What next?
The BBC report cruise missiles fired from USN ship(s) at land targets, radar stations:Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37639565It marks the first time the US has fired at rebel targets since the start of the Yemen conflict in March 2015.
The Soufan Group have a longer commentary:http://soufangroup.com/tsg-intelbrie...back-in-yemen/
I do wonder if the Houthi's and allies knew the radar blips were USN ships, knowing firing at USN ships surely would be unwise.
davidbfpo
Let's clearly define one thing: 'Houthis' is used for the group that's naming itself the 'Ansar Allah'. A Zaidi Shi'a religious militant group of about 20,000, coming from north-western Yemen.Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Their 'hard core' is meanwhile quite well-organized (into two 'battalions', that are including some armour and heavy weapons), but has absolutely no clue about such things like 'radars' and even less so about 'guided missiles'.
Units operating anti-ship missiles used for these strikes are those of the Yemeni Navy, about 50% of which sided with Houthis. That's so because officers and sailors in question are predominantly Zaidi Shi'a too, or loyalists to former president Saleh (himself a Zaidi Shi'a, and confirmed two times through free elections in that position, contrary to certain 'internationally recognized' president Hadi).
So, the Yemeni Navy people in question have taken C.801s 'left over' from Chinese-supplied Type-021 fast missile craft, and adapted them for operations from the coast.
I've got no clue what kind of radar are they using for obtaining targeting intelligence, but I doubt it's any kind of a type with an integrated IFF-system. Which means that they have no clue what are they shooting at: they're shooting at 'blips' on their radar displays.
When considering this, one should keep in mind that the Yemeni coast is under a sea blockade declared by the Saudi-led coalition since March 2015. Everybody knows this, and this means: nobody is as crazy as to move any kind of bigger vessels close to that coast - except Saudis and their allies. So much about Yemeni 'IFF' (validity of which is confirmed alone by the fact that so far they did not launch a single attack on any kind of '3rd party', 'neutral' vessels, especially none of so many merchants passing by).
Sounds familiar? This is #Yemen, not #Donbas. The "#Houthi rebels" now have anti-ship cruise missiles & "radar sites". All from hunting shop located just around the corner......
JUST as the "miners and truck drivers" in Donbas suddenly were producing 700 Russian tanks of the T72/80 variety, drove over 1200 IFVs and were able to man over 1000 pieces of artillery and MLRSs......
Yemen is just another facet in the Iranian/KSA conflict or better stated Sunni/Shia hegemony of the Muslim global community which started under Khomeini and continues under Khamenei......while there is no common Shia/Sunni border in Syria to KSA...THERE is one between Yemen and KSA....
AND there has been continuous Iranian attempts to rile up the Shia minority inside KSA....along with IS which has Iranian backing as well...
Map of #Saudi, #UAE, & insurgent spheres of influence inside #Yemen, via @nytimes & @AEIfdp:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/wo...mtyp=cur&_r=0#
…
What the Navy and Air Force call the rise of "Anti-Access, Area Denial" (A2AD) is more accurately the decline of the era of American impunity.
Frankly, the sooner it ends the better, as it will force us to once again adopt a reasonable, interest-based foreign policy that is more tolerant of the self-determination of others.
Yemen is in the midst of revolution, and reasonably so. Saudi revolutionaries take sanctuary within Yemen as well. Many of those are also member of AQ (who's primary purpose has always been revolutionary and focused on the al Saud family). Playing out as well is the larger state on state dynamic that Outlaw describes as Iran and the KSA compete for regional preeminence. Then there are the outside players like the US and Russia both jockeying for position on an even larger scale. Where there is insurgency, the exploiter will gather.
By applying a CT rationale to al Qaeda we have conflated nationalist revolutionaries, UW operatives and foreign fighters (typically revolutionaries at home) all under one big "AQAA" targeting banner and fired at the center of mass. OF COURSE these guys are shooting back at us. We need to put a finer point on our understanding of UW and the insurgencies supported and connected by the UW activities of AQ, ISIL and Iran.
If we applied a more appropriate Counter-UW logic we would quickly see that all of the revolutionary individuals and organizations need to come off of our il-conceived terrorist lists. We too should be conducting UW with those groups and competing for influence with the other state and non-state actors seeking to leverage the energy of these movements to advance their respective ends. Instead we find ourselves protecting regimes that are far out of step with their own populations, and being easily duped into killing their revolutionary populations for them in the name of "CT"!
