scheduled redeployment, analysts opine, cannot mask the reality that the American position in Iraqi Kurdistan became untenable following the Iranian retaliatory strikes in recent weeks, which demonstrated that even the most advanced American air-defense systems cannot withstand sustained Iranian drone warfare.
Israel is at the heart of Washington’s long-running tensions with Colombia and its outgoing President Gustavo Petro, Foreign Minister Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio has told RT.
In an exclusive interview aired on Sunday, Villavicencio insisted that the decisive factor behind US sanctions on Petro was not his alleged failure to combat drug trafficking but rather his outspoken support for Palestine and repeated accusations that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Relations between Bogota and Washington – Colombia’s largest trading partner – steadily deteriorated during Petro’s presidency over US policy in Latin America, particularly toward Venezuela and Cuba, regional anti-drug efforts, and broader geopolitical differences, most notably Petro’s outspoken support for Palestine and criticism of Israel. This culminated in Washington sanctioning Petro last year, accusing him of “allowing drug cartels to flourish” and “refusing to stop” narcotics trafficking.
US President Donald Trump called Petro an “illegal drug leader,” and openly backed right-wing presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who campaigned on restoring closer ties with Washington, over Petro ally and left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda in the election earlier this year.
Villavicencio rejected Washington’s justification for sanctioning Petro, arguing that his administration had delivered record results in combating drug trafficking.
“We are talking about record-breaking seizures of cocaine, exceeding the figures achieved by any previous administration,” she said, adding that authorities had dismantled cocaine laboratories, extradited suspects, confiscated criminal assets, and kept the US informed of those efforts.
“President [Petro’s] inclusion on the OFAC list [is] in no way related to drug trafficking. These measures were taken against the president because of his firm and principled stance when he openly described what is happening in Palestine as genocide,” Villavicencio declared. “That was the real reason.”
Petro severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2024 over its military campaign in Gaza, repeatedly accusing West Jerusalem of committing genocide and becoming one of Israel’s fiercest critics in Latin America.
He also suspended all Israeli arms purchases, ending Colombia’s long-standing reliance on Israeli military technology, banned coal exports to Israel, and later expelled Israel’s remaining diplomats after an aid flotilla carrying Colombian activists was intercepted by Israeli forces. Colombia also formally joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Petro is due to hand power to President-elect de la Espriella on August 7. He has said he will not attend the inauguration, challenged the legitimacy of the election, and alleged that Israel manipulated Colombia’s presidential vote by hacking election servers. Apart from aligning Colombia more closely with Washington, de la Espriella has pledged to restore full diplomatic ties with Israel, effectively reversing nearly every major foreign-policy decision of the Petro administration.
Meanwhile, the Gaza conflict remains unresolved despite recent political developments. Earlier this week, Hamas said it had accepted Trump’s Board of Peace proposal for phased disarmament, provided Israel fulfills its commitments, including a phased military withdrawal, humanitarian access, and progress on reconstruction.
Israel has yet to formally endorse the proposal, however, insisting that any withdrawal can only begin after Hamas fully disarms, leaving the process deadlocked. Israeli forces have meanwhile continued operations across Gaza, with Palestinian officials reporting at least one person killed and several others wounded in strikes on Friday. … Video interview
Media reports claiming that the Islamic Republic of Iran has agreed to a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are false, and no change has been made to the country’s policy regarding the strategic waterway, according to a report.
Foreign media outlets, citing Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, have claimed earlier that Iran had accepted a proposal under which ships would enter the Persian Gulf through Iranian territorial waters and leave through Omani territorial waters.
Fars News Agency, citing a source close to Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, rejected those claims, with the source saying, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has reached no agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and the reports published in this regard are false.”
According to Fars, a military source also dismissed the claims, saying they were entirely unfounded.
“As long as the hostile actions and acts of malice by the United States continue, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” the military source was quoted as saying.
“Passage will only be possible through the designated route, in coordination with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy and after obtaining permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, other routes are unsafe, and vessels attempting to use them will certainly encounter incidents.”
The source further emphasized that reports claiming that Iran had agreed to any plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz were “baseless” and that no decision or policy change had been made regarding the strategic waterway.
It came after US President Donald Trump said he had canceled declared attacks on Iran, following warnings from Tehran that any new US or Israeli aggression would face strong retaliation.
In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump claimed that the US was “locked and loaded” and prepared to launch a military assault against Iran, describing the potential aggression as involving levels of military power “not seen since World War II.”
The latest round of war against Iran began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched large-scale strikes on Iranian territory.
Iran responded with daily waves of missiles and drones targeting US and Israeli assets across the region, while closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran and the US later signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17 in an effort to end the war across all fronts.
However, renewed US military aggression against Iran in recent weeks has prompted Tehran to resume missile and drone strikes against US assets in the region and close the Strait of Hormuz once again.
