Exclusive: Yemen’s ‘Dark Horse’ Tries to Re-enter the Race

Houthis sit in the back of a pick-up truck in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on December 2, 2017, during clashes with supporters of Yemeni ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Mohammed HUWAIS / AFP
Houthis sit in the back of a pick-up truck in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on December 2, 2017, during clashes with supporters of Yemeni ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Mohammed HUWAIS / AFP
TT
20

Exclusive: Yemen’s ‘Dark Horse’ Tries to Re-enter the Race

Houthis sit in the back of a pick-up truck in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on December 2, 2017, during clashes with supporters of Yemeni ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Mohammed HUWAIS / AFP
Houthis sit in the back of a pick-up truck in the Yemeni capital Sana’a on December 2, 2017, during clashes with supporters of Yemeni ex-president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Mohammed HUWAIS / AFP

For decades it was impossible to travel anywhere in Yemen without seeing the image of a black steed in full trot towards the unknown.

The image was the logo of the General People’s Congress, the political party founded in 1982 by President Ali Abdullah Saleh in Sana’a in what was then North Yemen. The “black steed” went even further when North Yemen virtually annexed South Yemen in 1990 in a scheme that Saleh promoted as “national unification.”

But what did the back steed symbolize? When put the question to Saleh in one of our meetings in his palace in Sana’a, he seemed to hesitate. Maybe the steed symbolized the mount used by the Queen of Sheba to travel to her rendezvous with Solomon, I quipped.

In reality, however, what the black steed reflected most may have been Saleh himself who had been the “dark horse” of Yemen’s tumultuous politics since 1974.

For almost four decades Colonel Saleh, later self-promoted to general, has been the unexpected gate-crasher in successive power struggles, often bloody, in a land that is an abyss of misery and beauty. Each time, he was written off as a spent force, a yesterday’s man and, each time, he managed to bounce back to claim a place in the deadly fight over Yemen’s future.

This is what happened again this week as Saleh decided that his “patience” with his erstwhile allies, the Iran-backed Houthis, has run out and that it was time for a divorce negotiated through gunfights in an already badly wounded Sana’a.

But what is Saleh’s real political weight?

In the early part of his politico-military career he was no more than part of an entourage of the “strongman” of the moment. We first caught a glimpse of him in 1974 when Colonel Ibrahim al-Hamdi staged a coup against President Abdul-Rahman al-Iryani and formed a Military Command Council to rule North Yemen.

Hamdi became a close friend of Iran under the Shah and Iranian intelligence identified Saleh as a “dark horse” suspected of harboring “pan-Arab” sentiments.
However, when Hamdi was brutally assassinated, it was not Saleh that came to the fore but Hamdi’s alleged murderer Colonel Ahmad Hussein al-Gashmi.

Saleh remained “the dark horse” lurking in the shadows of the military leadership until 1978 when it became Ghashmi’s turn to be assassinated. A month after the assassination, Saleh “the dark horse” emerged from the shadows to assume a presidency that many thought had become a death sentence.

The proverb “never two without three” didn’t come true in Saleh’s case as he proved wrong those who though that he, too, would be assassinated like his two immediate predecessors.

When we first met Saleh, he claimed that his chief aim was to create “modern stable state institutions” in a country still dominated by medieval codes and tribal politics. By 1982, Saleh thought that he had made enough progress in that direction to launch his own political party. The General People’s Congress was born as a coalition of different and, at times, antagonistic groups, parties and clienteles whose chief common point was the acceptance of Saleh as president.

In one sense, the Congress was no different from similar structures launched in several other Arab countries, notably Egypt, Syria and Iraq all of which experienced one-party rule. However, the Congress was different from Nasser’s Arab Socialist Party or the Ba’athist outfits under Hafez al-Assad or Saddam Hussein in one important respect: It had no codified ideology. Thus, it could pose as nationalist, socialist or even liberal according to the mood of the moment and the tactical calculations of the president.

The party’s chief function was to operate as a political machine for distribution of posts and favors, and, as time went by, fruits of corruption. Last but not least, it had to ensure success in presidential and parliamentary elections. All in all, the Congress played the role assigned to it with great efficiency even after unification with South Yemen in 1990.

The civil war shook the Congress to its foundations and, if it managed to survive, was largely due to deals made between Saleh and powerful tribal chiefs in the north.

The Congress suffered from several major weaknesses from the start.

First, it never managed to attract loyalty on its own accounts and in addition to, if not actually away, from the person of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Next, Saleh’s erratic decision-making and his habit of shifting positions like a weather vane made it impossible for the Congress to develop its own political profile or appeal to larger audiences on key issues of policy.

Thirdly, the Congress remained basically regional in the sense that it did not substantially grow beyond its original base in the north.

Despite the disappearance of leftist factions in the former South Yemen, which created new space for action, the Congress failed to strike roots in the former sultanates of southern Arabia. In Hadhramaut, for example, its appeal remained limited to senior officials sent from Sana’a.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to write off the Congress altogether. Nor could one dismiss Saleh as the day-before-yesterday’s man. The Congress still represents many bureaucratic, political, business and tribal elements often tied together through clan backgrounds and old alliances. Saleh himself is no longer “the dark horse” likely to ride into center-stage.

