On the morning of July 13, 2026, an Iranian civilian jet descended toward Sanaa International Airport, carrying a senior Houthi delegation returning from Tehran after attending the state funeral of Iran’s assassinated Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Just moments before the aircraft could complete its descent, Saudi-backed Yemeni forces unleashed a targeted airstrike directly onto the tarmac. The sudden bombardment cratered the runway, forcing the Iranian passenger plane to abruptly abort its landing and divert toward the Red Sea port city of Hodeidah.
While the Saudi-backed government framed the strike as a necessary interdiction to prevent an unauthorised Iranian aircraft from violating sovereign airspace, the Houthi leadership viewed the operation as a definitive act of war. Consequently, the Yemen-based militia utilised the airport attack as the formal trigger to terminate a fragile, multi-year de-escalation protocol. The group subsequently initiated a calculated, multi-tiered campaign of asymmetric warfare, designed to systematically cripple Saudi Arabia’s sovereign revenue streams and definitively shatter the kingdom’s domestic stability.
Following the collapse of the fragile Saudi-Houthi truce, the scope of hostilities widened significantly. Throughout September 2026, Houthi forces dramatically escalated their cross-border operations, shifting focus from border skirmishes to strategic strikes targeting civilian energy infrastructure, military bases, and regional airports deep within Saudi territory. Concurrently, the militia seized critical geographical nodes along the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, effectively establishing a physical chokehold over one of the world’s most vital maritime trade corridors. These measures signalled a strict transition from localised retaliation to a broader geopolitical siege. The Houthis also urged “international shipping companies”, civilians and workers to evacuate airports and oil facilities, which they declared legitimate military targets.
The Houthi campaign reached a devastating phase in early October 2026. Over a span of just seven days, a coordinated barrage of Houthi strikes on Saudi aviation infrastructure killed at least 20 people. Most notably, on October 10, a direct missile impact at Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport claimed 13 lives. The offensive subsequently expanded eastward toward the kingdom’s economic heartland. By October 13, Houthi drones and ballistic missiles, navigating over 620 miles to bypass early warning systems, sparked a major fire at an Aramco facility in Riyadh, wounding four civilians with shrapnel. The heavily fortified Eastern Province, including the critical oil hub of Dhahran, also faced relentless incoming missile alerts as the militants attempted to disrupt global oil supply chains.
In response to this unprecedented breach of its airspace, Riyadh abandoned its defensive posture. On October 13, following evacuation warnings broadcast to local civilians, Saudi-led warplanes executed targeted strikes on critical oil facilities situated within the Houthi-controlled capital of Sanaa. While Saudi air defences successfully intercepted three cruise missiles and multiple drones bound for Riyadh and the southern regions, the overall failure of these multi-crore interceptor systems to prevent mass casualties has triggered an internal state investigation. Ultimately, this tit-for-tat escalation confirms that conventional aerial superiority remains fundamentally incapable of deterring a deeply entrenched, decentralised proxy force.
The persistent vulnerability of Saudi Arabia to sustained cross-border strikes presents one of the most striking paradoxes in modern military history. Saudi Arabia is the world’s top purchaser of American weapons and has purchased American F-15 warplanes, Patriot air defence systems, advanced radars, offensive missile systems, and other military equipment. Despite possessing an annual defence budget exceeding $83 billion, the fifth largest globally, and enjoying comprehensive intelligence sharing, logistics support, and advanced weaponry from the United States, Riyadh remains fundamentally incapable of securing its airspace and sovereign territory.
The budget of the Houthis is not known, but it is estimated that the group’s total revenue from taxes and customs duties is around $2.5 billion, and they earn an additional $2 billion from illicit oil sales. While this is a big amount for a non-state violent actor, their financial strength is no match for the resources of the Saudis. Despite this disparity, Houthis have been able to keep fighting the Kingdom for over a decade. In their asymmetric military campaign, the Houthis do not need to “win” a war; they just need to make the war costly for Saudi Arabia in the long run, and that is exactly what is happening. The failure is not incidental; it is systemic, structural, and rooted in a mismatch between conventional military doctrine and unconventional asymmetric reality.
