While the Conservative party’s ministers had scrambled together to appoint a unity candidate in its new leader Rishi Sunak, it signaled a gulf between the party’s MPs and its members. After all, Truss was voted in by the Conservative Party members in the initial vote in September, while Sunak was selected by a majority of Conservative MPs within the last week. And this is not to mention a likely rift with the wider public, who have had no say on the last two leaders’ appointment.

Damning polls had emerged in the final days of Boris Johnson’s tenures, and they had gotten worse under Liz Truss. One indicated that the Conservatives could suffer historic losses in an election that they would not even be an opposition party. Therefore, Conservatives MPs have desperately tried to salvage the party’s unity and therefore save their jobs.

In the last couple of weeks, the Conservative Party had flailed around trying to stop itself from imploding. Truss may have captured attention by releasing unpopular trickle-down economic polices and tax cuts for the rich – which even Joe Biden scoffed at, prompting the British Pound to briefly hit 37-year-lows at £1.03 to the Dollar in September. And the firing of her chancellor, who Truss herself appointed, gave a glimpse of the disorganized nature of the party.

However, she was merely a symptom of the political chaos that currently Britain has endured since the looming prospect of Brexit first came in 2016.Even the mere possibility of Johnson 2.0, the man who was forced to resign after breaking his own Covid lockdown laws, signified the lawlessness of the new Conservative leader vote.

While the Conservatives currently have a large majority in parliament, it came off the back of the 2019 general election with Johnson’s promises to “get Brexit done” and greater spending on vital public services. Concealing his own lavish background, Johnson deceptively fashioned himself as a down-to-earth and entertaining politician, one who is detached from the elite Westminster class and could therefore win over the public easily.

At the time of the Conservatives’ last real electoral victory, many ordinary Britons said they were voting for Johnson as they wanted a ‘new’ government, despite that the Conservatives had been the ruling party since 2010. And now the party has been reclaimed by the visible Westminster elite class – not to mention the right-wing of the party, which could leave Conservative voters feeling betrayed.

The pending Prime Minister Sunak’s net worth of £730 million ($824 million) might raise a few eyebrows over his suitability to represent ordinary working people in Britain. It indeed illustrates the elitism that puts the Westminster political class on a different world from ordinary British people.

Sunak’s marriage to the daughter of an Indian billionaire has raised concerns that he is detached from the concerns of everyday voters. Britain is being squeezed by soaring inflation and energy prices as it approaches a cold winter, with many families in poorer communities forced to choose between skipping meals or not heating their homes. Inflation has been forecast to potentially reach 18 percent in 2023, which could make inflation in the US seem mild.

On a more positive note, it is certainly something to be celebrated that Britain has its first British Asian Prime Minister, thus representing diversity in the UK. This could have made a complimentary step to the ascension of the UK’s new King Charles III, who learned Arabic fluently so he could read the Qu’ran and has presented himself as a friend of British Muslims and other minorities, while upholding a monarchy that aligns with the 21^st century.

Yet many Conservative figures, including those who supported Sunak, hold views that would undermine equality in Britain. Truss’ Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who voted for Sunak, declared it her “dream” to send helpless refugees to Rwanda – a controversial plan of Johnson and Truss’ cabinets. Even Sunak himself boasted that he scrapped plans that gave public money to “deprived urban areas” in northern England – which hosts some of the poorest regions of the country.

Moreover, when initially running for the Prime Minister’s office in August, Sunak announced plans to refer those who “vilify Britain” to Prevent, a “counter-extremism” organisation in the UK which critics say has disproportionately targeted and alienated British Muslims. Sunak said he will widen the definition of extremism to include those “who are vocal in their hatred of our country.”

In the Middle East, Sunak may also push for some harmful policies of Johnson and Truss’ tenures. He had expressed clear support for Israel, claiming that Jerusalem is its “historic capital” and has mentioned his intent to move the UK embassy to Jerusalem.

Such a move would place Britain on the wrong side of international law and may even isolate it from the US – at a time when Biden has tried to distance himself from Washington’s bellicose stance under Donald Trump. Even Australia recently reversed its recognition of Jerusalem in its entirety as Israel’s capital, showing how damaging it could be to a country’s reputation.

While the Conservatives are set to be in power until 2024, when the next election is due to be held, they will have a mammoth task ahead to save the economy – which could put the nail in the coffin of the party in the short to medium term. And Sunak’s likely continuation of Conservative austerity may not be the answer.

The economic crisis, which the Conservative Party helped create and mismanaged, could see the party ejected from power for a decade. And while it is arguably only a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer comes to power, it would be up to him to ensure a new government could make lasting changes for the country.

On September 6, Liz Truss met with the Queen who formally handed over power from her predecessor Boris Johnson, whose tenure as British Prime Minister has been defined by various scandals. Now, the new Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary must grapple with a critical economic crisis in the UK, as she leads a UK that still aims to define its place in the world, following its departure from the EU.

