← Back to context

Comment by pjc50

1 day ago

Someone's going to have to provide me with an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in Yemen. I can barely keep up with Lebanon and have forgotten Syria.

> an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in Yemen

RealLifeLore has been doing a decent job covering it [1].

The broad summary is you have the Saudi-backed unity government, the Iranian-backed Houthis, who claim all of Yemen but practically want North Yemen, and the UAE-backed STC, who also claim all of Yemen but practically want South Yemen. Emiratis bring the Israelis to the party. The Iranians bring the Russians. The Saudis bring various international elements (I know less about them than the Houthis and STC).

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgD7zmJN3_A&pp=0gcJCVACo7VqN5t...

Best of luck! These proxy wars have existed since the days of Assyria. 3000 years and running.

Kind of depressing thought actually.

  • I tried to make sense of middle eastern politics once. My conclusion has been „It’s complicated.“

  • Not really there are time of instability but large stretches of stable government usually under a single empire the Persians, Rome, Caliphs and then Ottomans. The current shit show is due to a western induced collapse of the ottomans and then western powers ensuring no single nation can once again enforce that stability.

    • >Not really there are time of instability but large stretches of stable government usually under a single empire the Persians, Rome, Caliphs and then Ottomans.

      The Gulf countries now are in a far better condition than they were under the Ottomans (and than modern Turkey). "Stability" is what led the Ottoman Empire to devolve into a backwards, economically undeveloped society that was incapable of competing with the west.

  • Lots of things have existed throughout history, yet we have overcome them in the last few hundred years. There is peace in Europe (west of Russia) which had as ancient conflict as Yemen; there is democracy, freedom, women have equal rights in much of the world, starvation and many diseases are mostly overcome, warfare is very rare and not an omnipresent threat, ...

    Thank goodness our predecessors didn't think this way. They thought that through reason, hard word, and humanism they could overcome these things, and they did. No doubt there were plenty of naysayers.

    What will we do with our turn?

    • While I commend the positive attitude and I tend to have a positive view on the trajectory of humanity.

      This part of the planet has been almost intractable since the age of Hammurabi - it is quite fractured without any current overarching unity or framework. There isn't a dominant religion (similar to Europe) or shared values. I could say almost meaningless things like "thought that through reason, hard word, and humanism they could overcome these things" which would make little of the hard truths of the long histories of the varied peoples and fractions of the area.

      It would almost seem naive to say things like because we've solved some tough problems in the last century we can solve all problems.

      I think you gloss over much and certainly give yourself a mightier than thou feeling with your "Thank goodness our predecessors didn't think this way".

      I too hope for peaceful resolution and stability but fall back to the historic record of success especially in a place that is constantly, recently and historically decimated by war among fiefdoms.

      3 replies →

In the Middle East everyone fights with everyone else and everyone is in covert or open alliance with everyone else. Simultaneously.