Talk Elections

I readily admit I'm not a middle east specialist... what I'm seeing is outrage on the left (Obama has drone-bombed Yemen to Hell for at least a few years now), and now the Saudis are dropping bombs?  the US is sending a fleet and an aircraft carrier??  the bourgeois center-left media is worried that this jeopardizes a potential Iran-USA nuclear deal?

can someone explain (ELI5) what's going on?

You summarized it basically correctly. What is confusing you?

summaries serve their purpose.  I sleep til 5pm these days and watch too much sports, then I see the possibility of 100k refugees, Saudis dropping bombs (possibly?  potentially?) against US wishes.  would they dare do that?  wasn't the Iran deal the step forward toward "stability in the Middle East?"  now the center-left commercial media is all afraid that the Yemen thing could get im the way from an Iran nuclear deal, the US is playing brinkmanship and sending over a fleet, etc... basically trying to bait Shia Iran into action in support of the rebels which would throw the nuke deal out the window.

all I really understand about the whole thing is you get these ultra-fundamentalist Shia groups fighting established Sunni gov'ts the US feels they can work with.  Iran is troubleshome because it's Shia.  I don't really understand that part of the world, except it seems more and more like a circular fck-up, largely owing to the vacuum created by Western intervention (give the Soviets their 5-10% share of the blame here if it makes you feel better.  the rest is all on the USA)

No, the United States is not responsible for the Sunni/Shiite divide. It existed many hundreds of years before the United States even existed.

And in any case, Yemen isn't really Sunni/Shia.  It's much more a proxy war between Saudi and Irani interests.

The Shias (who belong to another branch than Shias in Iran and Lebanon, who are also two different branches) of Yemen are very moderate in practice (as for in theory; well their slogan are "death to USA, death to Israel"), they have couped the government through a broad multi-religious northern tribal coalition. They're very hostile toward Al Quada. But they also claim some Saudi border areas, which SA occupied/leased in the 1930ties. They're also very hostile toward Wahhabism and Saudi preachers/missionaries. The government and the ones before have de facto been a Saudi vassal (even the old president who was a Shia).

And also the Saudis are mustering ground troops and preparing for a proper invasion.

you'd figure that'd be a strict no-no in the deal they've cut with the US.  unless, the US tacitly wants to expand the Saudi empire, and has given the go-ahead?

You've already decided you want to blame the US for what's going on. What's the point of even asking? I guess you just want people to back you up about how evil America is. Sorry, there is no obvious US angle behind this. The world does not revolve around us.

The "death to the USA" thing aside, the Houthis really don't sound all that bad.

Yes to some degree.

In truth they're a bunch of reactionary "hicks" who are against attempt by the Yemenite government centralising power. But when the alternative is as unpleasant as it is. I will take a backward and reactionary but tolerant tribal alliance over a movement which preach world revolution and embrace slavery and genocide.

As for the whole death to America, let's remember that the old old (not the new old) government, was a American and Saudi ally, and the Houthis was smart enough to embrace Iranian and more important Hezbollah slogans, to make some of their pre-Arabic Spring popularity rub of on the Houthis. It's really unknown if Iran supported the Houthis in the past, but after the collapse of the government they have begun to support them

Another interesting aspect while the Houthis are in theory hostile to USA, they have not been part of the attacks on American or other western targets in Yemen, and USA and them have cooperated in attacking Al Quada in the Arabian Peninsula (USA supporting their forces with drones) unofficial. So if it wasn't for the American-Saudi alliance, the Houthis would be a obvious and willing partner for USA.

Can someone who knows Yemen better than I do explain whether Hadi was/is as much of an autocrat as Saleh was before him?  When Saleh was kicked out, there was a big deal made about how Hadi was a transitional figure as the country made the move to democracy (these were the naive early days of the Arab Spring).  I know Hadi delayed elections, but is the thinking that he was going to delay them indefinitely, and was basically as much of an autocrat as Saleh was, and would always be one, but that he was simply empowering a different faction than Saleh did?

BTW there's also another important aspect in the whole Yemen issue.

North vs. South.