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses the 60,000 Moroccans storming into Spain and the possible encouragement from the US and Israel to reward Morocco and punish Spain.
Saudi Arabia’s decision to build an international coalition and militarize the Red Sea will not protect its vessels in the waterway, says a prominent member of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, warning that such move will mount regional tensions and complicate the security landscape.
Abdulaziz bin Habtour, in a statement issued on Friday, called the proposed Saudi maritime coalition a facade for persisting with the aggression and blockade against Yemen.
He stated that the Bab al-Mandab Strait continues to be accessible for international navigation, emphasizing that Yemen’s maritime measures target only Saudi vessels, calling them a reaction to the blockade placed on Yemen.
Bin Habtour said that earlier warnings to the US-led “Prosperity Guardian” coalition underscored that the Red Sea crisis couldn’t be resolved through military force, but by terminating Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and removing the blockade.
He noted that removal of the Saudi blockade and cessation of the military campaign against Yemen, instead of militarizing the Bab al-Mandab Strait, is the sole method to ease regional tensions.
Reuters quoted people familiar with the deliberations that Saudi Arabia seeks to form an international coalition against Yemen in the Red Sea.
The coalition’s composition has not been finalized and discussions are ongoing with numerous countries, the sources were quoted as saying.
On July 20, the Sana’a government declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, stating that its authorities have enforced “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years, “looting our resources and enforcing a total blockade.”
Since then, the Yemeni Armed Forces said they have launched attacks on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched the blockade on Yemen as part of a full-scale war since March 2015, with military, political, and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.
The war has killed tens of thousands of Yemenis, while consistently falling short of its main objective of restoring power to Yemen’s former Riyadh-friendly regime.
Following a fragile UN-brokered ceasefire in 2022, the United States, Britain, and the Israeli regime waged many rounds of aggression against Yemen. The attacks sought to cripple Sana’a’s capability to stage solidarity strikes against Israeli targets in response to Tel Aviv’s war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.
The conflict in Yemen, now in its second decade, has entered a new and extremely perilous phase. Recent developments indicate that Sanaa has transitioned from defense to active deterrence, leveraging asymmetric capabilities to strike at the vital arteries of its powerful neighbor.
What once appeared to be a localized skirmish on the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula has now morphed into a direct threat to the Kingdom’s energy security and the stability of the entire region. This escalation unfolds against a backdrop of mounting tensions between the “Axis of Resistance” (Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah) and the bloc led by the United States and Israel, lending the Yemeni crisis a geopolitical dimension that reaches far beyond the bilateral relationship between Sanaa and Riyadh.
The Bombing of Hodeidah as a Trigger for Escalation
The immediate catalyst for the sharp deterioration was Saudi airstrikes on targets in Hodeidah province, including telecommunications infrastructure and the strategically vital island of Kamaran. These actions, which Riyadh framed as a show of force and a preemptive measure against Houthi expansion, were interpreted by the Yemeni side as a flagrant violation of sovereignty and an act of aggression. The Saudi-led coalition had hoped to degrade the enemy’s military capacity; however, the outcome was precisely the opposite. The very next day, July 25, the Yemeni Armed Forces announced the execution of two large-scale operations targeting the Kingdom’s “energy engine.” This lightning-fast response demonstrated not only the Houthis’ high state of combat readiness but also their determination to carry the war onto enemy territory, employing a principle of “an eye for an eye.”
The retaliatory strikes targeted strategic Saudi Aramco facilities in the cities of Jizan and Yanbu. According to reports, the attacks employed dozens of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and swarms of drones. Footage circulating on social media captured plumes of smoke rising over the Jizan refinery complex, while satellite imagery and regional sources confirmed direct hits. The selection of targets represents a highly precise strategic move, indicating a deep analysis of Saudi economic vulnerabilities. Yanbu is a critical node for Saudi oil exports via the Red Sea, purpose-built to bypass the vulnerable Strait of Hormuz. By striking Yanbu and Jizan, Yemen is effectively attacking the “western escape route” of the Saudi economy, demonstrating an ability to project force up to a thousand kilometers away.
These attacks have also exposed glaring gaps in Saudi Arabia’s air defense network. Costly Western air defense systems, including American Patriot batteries, have proven vulnerable to coordinated, massed strikes employing inexpensive yet effective munitions. This is a classic example of asymmetric warfare, where the cost of the weapons used is incomparably lower than the cost of their interception and the damage inflicted. The cost-effectiveness of such tactics presents Riyadh with an excruciating dilemma: continue with expensive intercepts or absorb the damage from regular attacks, both of which lead to enormous financial losses and undermine the region’s investment appeal.