The glaring absence of a credible, battle-ready expeditionary army exposes the profound institutional vulnerabilities of the Saudi state apparatus. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia has deliberately kept its army relatively weak and fragmented. Historically, the internal security architecture of the Kingdom has been meticulously engineered around the doctrine of “coup-proofing”, prioritising regime survival over external combat effectiveness.
This structural paranoia traces its origins to the aborted 1969 Saudi Arabian coup d’état attempt. Influenced by Muammar Gaddafi’s successful overthrow of the Libyan monarchy that same year, high-ranking officers in the Royal Saudi Air Force plotted to bomb the royal palace in Riyadh. They intended to assassinate King Faisal and establish an Arab socialist republic.
Although intelligence services thwarted the 1969 plot before it could be executed, the near-miss fundamentally altered the House of Saud’s military calculus. Consequently, the monarchy established elaborate precautions to permanently fragment its armed forces, ensuring no single military commander could ever amass enough consolidated power to threaten the royal family. The Saudi military apparatus was deliberately divided into parallel, competing fiefdoms.
As part of this strategy, the regular Armed Forces were placed under the Ministry of Defence, while internal security was handed to the Ministry of Interior. Furthermore, the regime heavily fortified the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), an elite, tribally loyal force completely independent of the regular army, expressly to counterbalance the conventional military. These distinct branches were historically commanded by rival princes, notably from the powerful ‘Sudairi Seven’ bloc, creating a system of permanent institutional friction and divided loyalties.
Therefore, this deliberate fragmentation severely undermines modern joint-force doctrine, tactical initiative, and operational coordination among frontline units. The branches operate with distinct supply chains, separate procurement networks, and minimal interoperability. When confronted with complex ground deployments along the rugged southern border in Jizan, Najran, and Asir, this disjointed architecture simply breaks down. Saudi armed forces also lack combat experience in comparison to the Houthis.
As a result, the Saudi military has frequently been forced to rely on poorly motivated foreign mercenaries, domestic tribal militias, and Yemeni proxies to plug operational gaps. Predictably, these secondary forces routinely collapse under pressure from highly motivated, battle-hardened Houthi infantry trained from childhood in asymmetric mountain warfare. Ultimately, a regular Saudi military structurally designed to mistrust itself lacks the cohesion and tactical resilience required for grinding, close-quarters infantry combat against a unified insurgency.
The primary operational constraints handicapping the Saudi military are the unforgiving geography of northern Yemen, apart from a weak army. The Houthi heartland of Saada and the surrounding highlands comprise rugged, serrated mountain ranges rising over 2,500 metres, riddled with labyrinthine cave systems, ravines, and narrow defiles. The most important assets of the Houthis are located underground, making it very difficult to target them in aerial raids.
Conventional armies rely heavily on mechanised manoeuvres, heavy armour, and linear logistics. In these vertical terrains, heavy Saudi main battle tanks like the M1A2 Abrams will be rendered virtually useless, forced into narrow chokeholds where they become prime targets for Houthi anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) teams. Furthermore, the mountainous terrain provides natural radar masking. Houthi units can disperse mobile, truck-mounted missile launchers, fire a salvo, and retreat deep inside reinforced caves or mountain shadows within minutes, well before Saudi reconnaissance assets can complete the “kill chain” from detection to airstrike.
Lacking the capacity to fight effectively on rugged terrain, the Royal Saudi Armed Forces has adopted an operational doctrine almost entirely anchored in air superiority. Operating premier Western platforms including the F-15SA, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Tornado, the Royal Saudi Air Force executed hundreds of thousands of sorties over the past decade.