“Global Britain” and economic predicament

The fact we have seen over the last six years since the Brexit referendum shows it has been an undesirable job which few British politicians have wanted to take. As Theresa May’s tenure from July 2016 until July 2019 has proven, the difficulties of facilitating Brexit have risked being career damaging and reputation shattering.

Johnson wanted to prove that he was the man who could prove the sceptics wrong and “Get Brexit Done”, as he consistently proclaimed throughout his December 2019 General Election campaign.

Although Johnson was able to pull the UK away from the EU and deliver promising economic expectations at first, various scandals throughout the coronavirus crisis, including himself breaking many social distancing rules imposed by the government, had trashed his image. Moreover, the UK has suffered a disproportionately high cost of living crisis, with inflation higher than that of Europe. Inflation is predicted to hit 18 percent later this year and could reach 23 percent as of next year.

Johnson has often been likened to former US President Donald Trump. Yet unlike Trump’s removal which saw his party displaced, remnants of “Johnsonism” still live on within the government, as Truss came from his administration and cabinet. It means that the UK’s current path could only intensify.

Britain’s post-Brexit stance under Johnson’s government has attracted criticism of being driven by neo-imperialist visions. Britain has since tried to ensure that it can tie itself with countries with whom it has historic influence, namely former colonies, or protectorates under the British Empire.

Meanwhile, Britain has also forged substandard trade agreements with Commonwealth countries like Australia and has sought to find a free trade agreement with India. In the Middle East, Britain has sought to form a free-trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which was announced as nearly finalized in June, just weeks before Johnson’s resignation.

Like with the Gulf, Britain has tried to bolster its ties with its traditional allies in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel – despite the human rights risks. Targeting the Middle East and in particular the Gulf is not only designed to offset the trade imbalance from Brexit, it also aims to expand Britain’s trade influence in the Indo-Pacific and thus further consolidate the vision of “Global Britain.”

Truss’ hawkish vision

Truss has taken a firm stance on various international affairs, and has been dubbed “blunt and assertive” by some US officials. While many have expected Britain to take a more isolated position in various global issues following Brexit, the Conservative Party has tried to enhance Britain’s standing in the world. Truss will likely pursue this vision further. Last year, in a speech at Chatham House in London, Truss voiced the need for a “confident, outward-looking, patriotic and positive” Britain as opposed to one that is “racked with shame” about its colonial past, proclaiming that we “should be proud again of what we are and what we stand for”.

Such has led to Britain taking a leading role within NATO over the Ukraine crisis, with Johnson’s government becoming a leading figure to pressure Vladimir Putin’s military campaign. Having been severely critical of Moscow already, Truss said she aims to “call out” Putin in person at a Group of 20 summit in Indonesia in November.

Although scepticism of China has increased within the UK in recent years, Truss has adopted a more hawkish tone, even more so than Johnson. At the NATO Summit in Madrid in June, Truss suggested that NATO should pre-emptively put boots on the ground in Taiwan to counter the possibility of a Chinese invasion. After all, the EU has comparatively not been as hawkish on China, given their tighter bilateral trade relations, signalling Britain is trying to align itself with the US.

Even within the United Kingdom, she said of Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon, who seeks another independence bid for Scotland next year, that “the best way to deal with Nicola Sturgeon is to ignore her,” dubbing her an “attention seeker.” Some have signalled this stance could inadvertently trigger support for Scottish independence.

Many observers have noted that Truss has attempted to model herself around another “small state” ideologue Margaret Thatcher, such as the picture of her in a tank in Estonia, which replicates Thatcher’s similar photo in West Germany in 1986.

Truss therefore is likely to continue to embolden Johnson’s vision, rather than reversing it, which could lead to a more hawkish foreign policy. And, despite the UK’s claim for an independent foreign policy outlook, an increased reliance on the US is likely. Truss will fly to the US later in September and has already stated her desires to tighten relations with Joe Biden’s administration.

As for the UK’s domestic predicament, Truss faces a mammoth task in salvaging the cost-of-living crisis, which could equally make or break her legacy. Many observers have already voiced scepticism over whether Truss can truly achieve this, particularly as she has not promised greater restrictions or taxes on energy giants which have profited from rising prices.

Yet one who has so far remained silent is Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. This will come as no surprise to those who witnessed Biden’s scathing criticisms of MbS’ erratic and power-hungry rule during his campaigning. A Biden presidency could put much at stake for the young Crown Prince.

Though Saudi Arabia is a long-standing regional partner of the United States, and supplier of oil and key weapons client, Biden took a seemingly radical stance towards MbS. On the second anniversary of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s death at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, who was killed in cold-blood by Saudi-regime hired thugs, Biden pledged to “reassess ties” with Saudi Arabia.