The Naval Blockade: An Equation of “Blockade for Blockade”
A central element of Yemen’s new strategy is the imposition of a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. On July 20, the Houthis announced a prohibition on shipping for vessels flying the Saudi flag and any cargo destined for the Kingdom’s ports. They repeatedly stressed that the blockade does not apply to international shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and is directed exclusively against Saudi Arabia. Movement spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam denied reports of closing the strait, framing the measures as a legitimate response to years of blockade against Yemen. Yemen’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abu Ras stated that the decision establishes an equation of “blockade for blockade” and constitutes a right to self-defense guaranteed under international norms.
This move fundamentally alters the rules of engagement. For over a decade, the Saudi-led coalition has maintained an air, naval, and land blockade on Yemen, leading to a devastating humanitarian crisis, famine, and epidemics. Now that Sanaa is employing similar tactics, Western powers, which remained silent for years about the suffering of the Yemeni people, have suddenly voiced deep concern. This situation lays bare a glaring double standard in international law: the right to freedom of navigation suddenly becomes sacrosanct only when the interests of Western allies are threatened. The counter-blockade, beyond its military dimension, carries powerful political and economic weight, directly threatening Saudi Arabia’s ability to export goods via the Red Sea and jeopardizing its energy security.
General Mobilization and Internal Consolidation
Parallel to the naval and missile campaigns, Yemen is intensifying its domestic political mobilization. Ansar Allah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued a decree for general mobilization, placing hundreds of thousands of tribal members and regular army units on combat alert. Mass rallies were held in the northern provinces, showcasing societal unity and a readiness for a protracted confrontation. Reports indicate the formation of a new internal structure—the “General Mobilization Forces”—modeled on Iran’s Basij, signaling long-term planning and an ambition to create deeply layered defensive and offensive capabilities. This militarization of civil society is transforming Yemen into a “fortress” where every resident is potentially a fighter, making occupation or a ground invasion an extremely risky undertaking for the Saudi coalition.
The Yemeni conflict is increasingly intertwined with the broader regional confrontation between the Axis of Resistance and the Western-backed bloc. The escalation is occurring amid tensions between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the ongoing war in Gaza. In response to the Saudi strikes, the Yemeni parliament expressed its full support for the actions of the armed forces, describing them as an inevitable response to the unjust blockade.
The New Reality and Prospects for Confrontation
Thus, the current conflict has far surpassed the bounds of a localized confrontation. Yemen, employing a strategy of asymmetric deterrence, has successfully seized the initiative, transforming years of blockade into a powerful tool of pressure on Saudi Arabia. Strikes on oil facilities and the imposition of a counter-blockade signal a new reality: the era of impunity for Saudi aggression has ended. Any further escalation by Riyadh will have catastrophic consequences for its own economic and energy security. Moreover, the Houthis’ success in confronting the technically advanced Saudi military serves as an inspiring example for other proxy forces in the region.
The situation is reaching a boiling point, and the world holds its breath awaiting the next moves from both sides. Several scenarios are possible, ranging from attempts to renew diplomatic contacts under UN auspices to a full-scale regional war involving external powers. However, one thing is clear: the balance of power in the region has irrevocably shifted, and the old methods of pressuring Yemen are no longer effective. Saudi Arabia will be forced to reconsider its strategy, recognizing that a military solution to the conflict is unattainable and that the economic cost of continuing the war has become prohibitively high. The era of cheap oil and unpunished airstrikes is a thing of the past, giving way to an era of complex negotiations and mutual deterrence.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World
Saudi Arabia is “preparing” for a massive and “major” military assault against Yemen, which would involve both land and sea operations aimed at breaking the Ansarallah-led Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) blockade on Saudi shipping, The Guardian reported on 30 July.
Yemeni sources claimed Saudi military troops have been “withdrawing from the east of Yemen in what could be preparation for a land offensive.”
“The troop movements inside Yemen involve concentrating forces for what could be an attack on Al-Bayda, a governorate in central southern Yemen captured by [Ansarallah]” between 2020 and 2021, the sources added.
The report coincided with a Saudi Defense Ministry statement saying the kingdom was preparing to form a multinational naval coalition for the Red Sea.
“The Ministry of Defense is hosting an international meeting to discuss the Kingdom’s initiative to establish a multinational maritime defense coalition,” it said, adding that “the meeting was attended by chiefs of staff and their representatives from 43 countries, along with the EU Delegation … out of a total of 51 invited countries and organizations.”
“The participation reflected the international community’s commitment to strengthening maritime defense cooperation and unifying efforts to safeguard the security of maritime routes.”
It added that 14 countries, including Turkiye, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, and Djibouti, issued a joint statement backing the Saudi-proposed multinational “maritime defense coalition,” as it is being called.
“Membership will remain open to all countries wishing to join the coalition,” the Saudi Defense Ministry statement went on to say.