However, air power alone has never historically broken an entrenched guerrilla insurgency, a lesson previously demonstrated from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Lacking dependable forward human intelligence (HUMINT) on the ground, high-altitude strikes frequently decimated civilian infrastructure and empty administrative buildings while missing hardened underground storage depots and decentralised assembly workshops. The continuous reliance on aerial bombardment produced catastrophic humanitarian blowback and international condemnation without degrading the militia’s fundamental strike capability.
On the other hand, the Houthis are gaining military power, with an army of around 3,50,000 fighters. Although they don’t have an air force, they have long-range missiles and drones that can reach Israel and beyond. As the Iran war has shown, drones are very effective in targeting enemy targets, and Houthis have mastered that strategy. Saudi Arabia and its western allies have been unable to stop Houthis from acquiring weapons. While the group started with looting the military arsenal of the Yemeni government, they now have well-established military procurement system.
Since 2009, Iran has been smuggling a large quantity of weapons to Houthis, including missile components for local assembly, along with required training. Such consignments are sent by small fishing boats, evading detection by patrols by US and ally naval forces. Houthis now don’t import complete weapons; they import components and assemble them. This has allowed them to build and stockpile missiles and drones, as they can procure commercial components from various sources without much restriction, depending on Iran only for military parts.
Moreover, Houthis don’t have large-scale industrial complexes to assemble these weapons; they operate like cottage industries, small units scattered across the territory. This means there is no specific production site to be bombed. One workshop is destroyed, and the next batch is manufactured in a different facility.
The Saudi-Houthi impasse shatters the persistent Western-centric assumption that overwhelming technological superiority, air power and advanced missile defence systems automatically yield rapid battlefield victory. This mirrors the broader miscalculation regarding Iran itself. For years, conventional strategists theorised that direct joint strikes by the US and Israel could easily neutralise Iranian command centres, dismantle its nuclear and missile programs, and collapse the clerical regime in a matter of weeks. But in reality, not only Iran has sustained the war, it has throttled global trade by blocking a crucial maritime route and caused heavy damage to US military, who have lost a large number of fighter jets and drone in the war.
The reason is that modern warfare has evolved beyond centralised targets. By creating a dispersed, deeply buried infrastructure and cultivating non-state asymmetric actors across thousands of kilometres, Iran built a resilient deterrent layer that absorbs high-tech conventional strikes and responds with low-cost saturation tactics. The Houthis serve as the most extreme manifestation of this doctrine: an impoverished, barefoot militia that, through ideological commitment, geographical mastery, and low-cost precision systems, has successfully neutralised the multi-crore military juggernaut of the Gulf’s richest petrostate.
While the Houthi blockade of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait is a major threat to global trade, the operational reality for the Saudi state is far more immediate and existentially threatening. The Houthis have successfully weaponised geography to transform Riyadh’s most critical economic safeguards into acute vulnerabilities, executing a masterclass in economic blackmail.
The escalating conflict has also dealt a blow to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ambitious plans to transform and diversify Saudi Arabia’s economy and reduce its reliance on oil. Although the attack on Aramco was limited and didn’t cause significant damage, it shows that the kingdom’s oil assets are vulnerable to attacks from Houthis too, apart from Iranian attacks.
To understand the severity of the Houthi blockade, one must first examine Saudi Arabia’s long-term energy export strategy. For decades, Riyadh has invested heavily in the 740-mile East-West Petroline (Abqaiq-Yanbu pipeline), a massive infrastructure project designed to transport roughly 5.8 million barrels of crude oil per day from the vulnerable eastern fields near the Persian Gulf to the western port of Yanbu on the Red Sea.
This multi-billion-dollar system was specifically engineered as a strategic bypass. Its sole purpose is to ensure that if Iran ever fulfilled its frequent threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, Saudi exports could still reach global markets uninterrupted via the Red Sea. After the Strait of Hormuz was actually blocked due to the war in Iran, Saudi Arabia made the most use of the pipeline by pumping oil to the west coast and then loading the tankers.