We have mischaracterized this conflict from inception, and the poor strategic results we are attaining are not only predictable, but have been predicted and ignored. To escalate now does not make us look tougher or smarter. It is a weak and ignorant play.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
KSA says "whoops"
Just up on the BBC News:Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37666698The Saudi-led coalition bombing Houthi rebels in Yemen says it attacked a funeral hall in the capital, Sanaa, based on "bad information".At least 140 people were killed, most of them civilians, in the attack on 8 October - one of the single worst death tolls in the two-year conflict.
A Saudi inquiry blames "non-compliance with coalition rules of engagement" and "the issuing of incorrect information".
Yes, the BBC repeats most of those killed were civilians. If you look back through posts here the only acknowledged dead were all military.
davidbfpo
Quite a 'dramatic turn of events', considering several 1st hand sources - including people that almost went there to participate in that funeral - remain insistent: most of those that were killed were high military officials of the Houthi/Saleh coalition.
But then, I think that's the very essence of the problem, i.e. the very reason for most of such attacks with 'massive collateral damage' flown by the Saudi-led coalition in this war so far.
'Somebody there' provides 'reliable intelligence' on presence of some Houthi (or Saleh) minister, or top officer, or whatever else. The 'somebody there' must not even be a fan of Hadi (quite on the contrary: most of them tend to ask, 'What Hadi should be our president? Oh, that Hadi? Why him?!?') - nor even an outspoken opponent of Houthis (most of these are languishing in different jails meanwhile, anyway).
All the character in question needs to have is some sort of 'open score' with somebody else who might be present 'there' at the given point in time, or not at all. And a cell phone.
And if some over-eager officer on duty back in the HQ in Riyad happens not to cross-check the backgrounds of the source in question... 'boom'.
*******
Here a short (and much softened) summary of 'Houthi' anti-shipping ops along the coast of the Red Sea: To Threaten Ships, the Houthis Improvised a Missile Strike#Force - with observation that the detail on 'Iranian-backed' was inserted by the editor:
At 7:00 in the evening local time on Oct. 9, 2016, a missile fired from Houthi-controlled territory around the port of Hodeida — on the Red Sea coast in northwestern Yemen — crashed into the water several miles away from U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Mason, underway in international waters near the Bab Al Mandab Strait.
Mason and the destroyer USS Nitze were escorting Ponce, an amphibious assault ship that supports minesweeping helicopters. Another missile struck the sea in the same area around an hour later.
Mason launched two SM-2 surface-to-air missiles and a single Evolved Sea Sparrow in self-defense — and also deployed a Nulka decoy. It’s unclear whether any of countermeasures were effective. It’s possible the missiles crashed into the sea on their own. The Navy said it would investigate.
But the more important question is where the Houthis — an Iranian-backed Shia rebel movement that controls much of Yemen — got anti-ship missiles in the first place.
...
Sorry again BBC is just flat wrong as they have been a number of recents times and that is strange for BBC....actual video footage shot right after the attack show not a single civilian...man, woman, child was killed and or injured point one and the released loses statement by Saleh indicate clearly military aged men were hit.....
The KSA is simply doing a "am sorry" to make the US happy...but do not think for a moment KSA is sorry for killing 29 Generals in a "mistaken attack".
REMEMBER the so called US air strike on claimed Assad troops...the US offered to pay compensation BUT the Assad regime has failed to produce a single request for payment....AND it was IS who actually first claimed the US was correct...they had been the one's hit...a rarity for IS/US cooperation is it not?????
REMEBER the very first SANA reporting was that the air strike was a cluster munitions strike and it was social media that posted the photos of the two guided bomb strikes NOT SANA, BBC or anyone else....
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-15-2016 at 04:44 PM.
But that's the particularly absurd part of this conflict: namely, the never-ending report about 'Iran-supported Houthis', and 'Iranian arms deliveries to Houthis'.
What support? What arms?
The USN, Saudis, Emiratis, Egyptians etc. are running a de-facto sea blockade of Yemen since SEVEN YEARS. Yes, seven years - and not only since March 2015.