“Under a Biden-Harris administration, we will reassess our relationship with the Kingdom, end US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil,” promised Biden.

Biden also accused Saudi Arabia of murdering children in Yemen during a debate in November 2019, and then also vowed to halt weapons sales to Riyadh.

“There is very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia,” adding he would “make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are.”

This only boosted Biden’s presidential campaign and appealed to those understandably outraged at Washington’s undying support for Riyadh’s murderous campaign in Yemen, which has created an unfathomable humanitarian crisis.

It also distinguished him from his rival Donald Trump, who on the contrary boasted “I saved [MbS’] ass” from the US Congress’ scrutiny over Khashoggi’s killing, showing his own rogue and lawless in covering for MbS. Trump also vetoed several Senate bills to end US support for Riyadh’s war, of which MbS was the architect as then Saudi Minister of Defence in 2015.

Furthermore, it was under Trump’s auspices that MbS became Crown Prince and then consolidated power in an arbitrary “anti-corruption” crackdown on other Saudi royal family members, including putting his own mother under house arrest. MbS also swayed the Trump administration through lobbying and courting of Trump and his son-in-law and Middle East advisor Jared Kushner.

Moreover, though Biden’s position on Iran is still ambiguous, and may or may not deliver positive changes, Riyadh may fear he could be closer to Obama’s more lenient stance on its regional rival Tehran, and reverse Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which placed Iran’s clerical regime as a ‘common enemy’ of both the US and Saudi Arabia.

By taking an opposite view of Trump, Biden therefore put himself in good stead. Now observers will be anticipating him following through on his tough promises.

Yet many would have wondered: was Biden serious in his pledges or was it merely party politics? This would not be an unreasonable question to ask, as it was the Obama administration, under which Biden was Vice President, that first supported Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen in March 2015.

It is also crucial to remember that Trump also took a seemingly critical approach of Saudi Arabia during his campaigning prior to winning in 2016. For instance, he warned Saudi billionaire Prince Al Waleed bin Talal that he “can’t [control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money] when I get elected,” yet this posturing shifted as he became president.

Given Biden’s apparent change of approach, it is plausible that he seeks to appease the Senate’s pressure. This means that he is someone that could work with more reasonable policies more.

Many believe that Biden while will probably continue to uphold many of the US’ detrimental policies at home and abroad, such as a likely refusal to end support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine, his victory is a relief in that it has ended Trumpism, at least for now, and could enable more common-sense policies to emerge.

Biden may not push through with hard changes at his own accord, as it was the work of the US Senate and Congress, along with tireless efforts of inspiring activists, which raised the debate over ending US involvement in Yemen’s war. Yet as he sought to appease such voices, he will clearly be more accountable to them and easier to work with on issues like Yemen and support for MbS’ brutality.

Whether he makes some small changes to Saudi support for the war in Yemen or goes hard with his promises and withdraws a large amount of support, remains to be seen, however.

Even if changes to US and Saudi ties are minimal, the Crown Prince himself could still lose big from a Biden presidency. On the surface, it may seem that he has all but secured power, and he is the de facto ruler despite not yet securing the Saudi throne, though he has responded with harsh repression out of paranoia over potential challenges to his regime.

The removal of Trump’s protective hand for MbS could leave him more vulnerable to the wrath of Saudi domestic opponents to his rule, particularly within the royal family. Such challenges could certainly grow, particularly should criticism increase towards the regime’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, among other issues. Only time will tell how much MbS’ fragile rule can last without Trump.

—–

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Reuters: “Biden win would reset Saudi ties”

The move came after the UN Secretary General on March 25 called for an end to hostilities in all regional countries, indicating his call has inspired Yemen’s a cease in violence.

Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen has led to a damaged state, including the crippling of Yemen’s healthcare system, as the Yemen Data Project reports that over 30% of bombing targets have hit civilian infrastructure.

Meanwhile the war has further spiked domestic tensions, and now it would be difficult to put the genie back into the box. The Houthis, the Saudi-backed government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, and the United Arab Emirates-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC), all seek to secure their control over different parts of Yemen. Meanwhile as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in February announced its new leader Khalid Batarfi, after a US drone strike killed the previous Emir, the extremist faction could cause more deaths upon the country.

Though the former three sides welcomed the ceasefire, pre-existing tensions could override temporary desires for peace, especially as violence had skyrocketed after a misleading lull in the conflict. While the world looks away from Yemen’s chaos, continued external intervention and past failures to establish a peaceful solution could see violence soar again, which could harm efforts to combat a potential coronavirus outbreak.

Yemen’s war took a turn for the worst in January after a Houthi-linked missile attack on the Marib governorate triggered more clashes with Saudi-backed government forces. The Houthis have since made considerable gains to the north-east of Sanaa, the Houthi-held capital, as well as in al-Jawf on Saudi Arabia’s southern border.