However, by establishing a physical and military blockade at the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the southern exit of the Red Sea, the Houthis can effectively nullify the Petroline’s strategic value. While ships can move north to Europe through the Suez Canal, the tankers moving oil from Yanbu port to major markets of China, India, Japan and other countries in the region must go through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The crude oil may safely reach the port of Yanbu via the pipeline, but maritime tankers must still navigate southward through waters now heavily contested by Houthi anti-ship cruise missiles, naval mines, and loitering munitions to reach Asian markets.
Consequently, the very alternative route designed to ensure Saudi Arabia’s energy security can be transformed into its primary chokehold. The Houthis are not merely disrupting trade; they can directly threaten the sovereign revenue streams required to fund the Saudi state. If both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait are blocked at the same time, Saudi Arabia and most other Gulf nations can’t export their oil to major Markets.
Beyond the macroeconomic threat to oil exports, the daily tactical engagements present an equally devastating financial reality for Riyadh. The conflict is defined by extreme cost-asymmetry, where an impoverished, non-state militia is successfully bleeding the defence budget of one of the world’s wealthiest nations.
The Houthi arsenal heavily relies on Iranian-designed, mass-produced kamikaze drones, such as the Qasef and Sammad variants. These rudimentary yet effective systems are manufactured using commercially available components and smuggled parts, costing an estimated ₹12 lakhs to ₹15 lakhs (roughly $15,000 to $20,000) per unit to produce and deploy.
In stark contrast, Saudi Arabia’s air defence architecture is built on highly sophisticated, exorbitantly expensive Western technology. To intercept a ₹15 lakh ($20,000) Houthi drone, the Royal Saudi Air Defense Forces must fire a Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missile. Each of these interceptors costs upwards of roughly $4 million (₹33 crores).
This same severe cost-asymmetry is mirrored in the engagements between Hamas and the Israeli military. Much like the Houthis, Hamas relies heavily on mass-produced, rudimentary projectiles, primarily the unguided Qassam rockets. These short-range rockets are often assembled in decentralised workshops using easily acquired civilian materials, such as fertiliser-based propellants and industrial piping. Consequently, a single Qassam rocket costs Hamas roughly $300 to $800 to manufacture and deploy. These rockets are unguided projectiles, with no control over where they will land. Consequently, only some Hamas rockets cause significant damage; most others fall on open fields.
Conversely, Israel’s defence against these saturation attacks relies on the Iron Dome system, specifically the advanced Tamir interceptor missiles. Each highly sophisticated Tamir missile, equipped with active radar seeking and precise manoeuvring fins, costs the Israeli state an estimated $40,000 to $50,000 per launch. When operational costs, including radar power and personnel, are factored in, a successful interception can cost upwards of $100,000 to $150,000. While the Iron Dome provides a vital protective shield, boasting a high interception rate for projectiles bound for populated areas, it creates a crushing fiscal reality.
In a sustained conflict where Hamas fires thousands of $800 rockets, Israel is forced to expend hundreds of millions of dollars in interceptors simply to survive the barrage, permanently locking the conventional power into an economically exhausting defensive posture. If Houthis continue their missile attacks, Saudi Arabia will also feel a similar crunch, even if they intercept most of the incoming missiles.
This fiscal disparity means that even when Saudi defences are 100% successful in intercepting incoming fire, the Houthis still secure a massive economic victory. By launching swarms of cheap drones, the militia can force Riyadh to expend millions of dollars daily simply to maintain the status quo. This unsustainable dynamic essentially weaponises the kingdom’s own high-tech defence budget against itself, proving that overwhelming financial resources do not guarantee tactical superiority in asymmetric warfare.
The foundation of the current crisis extends far beyond the Iran war. It is rooted instead in deep-seated territorial, political, and theological grievances. To comprehend the resilience of the Houthi movement, one must examine the fundamental sectarian fault lines and the domestic history that forged the militia into a formidable military apparatus.
