The forces of terror, sponsored by Iran, continue to destabilize and target countries in the region, while the international community only condemns and denounces. This happens whenever Houthi terrorists target Saudi cities and other countries.
Let’s take, for example, the statement of US State Department spokesman Ned Price, who said: “We condemn this week’s Houthi complex attacks against Saudi Arabia. The international community is committed to ending the conflict in Yemen. We call on all parties to agree to strictly uphold a ceasefire and engage in inclusive UN-led peace talks”!
What’s the meaning of this statement, and what is its effect? This is not the first statement by the Department that removed the Houthis from the list of terrorism. What’s the meaning of calling on all parties to agree to strictly adhere to the ceasefire and engage in peace talks led by the UN?
Didn’t Saudi Arabia put forth an initiative that the Houthis rejected? Hasn’t the Kingdom stopped, for a long time now, offensive actions, and committed to the right to self-defense, while the Houthis have intensified their attacks since the arrival of the current US administration?
The story is not only about Saudi Arabia and the Houthis. Let us take another stark example, which is the international response to the targeting of Erbil airport. Is Erbil a party to the Yemeni crisis, for example? It’s all about the continuation of Iranian terrorism.
Let’s take Lebanon for example. The state is on the verge of collapse, while the discussion is focused on the corruption of politicians there. Can a statesman perform in Lebanon? Who killed Rafik Hariri? Was Hariri a militia leader? Of course not; he was a statesman, so he was assassinated.
I asked a former UN envoy about the miserable Western stances and he said: “The West is in a state of helplessness because the equation is completely different,” explaining: “You are faced with two camps: the international community and the sponsors of anarchy.”
He added: “The sponsors of chaos can send militias, planes and weapons at the stroke of a pen, while the West needs parliamentary approval to move, or to send weapons and troops, in addition to the economic deficit and the disparity between parties that are subject to pressure from groups concerned with slogans, not facts.”
“The world does not live in one era, but between two,” a veteran Arab diplomat told me.
“The West and democracies live in a postmodern era, where negotiations are the most important way to solve crises. Our region, however, lives under empires and expansions through the use of force. Our region is two or three hundred years behind.”
He continued: “The West, for 20 years, has seen the crises of our region as a low-intensity conflict zone, since the real conflicts are nuclear.”
The truth is that for 20 years, terrorism has ravaged our region and the world, under Iranian sponsorship. It destroyed the fabric of Yemen and deepened Lebanon’s sectarianism and pushed it to its imminent fall. It did not allow Iraq to rise, and ruined Syria’s past, present and future.
All this means that the fire will extend to the West due to Iran’s destabilization of the region’s security.
Therefore, condemnation will not stop the fire, nor achieve stability, because we are faced with two camps: One that carries weapons, targeting countries; and another which believes that talking behind microphones and in front of cameras will make a difference. This is a blow to the past, the present and the future.