In this time - and I cross-checked this only this very morning - they have intercepted exactly THREE (in digits: 3) dhows carrying 'illicit arms', means small ships carrying AK-47s, RPGs, some C-4, and few MANPADs and ATGMs etc. for which they say were underway from Iran with destination 'Ansar Allah', aka 'Houthis'.
Now comes the best part: please read the report here - How False Stories of Iran Arming the Houthis Were Used to Justify War in Yemen - check the links it contains, see the evidence.
It seems that the first two dhows in question (the third, intercepted in March of this year was not included in that report) were Yemeni, crewed by Yemenis, and carrying arms bound for Somalia.
...and when I think back of the first Houthi-Saudi clash, that in 2009-2010, and how many Yemeni arms traders Saleh's authorities (which were fighting Houthis at the time) have arrested because they were selling shiploads of arms to Houthis...
Come on: Yemen is stuffed full of arms already since 1970s. Houthis need none. On the contrary, they repeatedly called, i.e. 'warned' Tehran to stay out of this conflict, and not to meddle.
Opinion: The Danger of Connecting Iran Nuclear Deal with Attacks on U.S. Warships
By: Cmdr. Daniel Dolan, USN (Retired)
October 20, 2016 9:58 PM
The recent spate of Yemeni Houthi rebel anti-ship missile attacks in the strategically important littorals near the Bab el-Mandeb strait, have drawn America’s attention to Yemen’s bitter civil war.
Like seemingly everything else in the current American news cycle, these incidents in the Red Sea have been shaded by the current political atmosphere. The incidents included a successful 1 October missile attack on the UAE leased ship HSV Swift, and two or three similar unsuccessful attacks against the USS Mason (DDG-87) in the days that followed. On Oct. 13, USS Nitze (DDG-94) launched a retaliatory strike against the Houthi’s coastal surveillance radar sites that CENTCOM believes were used to provide the missile targeting. Apparently these retaliatory strikes were not enough to prevent or deter a possible third attack on the Mason on Saturday.
Early analysis indicates that the anti-ship missiles used were likely Chinese-designed C-802, or the Iranian-manufactured Noor version of the missile. While there is highly probable that the missiles used were supplied to the Houthi’s by Iran or an Iranian proxy (e.g. Hezbollah is known to possess the C-802), the suggestion by some that these incidents may be inferentially connected to the lifting of sanctions on Iran, or a weakened US foreign policy, are harder cases to make. An examination of the historical context of Yemen’s latest civil war, and some recent examples of Iran’s troublemaking in the region suggests that these missile shots would have likely occurred with, or without, any benefits Iran might have received from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement or a different U.S. foreign policy.
First, a brief examination of Yemen’s history shows that on its best days in the past 100 years, Yemen was a nation simmering just below the boiling point. The area of the Arabian Peninsula, referred today as the nation state of Yemen is a region that has been as violent, unstable, and divided as Europe’s former Yugoslavia. In the post-WWII era, Yemen has been divided along sectarian religious and tribal lines more often than it has been a unified nation. It is this inherent weakness in the cultural fabric of Yemen that led to the overthrow of President Saleh’s government in 2011.
With that in mind, those who suggest that the Houthi’s were somehow enabled by an enriched post-nuclear deal Iran, and/or a weakened U.S. foreign policy are overlooking the fact that this latest Yemeni civil war between Zaidi Shia backed Houthi and Sunni backed Yemeni government forces began in August of 2009. The capital of Sana’a fell to the Houthi’s in March of 2015, and the nuclear deal with Iran was agreed upon in July (four months later). The chronology of the conflict and the history of the recent civil strife in Yemen clearly shows that any link to the nuclear deal is a flawed point of comparison. This disconnect between the timing of the Iran deal and the Houthi rebellion leads to the second point.
While it is a fact that the chronology of events does not show any conjectural link between the nuclear deal and Iranian backed proxies gaining ground in Yemen, what it does show is that Iran was still determined to support its historic allies and proxies in the region even while Iran was living with the implied threat of being branded as part of the “axis of evil,” and while bearing the full weight of international sanctions. For example, in July of 2006 Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces fired two probable C-802 missiles from a location in coastal Lebanon. The first missile struck and sank an Egyptian cargo ship, and the second missile hit the Israeli navy ship INS Hanit. Israel was unaware, until the Hanit incident, that Hezbollah possessed such weapons. Many defense analysts were similarly surprised this month when the Houthi’s managed to get at least seven anti-ship missiles off the rails in a ten-day period.