The religious landscape of Yemen is historically complex, defying the simplistic Sunni-Shia binary frequently presented in mainstream international commentary. The Houthis belong to the Zaydi branch of Shia Islam, a sect that ruled northern Yemen under a traditional Imamate for over a millennium. Crucially, Zaydism is jurisprudentially distinct from the Twelver Shiism practised in Iran. For centuries, Zaydis and Yemen’s Shafi’i Sunni population coexisted relatively organically without entrenched sectarian hostility.
Followers of Zaydism believe that political power belongs by right to the descendants of Prophet Muhammad. The Zaydi kingdom, known in Yemen as the Imamate, ruled in the region for over a thousand years, collapsing and re-emerging several times. However, the political ideology collapsed in 1962, when a revolution overthrew the Imamate and tried to build a modern nation-state. As a result, the Yemen Arab Republic, also known as North Yemen, was born. However, the Zaydi religious establishment was not happy with this transition. When North and South Yemen merged in 1990, most hardline Zaydi followers accepted the new system, but a hardline faction remained. One of them was a scholar named Badreddin Al-Houthi.
During that time, the ideological dynamics shifted radically in the late 20th century. Saudi Arabia, awash with petrodollars, began actively funding and exporting its strict Wahhabi (Sunni) doctrine across the porous southern border into Yemen’s traditional Zaydi heartlands. The establishment of Saudi-funded Salafi religious institutes in the northern Saada province was fundamentally perceived by the Zaydi community as a deliberate demographic and cultural siege. Consequently, the Houthi movement initially emerged in the 1990s not as a militant group, but as a Zaydi revivalist youth organisation determined to defend its cultural heritage against Saudi ideological encroachment.
Badreddin Al-Houthi’s son, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, was the most prominent leader of this movement. While he served in the parliament in the 1990s, his visit to Iran in 1995 completely transformed him. He fused Yemeni Zaydism with Khomeinism, the revolutionary anti-Western, anti-Israel doctrine of Iran’s 1979 revolution, named after Ayatollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran. Hussein completely rebuilt the Zaydi movement with this new political and religious ideology. The theological movement started to transition into a militia, following in the footsteps of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Therefore, while the current conflict is dismissed by many as a straightforward theological proxy war orchestrated by Tehran against Riyadh, the operational reality is fundamentally geopolitical. The alliance between the Houthis and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not predicated on religious uniformity, but rather on a shared strategic imperative to counter Saudi and American hegemony in West Asia. Subsequently, the Houthi leadership effectively utilised this sectarian framing domestically, maintaining a perpetual wartime footing to justify strict internal security measures and suppress dissent within their cadre.
The transformation of the Houthis from a cultural revivalist movement into a battle-hardened insurgency was forged through years of relentless domestic conflict in the first decade of this century. Following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the movement’s founder, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, began leading massive anti-American and anti-Saudi protests, severely embarrassing the US-aligned Yemeni President, Ali Abdullah Saleh. In response, Saleh launched a brutal military crackdown.
The transformation of the Houthis from a grassroots Zaydi cultural revivalist network into a highly capable, battle-hardened insurgent force occurred during a brutal six-year period from 2004 to 2010. Triggered in June 2004 when the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, increasingly aligned with the United States post-9/11, attempted to arrest Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, the conflict rapidly consumed Yemen’s northern mountainous provinces. Although government forces managed to corner and kill Hussein by September 2004, the heavy-handed military crackdown, which involved indiscriminate artillery and aerial bombardment of Zaydi civilian areas, severely backfired.
Under the subsequent leadership of Hussein’s brother, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the insurgency grew. Across six rounds of bloody conflict from 2004 to early 2010, known as the Saada Wars, the Saleh regime relentlessly deployed military might, frequently backed by Saudi political support and, in 2009, direct Saudi military intervention. The wars culminated in the government’s ‘Operation Scorched Earth’. However, the Yemeni and Saudi forces repeatedly failed to uproot the decentralised, highly motivated guerrilla fighters operating from complex mountain cave systems. Ultimately, these six wars served as a brutal, real-world training ground, allowing the Houthi cadre to master the asymmetric mountain warfare tactics they currently deploy against the Saudi state.