These was two different states historical, but they wasn't like Korea, Vietnam or Germany, where they had a common identity. The North was traditional a decentrale Shia Imanate (fundamental a Muslim theocracy), through a significant minority was Sunnis. The Sunni minority was well treated, mostly because of the power their tribes yield. The Ottomans attempted to conquer North Yemenbut only succeed in making them vassals. As such the tribal authorities are strong in North Yemen, and they function quite well, even when the central government have collapsed.

The South on the other hand was Sunni principalities before it ended up a British colony. As such the tribes still exists, but they lost power versus the central government and the tribal leaders was no more judges and brokers. This mean as the central power breaks down, they lack actors to take over, to keep society running as police, hospitals etc breaks down.

This is a major reason that Al Quada is active in the south and not the north, it's also why conflicts in the north tend to be less violent and destructive than conflict in the south. As the tribal leaders and elders can meet and compromise in the north, while similar institutions have been deconstructed in the south.

He was less of an autocrat than Saleh, but honestly Saleh wasn't much of a autocrat either, he simply lacked the power to do much and Hadi was even more powerless. The Houthi takeover are just them using the opportunity of the president being weak, unpopular and illegimate.

Funny thing about saleh. Is that he is now allied with the houthis and brought about half the army with him. [his son is a major general or something] that is likely why they've had success in capturing parts of the south.

Saleh and his son joining the Houthis have little to do with why they winning, but Saleh and his tribe not protecting the government have everything to do with why the government are losing. While it made a lot of sense to fire Saleh's son, it put Hadi in the position that he really lacked any powerbase (which was why the different Yemenite fractions selected him as broker). Which made him a easy tacket for the Houthis. The alliance between Saleh and the Houthis also make sense, it ensure Saleh that he will gain some power after the takeover, while for the Houthis it remove a potential enemy and is also peace branch to the old regime.

Are the South Yemeni independence rebels socialist?

I doubt it, but honestly who cares anymore? Even in the past seccessionist movement camoflaged them with different ideologies and it rarery had any real meaning; today? If the southern seccessionists are socialist today, it will not extend outside some rhetoric and slogans, and if they win they will set up some kind of cleptocratic, but capitalistic republic, which will be little more than a Saudi client.

Well the Southern Movement was much more Communist when it started but now is pretty much single issue and includes everyone including al Qaeda supporters as long as they support federalism at least.

Also, most of the land still held by the Haidi government is actually held by the Southern Movement. After some internal debate, they have more or less chosen to throw their lot in with Haidi. They now make a big deal that he's a former Southerner, even though he actually led the Northern/central government forces in the 94 Civil War.

Saleh recently called for the Houthis to withdraw from Sanaa in return for the Saudis stopping all military action.

This was no doubt his plan all along, to ferment chaos and then present himself as the only acceptable compromise.

evil or not, it is a fact that US military support is received by a 'client state' only with conditions.  those conditions absolutely include limits on full-scale invading another country.  (quite the same as the Warsaw Pact, though less formal outside the First World).

what I'm asking is, have the Saudis 'cleared' this action with the US behind closed doors, or are they acting flagrantly and independently against US wishes, or at least, without an explicit nod from the US?  the latter would be quite a brash act, a gamble.

The United States favors the Haidi government but probably doesn't care more than anything. Neither side is great, I think the US government has learned a lot from Syria and Libya and probably just wants to stay out this as much as possible. As you said, a Saudi invasion would harm the Iranian nuclear deal which is a major part of "Obama's legacy" so Obama probably doesn't want a full scale invasion. Ultimately though, what the US wants doesn't matter. Saudi Arabia can do what they want and we can't stop them. Yes, we could stop selling them weapons, but short of the King of Saudi Arabia praising 9/11 on television, that's never going to happen. The fact that it doesn't isn't evidence that the US supports Saudi action. They probably grudgingly back it but it's ultimately irrelevant.

Also, Saudi Arabia is supporting a relatively secular, democratically elected government. There's really no reason to be outraged about it unless you have a boner for Obama's Iran deal.

I couldn't remember Hadi had been elected, so I checked it, and yes he won a election but.... well....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_presidential_election,_2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_presidential_election,_2012)

Let's not make him something he's not.