For the sake of this narrow debate on whether or not the Iran nuclear deal, or claims of weak US foreign policy, has anything to do with the recent attacks, the example of the 2006 attack on the INS Hanit shows that Iran was able to supply its proxy forces with sufficiently capable tactical weapons. Hezbollah received C-802 missiles and many other weapons, even when sanctions were in place, US foreign policy was clearly hostile towards Iran, and the U.S. military presence was at peak strength in the region. Despite these conditions and restrictions Iran was not deterred.
The JCPOA deals with one specific problem—it prevents Iran from building a nuclear device for 10-15 years. It does not set conditions for a geopolitical re-orientation of Iran. Proponents of the deal hope that over time Iran will reform its often troublesome behavior at home and abroad. The effectiveness of the deal in achieving its stated objectives can, and should be debated, but to try and link every incident and accident in the region with the Iran deal for expedient political points at home is misguided. It is misguided because it potentially makes the region even more unstable and overlooks the many merits of the JCPOA.
Few, if any, proponents of the JCPOA ever expected immediate progress in Iranian human rights abuses, and its support of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Rather, a gradual improvement was the most realistic expectation, and there are some encouraging signs that this is happening. For example, there is a growing demand for improved social programs and infrastructure by the Iranian people, and the consistent election of the most moderate candidates allowed to run for office. These trends show the existence of a strong undercurrent in Iranian society that desires reform.
The creation and marketing of the idea that the Iran nuclear deal would suddenly cause Iran to alter every long term relationship and alliance, as unpleasant as many of them are to the West, is a straw-man argument crafted by opponents for the sole purpose of derailing the deal. Iran has been supporting its allies since 1979, when they stopped being our principal ally and had to begin fending for themselves.
Iran’s economy has indeed benefited from the end of sanctions and while that could lead to increased support for its proxies and allies the only honest answer right now is—perhaps. After all, Iran was causing problems for Israel during the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, it was supplying Bagdad’s al Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Iraq while US forces were there, and it has been supporting their Shia kin in Yemen for decades. These are separate and distinct problems that exist and each requires a different solution. Fortunately, because of the JCPOA, these smaller scale conventional problems are taking place without the threat of nuclear escalation.
https://news.usni.org/2016/10/20/opi...s-u-s-warships
By all respect due for Cdr. Dolan (ret.), reading his article convinced me only that he's got no trace of clue about what's going on in Yemen.
Anyway... 'Additional evidence' for his (and so many other, I guess) thesis on 'Iranian arms deliveries for Houthis' - and then especially those of C.802s, Zelzals etc.: Brazil’s Merchants of Death
... and since this business is so lucrative, hell, why not deliver to both sides of the same conflict?...The details of Taurus’s misdeeds read like a spy novel. Brazilian prosecutors allege that Fares Mohammed Hassan Mana’a, a widely known arms smuggler and former governor in Yemen, diverted a consignment of 8,000 handguns from Djibouti across the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to Yemen. Mr. Mana’a is believed to have been supporting Houthi rebels in their fight against a Saudi- and United States-backed government.
...
The two Taurus executives were accused of negotiating a second sale of 11,000 weapons in 2015 when Brazil’s Federal Police moved in.
Why should Brazil do so, you ask?...
This is not the first time Brazilian weapons have turned up in the Yemeni conflict. Late last year, researchers discovered unexploded ordnance and cluster bombs in Yemen that are believed to have been purchased from Avibras Indústria Aeroespacial, a São José dos Campos-based company that manufactures cluster rockets and the Astros multiple-launch rocket system. More than 100 countries have banned the manufacture, stockpiling and use of these weapons because of their potential to cause indiscriminate damage to civilian populations and infrastructure. Brazil is not one of them.
Well, because....
That all said, nobody should be particularly concerned, then rumour has it there are lots of complaints about quality control in Brazilian arms industry....