The geopolitical landscape fractured completely during the 2011 Arab Spring. Widespread national protests forced Saleh to resign, transferring power to his Saudi-backed deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. However, Hadi’s transitional government failed to stabilise the crumbling economy or address northern grievances. Seizing the power vacuum, the Houthis launched a massive offensive. In a stunning reversal of alliances, they allied with military units still loyal to ousted President Saleh, marching southward and capturing the capital city of Sanaa in 2014. This coup d’état forced President Hadi to flee to Riyadh, effectively placing a deeply hostile, Iran-aligned militia on the porous southern border of the Saudi kingdom.
For the Saudi monarchy, this development was an unacceptable, existential security nightmare. In March 2015, expecting a swift victory within months, Riyadh assembled a coalition and launched a massive military intervention. This operation involved massive aerial bombardments and a strict blockade of Yemeni air and sea ports, designed to crush the Houthis and restore the Hadi government. Instead of ensuring border security, the intervention dragged Saudi Arabia into a multi-billion-dollar war. The 2015 intervention definitively transformed a domestic Yemeni insurgency into a sprawling regional conflagration, directly setting the stage for the highly sophisticated cross-border drone strikes and Red Sea blockades.
Following the commencement of the Saudi-led military intervention in March 2015, the conflict rapidly devolved into a brutal war. While the Saudi air force executed thousands of sorties over northern Yemen, the Houthis systematically expanded their retaliatory strike radius. This escalation reached a critical inflexion point on September 14, 2019, when a coordinated swarm of drones and cruise missiles struck Saudi Aramco’s processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais. Consequently, this operation temporarily knocked out nearly half of the kingdom’s crude oil production, proving the militia could easily bypass American multi-billion-dollar air defence networks.
By 2021, the cross-border aerial warfare had intensified drastically, with Houthi forces executing an average of 78 drone and missile attacks per month against Saudi infrastructure. However, facing mounting international pressure and a severe humanitarian crisis affecting lakhs of Yemeni civilians, both factions eventually agreed to a United Nations-mediated nationwide truce on April 2, 2022. This landmark agreement mandated a complete cessation of offensive ground, air, and maritime operations. Importantly, it successfully halted both the Saudi aerial bombardments and the relentless Houthi ballistic missile barrages across the border.
Despite repeated diplomatic renewals, the truce primarily functioned as a fragile military freeze rather than a comprehensive political resolution. It facilitated the resumption of restricted commercial flights from Sanaa International Airport and allowed essential fuel shipments into the contested Hodeidah port. In the meanwhile, Houthis shifted their focus on attacking Israel after Hamas terror attack in October 2023 and Israel’s military action against Hamas and Hezbollah.
Nevertheless, the underlying geopolitical tension remained entirely unresolved, as the Houthi leadership continually demanded extensive economic concessions from Riyadh. Therefore, the UN-backed ceasefire merely paused the violence, leaving a heavily armed force entrenched on the border and structurally primed for the devastating resurgence witnessed in 2026.
The operational success of the Houthis cannot be analysed in isolation. Rather, it is a critical node in a coordinated, multi-front strategy orchestrated by Tehran. The integration of the Houthis with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq functions as a dispersed forward operating base for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This network, known as the ‘Axis of Resistance,’ allows Iran to project power across West Asia without directly committing its own forces to frontline combat.
Crucially, the transfer of advanced Iranian military technology, evolving from rudimentary unguided rockets to sophisticated ballistic missiles and loitering munitions, has granted the Houthis a dangerous degree of strategic autonomy. The Houthi arsenal is no longer limited to short-range border skirmishes. The militia has demonstrated the capability to coordinate simultaneous operations across vast distances.
