Perhaps the American person most responsible for meddling in Yemeni affairs is John O. Brennen, the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Before he took the lofty C.I.A. position, he oversaw many missions in Saudi Arabia and Yemen that included intelligence gathering, as well as overseeing drone operations that were meant to fight Al Qaeda in Eastern Yemen, and the Arabian Peninsula. These strikes also inadvertently took the lives of many civilians, which are often not reported in the U.S. media cycle. Always in the position to counsel the U.S. President, Agent Brennen has openly spoken about the instability in Yemen, as well as providing solutions from U.S. involvement, which of course was often opposed by the standing Yemeni government. When the former President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh took ill a few years ago, Agent Brennen advised President Obama to propose a power change from the acting Yemeni president to his second in command who was more supportive of U.S. policy. When that election took place, it was done with the highest praise and support the United States could provide, but what wasn’t widely reported about the event was that the election only had one person in it. Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, the second in command, ran unopposed. Essentially the United States helped plant a leader in Yemen that would allow the U.S. to carry out any business or military operation it pleased.
I also reported that Saudi Arabia has started to bomb the Houthi Rebels in Yemen in a bid to put President Hadi back in power. These air strikes have had a questionable effect on the rebels themselves, but like what is often that case with airstrikes, there are many civilian casualties instead. While it may seem that the U.S. would not take a stand in support of these airstrikes, the opposite is actually true. Consider first that despite the wealth of the nation of Saudi Arabia, the United States is still very eager to help supply and fund their supposed war against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, as well as the ability to protect the vast Saudi resources. In addition to that, the U.S. sells (or gives) them the military equipment, train them to use it, and then run the majority of the support operations, such as refueling, supplying and intelligence gathering. The U.S. does everything for the Saudis in these situations except pull the trigger. The $64,000 question is, “Who decides where to point the gun?”
So to recap, the U.S. is trying really hard to make sure that the Iranian supported rebels in Yemen, that oppose the same terrorist groups we do, are killed in bomb strikes by our ally, Saudi Arabia. I should also point out too, that the U.S. and its allies, in partnership with the Iranian Royal guard, just carried out a joint offensive to take the Iraqi town of Tikrit back from ISIS. So even though certain G.O.P pundits would have you believe that Iran is our clear enemy, often times the opposite is true.
One has to ask too, why the U. S. is so obviously contradictory in these situations, especially considering the U.S.’s response to events that took place in a different parts of the world, like Ukraine. Not only did the U.S. and its European allies support the rebellion that ousted President Victor Yanukovych, they practically started it through an intense propaganda campaign to the public and financial support to the opposition. When Yanukovych fled to Russia, the U.S. tried everything they could to justify their proposed involvement, even going so far as to fabricate evidence that Russia had supposedly invaded Ukraine to put the president back in power. Even though the President of Ukraine had been democratically elected, the United States had no problem with the rebellion and even instantly recognized the new government in Ukraine, as soon as it was established. Interestingly enough, if Russia had responded as Saudi Arabia has, with its air force, the situation would have turned out very differently. For one, the Russian Air Force is quite a power to be reckoned with, and would likely have had large successes, especially when compared to the success that Saudi Arabia was expected to have. Then again, if Russia had responded that way, the U.S. and NATO would have likely responded by sending the globe into World War 3.
In regards to the rebellion in Yemen, the opposite policy is apparent. When the laughably democratically elected president is ousted there, the U.S. calls the rebels terrorists and insurrectionists, and vows support to the previous government and the Saudi Arabians who are bombing Yemen. The motive is easy to ascertain here too. For one, the United States must be an unquestionable ally to the Saudis. Simply put, if relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia is damaged, then the oil industry takes a hit. If that happens, the U.S. economy takes disastrous turns. That is pretty much why the United States supports the Saudis without reservation, despite the fact that they are clearly guilty of many human rights violations that we oppose, and that the Saudis are also suspected by many watchdog organizations of providing financial support to Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. The U.S. war profit takes a hit too if the Houthi rebels stay in power. If the U.S. is directly cut out of the war with Al-Qaeda in Yemen, and they aren’t selling the arms to the people who are, then the U.S. isn’t making any money.
The answer to most of these questions is always the same. It’s about the money and power. The reason why the United States has a foreign policy at all is to acquire money and power. That is why our leaders are willing to be hypocritical in all their overseas policies, leaving all the logic at home, and hoping the public won’t notice. The upside is always paramount to any potential consequences and repercussions. Then again, with everything else that is wrong in Washington, nobody should be surprised that the people there would be as two faced about foreign policy as they are about everything else.