But, as the Houthis, who have tried to eliminate him may have realized, nor is he the doormat over which they could walk into absolute power in the enclave in north Yemen. Whatever the ultimate shape and taste of the witches’ brew in Yemen, Saleh and the General People’s Congress are likely to remain among the ingredients.



Who Remains from the Symbols of October 7?

Palestinians celebrate atop an Israeli tank on the separation barrier near Khan Younis on October 7, 2023 (AP). 
Palestinians celebrate atop an Israeli tank on the separation barrier near Khan Younis on October 7, 2023 (AP). 
TT
20

Who Remains from the Symbols of October 7?

Palestinians celebrate atop an Israeli tank on the separation barrier near Khan Younis on October 7, 2023 (AP). 
Palestinians celebrate atop an Israeli tank on the separation barrier near Khan Younis on October 7, 2023 (AP). 

On October 7, 2023, Hamas-affiliated media accounts posted a video showing several of the group’s prominent leaders outside Gaza falling into a “prostration of thanks” as they watched on television the start of the unprecedented assault on Israel -- what Hamas called “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.”

The video, recorded in a spacious office, appeared to show Hamas’s top brass monitoring an event they clearly anticipated. Figures like Ismail Haniyeh, then head of the political bureau; his deputy, Saleh al-Arouri; and senior leaders Khaled Meshaal and Khalil al-Hayya were all seen in the footage. At the time, the scene fueled speculation about whether the political leadership had prior knowledge or direct involvement in planning the attack.

Yet, according to Hamas sources who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat, many of those in the video were unaware of the operation’s exact timing or scope. They knew the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, were preparing a preemptive strike in response to Israeli plans for a limited military campaign -- but the leaders abroad had not been briefed on the final execution.

The sources revealed that the video was filmed in Hamas’s office in Türkiye, where leaders were preparing to travel to Iraq, part of a broader diplomatic initiative. The delegation, which had recently visited Lebanon, was set to engage with other Arab and Islamic countries, including Iran, Kuwait, and Oman, in an effort to widen Hamas’s political footprint. This diplomatic offensive was seen by some in the Palestinian Authority as an attempt to position Hamas as an alternative to the PA and the PLO --an accusation the group denied.

However, without the knowledge of most of the political wing, Hamas’s military leadership in Gaza had a different agenda -one that was kept tightly guarded and may have contributed to the operation’s initial success. In the early hours of the attack, leaders outside Gaza scrambled to contact counterparts in the Strip, asking, “What’s happening?” Some of those asked reportedly responded with confusion or claimed ignorance.

Only a small inner circle knew the full scope of the plan, and even among Gaza-based leadership, not all were informed. Some received instructions before the attack to leave their homes and relocate to secure areas.

As Israel’s war on Gaza enters its twentieth month and continues to target Hamas leaders, the question now is: who remains from the core of October 7, and who truly knew what?

While most of Hamas’s political leadership was excluded from operational details, some senior figures had given strategic backing to the idea of a preemptive strike. Khaled Meshaal, Mousa Abu Marzouk, and Mahmoud al-Zahar were among those who supported military action to derail reported Israeli assassination plans targeting Hamas figures.

The name most closely linked to the attack remains Yahya Sinwar, who headed Hamas in Gaza at the time. Though not the originator of the idea, he was the operation’s chief engineer and maintained strict control over its planning. He handpicked those who were fully briefed and sanctioned the final plan.

Following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July 2024, Sinwar was elevated to head of the political bureau -- a symbolic challenge to Israel. But just months later, in October 2024, Sinwar was killed in a surprise clash in Tel al-Sultan, western Rafah, alongside members of his inner circle.

Haniyeh, for his part, had been focused on expanding Hamas’s diplomatic reach. He had only a vague idea about the October 7 operation, believing it would be limited. He was assassinated in Tehran as well, in the same month as his successor.

Khalil al-Hayya, now leading the political bureau and negotiations, was better informed than many of his peers but not to the extent of the military planners. Ruhi Mushtaha, one of the few civilians aware of the operation’s breadth and timing, was killed in July 2024, as was Saleh al-Arouri, who was targeted earlier that year in Lebanon.

Nizar Awadallah, who left Gaza shortly before the attack, remains active in back-channel negotiations and is considered a hardline figure inside Hamas. Though largely behind the scenes, he was reportedly better informed than most on the political level.

On the military front, few names carry as much weight as Mohammed Deif, long-time commander of the Qassam Brigades. Deif, who survived numerous Israeli assassination attempts over the years, was finally killed in July 2024. Mohammed Sinwar, Yahya’s younger brother, was considered the true mastermind of the operation and played a central role in its planning and execution. He too was killed in a targeted strike in Khan Younis, alongside his brother.

Other key figures, like Marwan Issa, who had long served as Deif’s deputy, died in March 2024 after being sidelined by illness. Several brigade commanders who oversaw preparations and joint drills with other factions, including the Islamic Jihad, were also eliminated. Only one high-ranking commander, Ezzedine al-Haddad of Gaza City, is believed to still be alive. Known as “The Fox” for his ability to evade Israeli intelligence, he continues to operate underground.