For example, throughout 2024, the Houthis repeatedly coordinated with Iraqi resistance groups to launch long-range drone and cruise missile strikes toward the southern Israeli port of Eilat, covering distances exceeding 1,000 miles. This long-range capability was devastatingly demonstrated in July 2024 when an upgraded Houthi Samad-3 drone successfully bypassed regional air defences and struck a residential building in central Tel Aviv, killing one civilian. This event forced an unprecedented direct Israeli airstrike on the Houthi-controlled Red Sea port of Hodeidah in retaliation.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia continues to support the Yemeni govt in exile. Since 2022, Riyadh has steadfastly funded and supported the internationally recognised Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), led by Chairman Rashad al-Alimi, to maintain a unified Yemeni state. UAE has been a crucial ally of Saudi in countering the Houthis. Abu Dhabi had nurtured the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a well-armed separatist bloc pushing for an independent southern state, thereby establishing a parallel governance structure that actively undermined Saudi objectives.
While Riyadh struggles to neutralise the Houthi insurgency in the north, its broader strategy has been severely compromised by a fatal fracturing of the anti-Houthi coalition. The crux of this internal collapse lies in the competing geopolitical ambitions between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over southern Yemen.
Consequently, this ideological divergence rapidly escalated into direct military confrontation by late 2025. On December 30, 2025, the Saudi-led coalition executed targeted airstrikes on the southern port of Mukalla, destroying shipments of combat vehicles and weaponry unloaded from UAE vessels destined for STC cadres. Following this unprecedented inter-coalition strike, PLC Chairman al-Alimi cancelled existing security pacts with Abu Dhabi, issuing a strict 24-hour ultimatum for all UAE forces to vacate the country. Riyadh firmly endorsed this mandate, forcing a dramatic regional realignment that shattered the coalition’s foundational unity.
As regional tensions expand into 2026, the potential for catastrophic escalation remains a looming threat. Identifying specific red lines is complex, but the coordinated nature of the Axis means a localised conflict can rapidly engulf the entire region. A mass-casualty strike on a Western naval vessel patrolling the Red Sea, or a repeat of the devastating 2019 attacks on Saudi energy facilities, could easily trigger direct retaliatory strikes on Iranian soil.
Despite alarmist predictions of a third World War, Washington and Beijing both exhibit a distinct reluctance to engage in a full-scale, direct superpower confrontation in the West Asia. However, a sprawling, multi-theatre regional war without direct nuclear-state engagement is highly probable.
Ultimately, the current framework of localised airstrikes and reactive naval patrols has comprehensively failed to degrade Houthi capabilities or restore credible deterrence. The Saudi administration finds itself trapped in a strategic dilemma, caught between the necessity of securing its borders to attract investment for its ‘Vision 2030’ economic transition and its inability to militarily defeat a hardened militia.
These developments mandate a fundamental recalibration of Middle Eastern security paradigms. Until the broader architectural flaws, specifically the unchecked logistical proliferation of Iranian proxy networks, are decisively addressed, the region will remain a highly contested and volatile. Consequently, the asymmetric conflict will continue to bleed conventional state powers, forcing a re-evaluation of how modern wars are fought, funded, and ultimately lost.
Why is India delaying or taking so much time to make this deal possible? There is no single answer to that, but if we put the pieces together, India’s go-slow approach starts to make sense and more like a strategy. It rests on five calculations.
With the Black Sea grain ships in danger, the Strait of Hormuz fertiliser crunch, and a Super El Niño on top of all that, a global food supply crisis is said to be looming over the world. This article offers a complete analysis and arithmetic of India’s food grain situation.
When major global agricultural supply centres across Eastern Europe and the Middle East faced severe disruption, India confronted potential supply chain vulnerabilities reminiscent of earlier decades. Disruptions to fertiliser imports could have reduced domestic crop yields, driven up food inflation, and strained national economic stability. Instead, strategic supply management mitigated these risks through deliberate policy execution:
Selected issues, clear explanations and thoughtful perspectives—delivered when we publish.