Brazil routinely authorizes weapons sales to countries with poor human rights records. The country has signed major deals not only with Saudi Arabia, but also with Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Zimbabwe and dozens of countries across the Middle East and Africa since the 1980s. Brazilian companies have also ramped up sales of “nonlethal” arms such as tear gas, pepper spray and concussion and smoke grenades. Some of these have surfaced in Bahrain, Turkey and Egypt, often in the wake of bloody police-led efforts to crush pro-democracy demonstrations.
Many of Brazil’s arms manufacturers have been heavily subsidized by the Brazilian Development Bank, or BNDES. Freedom of information requests reveal that Taurus received $16.7 million in low-interest loans between 2008 and 2015. In 2013 alone, the year Taurus reportedly sold the 8,000 handguns to Mr. Mana’a, the company benefited from $10 million in loans from BNDES. The Brazilian Cartridge Company, one of the world’s largest producers of ammunition (and majority shareholder of Taurus), received $2.9 million in loans over this same eight-year period. Brazil’s defense sector, excepting aeronautics, received $70.5 million in BNDES loans from 2008 to 2015. BNDES is now implicated in Brazil’s largest corruption scandal.
One reason Brazilian arms exports are expanding at breakneck speed is because Brazil’s Congress passed a law to promote innovation and competition in a flagging defense sector. The legislation also grants designated companies significant tax exemptions. Brazil is now the fourth largest supplier of small arms and ammunition in the world and second in the Western Hemisphere, after only the United States.
...
Example? How about Brazilian hand-guns that are firing on their own?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9_YWNo1f-o
**********
Anyway, Yemen War is back in full swing. Word is the Houthi/Saleh coalition fired several SSMs during the night from 23 to 24 October. One might have hit the Royal Saudi Border Guards barracks in Najran; another is said to have hit some kind of (in vocabulary of Iranian PR-machinery) 'site belonging to the Saudi mercenaries' outside Jizan.
Air strikes by Saudi-led coalition reportedly hit Nihm, Naqim and Hafa Districts of Sana'a, and a water-storage facility in Hodeida. According to China NA, Houthis say that a number of 'bunker busters' hit a military base in the al-Hafa mountains, plus Mt Noqum, while the rest of air strikes pounded ad-Daylami AB.
Further north, Saudi-led coalition targeted some place in Baqim District of Sa'ada Governorate, reportedly killing a family of six - and further south: Ta'iz and Hajjah.The airstrikes triggered an earthquake-like shake, causing huge damage to hundreds of residential houses, public and private properties, said the residents, adding that the fighter jets continued intensely flying over Sanaa.
Talking about Ta'aiz... a brief chat with few Yemenis there resulted in following impressions:
1.) The city is meanwhile full of gunmen from at least a dozen of various gangs. Nobody really knows who's in charge and just going out to buy bread can be dangerous. At least the city is not entirely cut off from the outside world any more: a 14-hour treck over one of mountain passes due south results in people getting out - or, often loaded with food and other necessity, getting in.
2.) Some of locals say the Houthi/Saleh is pounding the city 'as revenge' - for its revolt agianst Saleh in 2011, and for revolts against Houthis, in February-March last year.
3.) Few factories and four (out of 39) hospitals are still operational - but all are in parts of the city controlled by Houthi/Saleh.
4.) While disliking Houthi/Saleh, locals are at least as much belittling Hadi and Saudis: in their opinion, these did absolutely nothing to end their plight.
Sigh... if no innocent civilians would be suffering, this would be almost fun to report about.
Head of pro Iran Yemeni group: distribution of Khamenei's book in Yemen changed people minds. It's as good as Quran.
http://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/13...%D9%85#…
Wow...Khomeini's Revolutionary Islam is catching hold.....
Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 10-25-2016 at 04:54 PM.
Dolan on Yemen
Well, you would agree with Dolan that the Houthis are more than capable of prosecuting the war by themselves and of taking independent action against US warships, correct? They seem less of an Iranian catspaw than other Iranian allies or proxies, and Yemen was unstable long before Khomeini's ascension.
Interesting to see what the "friendly" Brazilians are up to. Especially so, since any blowback from the Middle East would be difficult to counter as Brazilian police and paramilitaries have a hard enough time quelling the favelas and resisting the urge to summarily execute arrestees...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks