We thank Alastair Newton for this comment on today’s newsletter:
In what it has billed as an 'exclusive', late yesterday The New York Times reported that Donald Trump had been persuaded by his close advisors not to intervene against the Huthis for the time being.
In the US President's defence deciding whether or not to accede to Saudi Arabia's request and intervene militarily against the Huthis is not straightforward.
On the one hand, as a matter of geopolitical principle it must almost always make sense to support a close ally in such circumstances. And all the more so when one needs the support of said ally oneself in another (and, in this case, related) conflict.
On the other hand, the military calculus almost certainly takes one to a different conclusion. First, history and the (lack of) strength of the IRG forces both strongly suggest that even a robust US military intervention would not be decisive in Yemen's long civil war. Indeed, it may not even achieve limited objectives, eg rolling back the Huthis' recent territorial gains. Second, with any gains likely to be very limited and with weapons stocks severely depleted, the Pentagon must surely argue against intervention especially if it is preparing for a major escalation against Iran.
Then there is US domestic politics. Even putting to one side its impact on affordability, the war against Iran is already helping to drag down Mr Trump's approval ratings and, therefore, Republican prospects in the midterms. Opening up a second front would only make matters worse still.
In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that realpolitik has prevailed over principle...for now at least.
This Wednesday Alastair joins William Law on the Podcast to dissect where global energy markets are heading next. Don't miss it.
Members can leave comments about this newsletter on the Arab Digest website.