The kingdom has reportedly asked the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and others to join.
But international naval forces are “overstretched,” western diplomats were cited as saying in a Reuters report on 29 July.
Eleven days ago, the YAF announced a naval blockade on Saudi shipping in response to over a decade of war and siege imposed on Yemen by the kingdom. Saudi tankers have already been struck multiple times in recent days.
Sanaa has also struck a Saudi airport and a major Aramco energy facility in response to new Saudi airstrikes on Yemen this month – the kingdom’s first major attacks against Yemeni civilian infrastructure in years.
The Aramco facility was set ablaze and has been forced shut by Yemen’s operations.
Data released on 26 July revealed that Saudi crude oil loading volumes at the Red Sea port of Yanbu have plummeted by 40 percent due to Yemen’s blockade and retaliatory strikes.
Saudi Arabia waged war against Yemen in 2015 at the head of an Arab coalition, after Ansarallah seized the capital and ousted the Saudi-backed president from Sanaa. The UAE was a major part of this war, which was also supported logistically by the UK, US, and Israel.
A 2023 Saudi–Yemeni peace process nearly resulted in an agreement between the two sides. The peace talks stalled, yet prevented a major escalation from erupting.
The kingdom for years continued to attack Yemen and impose its illegal and deadly blockade on Yemeni ports and airports.
The Saudi-led war on Yemen that began over a decade ago resulted in an unprecedented famine and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Yet the war failed to bring about a defeat of Ansarallah as Riyadh had expected.
Following 7 October 2023, Ansarallah launched military operations against Israel and a naval blockade on ships heading to Israeli ports in response to the genocide.
It also carried out operations in support of Lebanon, which has been under Israeli attacks and occupation since Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
Major EU naval operations, as well as the former US administration’s attempt to form a maritime coalition against Ansarallah following the start of the Gaza genocide, failed blatantly.
A summer 2025 campaign of US strikes against Ansarallah, under US President Donald Trump, also failed to impact the Ansarallah-led YAF.
The Iranian Army says it has targeted key facilities at US-run Ahmad al-Jaber Air Base in Kuwait, as newly analyzed satellite imagery also points to fresh damage at another US-operated base in the Persian Gulf state.
The Army’s Public Relations Office said the strike marked the 27th phase of Operation Sa’eqeh and was carried out in response to recent US military attacks on Iran, including an airstrike on a residential home on Qeshm Island.
According to the statement, loitering drones targeted aircraft shelters, satellite communications systems and equipment storage facilities at Ahmad al-Jaber Air Base. It described the installation as a major hub for US air and surveillance operations and a vital center for the logistical support of American forces.
The retaliation comes as the US has been targeting southern Iranian provinces since earlier in July after violating the terms of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.
Tehran has responded with repeated missile and drone attacks targeting US-operated military facilities across the region under Operation Nasr 2 and Operation Sa’eqeh (Lightning).
The Army condemned the US strike on civilian homes in Qeshm, calling it “a clear violation of humanitarian principles and another example of the enemy’s war crimes.”
It added that “crimes, sanctions and threats will only make Iran more united and cohesive in its sacred defense.”
The statement further said the “decisive, extensive and heavy” attacks carried out by the Army and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps have made it “very costly and difficult” for the United States to intercept Iranian drones and missiles despite deploying advanced air defense systems and reinforcing them.
It also noted that Washington has imposed strict censorship to prevent information about damage, casualties and injuries from becoming public.
The operation followed a deadly US strike on a residential building on Iran’s southern Qeshm Island on Thursday. A local official said three members of a family—a mother, a father and their two-year-old son—were killed in the attack. Two other children were pulled alive from the rubble and taken to hospital after receiving emergency treatment at the scene. The father was identified as a taxi driver, and the neighborhood was a working-class residential area.
Satellite imagery shows damage to US-run base in Kuwait
Meanwhile, satellite imagery has indicated new damage at another US-operated military installation in Kuwait.
Soar Atlas, specializing in maps and satellite imagery, said its assessment of newly released satellite images suggested fresh damage at Ali Al Salem Air Base.
According to the analysis, part of a storage area used by US forces appeared blackened in the latest imagery, indicating that the facility may have sustained damage.
The developments come as The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Washington is reassessing the scale of its military presence in Kuwait.
Citing US officials familiar with the deliberations, the newspaper said the Pentagon had already been considering reducing its troop presence before the war on Iran began and has since scaled back personnel in Kuwait to minimize the risk posed by Iranian attacks on US military bases.
Analysts quoted by the newspaper said US officials increasingly believe that maintaining a large permanent force in Kuwait is no longer militarily necessary.
Prof. John Mearsheimer discusses how the dramatic developments in the Ukraine War conflict with NATO’s “Ukraine is winning” narrative. Prof. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 