Regional conflict already begun following US-UK strikes on Yemen: NYT

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: The New York Times
13 Jan 2024 03:28

The New York Times suggests that Biden’s decision to carry out airstrikes against Yemen "is a clear shift in strategy."

A handout picture released by the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) shows the return of RAF Typhoon aircraft at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, after striking targets in Yemen, early on January 12, 2024. (Photo by Sgt Lee Goddard / MOD / AFP)

The New York Times (NYT) touched on the possibility of the Gaza war expanding into a regional conflict after the aggression carried out by the United States and Britain on Yemen earlier on Friday.

In the early hours of Friday, the US and the UK carried out airstrikes against more than 60 targets in 16 different locations in Yemen, the US Air Forces Central confirmed. In response, the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement threatened that the United States and the United Kingdom would pay a "high price" for the aggression.

The spokesperson for the Yemeni Armed Forces, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, underlined that the aggression won't go unpunished. According to Saree, the US-British airstrikes resulted in the martyrdom of five individuals and the injury of six others from the ranks of the Yemeni Armed Forces.

The NYT mentioned that since the outbreak of the war in Gaza nearly 100 days ago, "President Biden and his aides have struggled to keep the war contained, fearful that a regional escalation could quickly draw in American forces."

It suggested that "now, with the American-led strike on nearly 30 sites in Yemen on Thursday, there is no longer a question of whether there will be a regional conflict. It has already begun."

"The biggest questions now are the conflict’s intensity and whether it can be contained," the Times added.

The newspaper recalled that White House spokesperson John Kirby said Friday the US is "not interested in a war with Yemen. We’re not interested in a conflict of any kind."

"In fact, everything the president has been doing has been trying to prevent any escalation of conflict, including the strikes last night," Kirby claimed.

The New York Times suggested that Biden’s decision to carry out airstrikes against several locations in Yemen after resisting calls to act against the operations of the Yemeni Armed Forces in the Red Sea "is a clear shift in strategy."

According to the newspaper, several officials mentioned that the US President "felt his hand was forced after a barrage of missile and drone attacks on Tuesday were directed at an American cargo ship and the Navy vessels around it."

The Times also cited Western diplomats confirming hesitation in responding to the Yemenis, partly to avoid derailing the truce in Yemeni and partly due to the difficulty of completely eliminating their threat.

However, according to the officials, the repeated Yemeni operations in the Red Sea, direct fire on US helicopters, and the Tuesday attack on an American ship that was providing support to "Israel" have left the United States with "no real choice."

Elsewhere, The New York Times suggested that deeper US military intervention adds to the prevailing perception in the world that Washington is acting directly on behalf of "Tel Aviv", risking further damage to American and Western standing as the number of Palestinians killed in the ongoing Israeli aggression on Gaza is on the rise.

Earlier, The Guardian reported that Biden's call to attack Yemen has laid grounds for backfire against his very own policy of avoiding regional war in the Middle East.