In a broadcast speech hours after the ceasefire, Houthi leader Abdul-Malik Badreddin al-Houthi voiced traditional rhetoric that the Houthis are oppressed and stressed his commitment to the faction’s objectives, which involve securing control over northern Yemen.

The faction advanced further in Marib on Friday after targeting government and tribal forces. Saudi Arabia on Friday claimed that Riyadh-backed government forces intercepted three Houthi. Regardless of these claims’ legitimacy, parties have blatantly disregarded the ceasefire calls, and the violence has only temporarily reduced, rather than ending it. As of Saturday, heavy fighting was ongoing in al Jawf.

However Saudi Arabia’s war efforts will certainly diminish in Yemen, following a decrease of its operations prior to the coronavirus’ outbreak. Already hit by a fall in oil prices, while grappling with the virus’ spread domestically, some have suggested that Riyadh is looking for a ‘way out’ of Yemen’s war.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia may temporarily scale back its involvement. Even by Mohammad bin Salman’s erratic standards, it would be foolish for him to continue his high-risk intervention in Yemen amid the current global crisis, after heavy expenditure on a war which has produced no tangible benefits for Riyadh.

However, Riyadh is still backing the Hadi government to secure its influence over Yemen, which will delay a truly peaceful resolution to Yemen’s war. This could provoke further outbreaks from the Houthis, who have operated violently to counteract Saudi Arabia’s past and present efforts to consolidate its geopolitical hegemony over its southern neighbour.

It is not just the Houthis and Saudi Arabia who may act with duplicity following the ceasefire calls. The STC still seeks southern independence following last November’s shaky Riyadh agreement, designed to merge the warring STC and Hadi government into a power-sharing agreement. Deadlines to implement the deal have been ignored. Both sides have complained that the other has ignored the deal. Meanwhile on March 12, the Hadi government blocked STC officials from returning to Aden, the government’s administrative capital in Yemen. The STC, with Emirati backing, has still refused to agree to a withdrawal from various southern regions.

While the UAE still props up the STC in the south, from which it has shown no signs of stopping, this could trigger further violence within the country. Already receiving substantial global impunity for its provocative regional policies, Abu Dhabi may use the current worldwide confusion over coronavirus as a smokescreen to achieve its hegemonic ambitions over southern Yemen.

The USA has played a central role in facilitating Saudi Arabia’s war efforts, with a vast amount of military support. Yet on Friday, the Trump administration cut off tens of millions of dollars’ worth of aid to Yemen, in response to Houthi smuggling of aid deliveries, yet in a crucial time when it needs it the most. Meanwhile the UK, which has also backed the Saudi-led war and is now absorbed by its own populist bubble amid Brexit before the coronavirus outbreak, will further neglect its role as Yemen’s penholder in the UN Security Council.

Yet like the rest of the world, Yemen is experiencing a critical point in its history, as a coronavirus outbreak could trigger more overwhelming pressure on its healthcare system and worsen what the UN has already called the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis”. Even more concerning, though the World Health Organisation has confirmed zero cases in Yemen, tracking any spread of the virus would prove difficult, given Yemen’s devastated healthcare infrastructure.

Recent history has shown that the current ceasefire is more of a temporary lull to this war that has wreaked havoc in Yemen throughout the last five years. All these factors could prevent legitimate efforts to ease Yemen’s suffering, and the country’s war and humanitarian suffering will be far from over.

——–

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

UNFPA:”5 Facts You Need to know about the conflict in Yemen”

Yet this should be looked at as an attempt for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to preserve their alliance in the country, and ultimately maximize their joint control there. As both states hold diverging interests in Yemen, having jostled for geopolitical influence, this deal enables them to compromise whilst not conceding much ground to the other. Yet this will undermine any legitimate peace hopes, considering years of outside intervention in Yemen has caused instability in the country.

Analysts had speculated over a fallout between Riyadh and the Abu Dhabi following the STC launching a coup in Aden on August 10, then pursuing a campaign to forcibly capture the south.

While the coup revealed to the world that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not on the same page in Yemen, having backed different sides, such trends had existed throughout the war, and had quickly been resolved between the two allies. For instance, this can be seen in the Saudi move to negotiate a partial UAE military withdrawal from Socotra island in May 2018, after Abu Dhabi had proliferated its militia presence there.

Both states have a vital regional alliance, often driven by mutual concerns such as crushing democratic transitions, which could inspire stronger calls for reforms within their own systems and countering Iranian influence. Furthermore, both have a mutual alliance which legitimizes each other’s intervention in Yemen.

Should the draft deal materialize, the Saudi-backed Hadi government will regain control over the south and the UAE-backed STC and its militias will merge into a new unity government. This will create a form of a power-sharing agreement.

Yet the Hadi government and STC are still not on the same page over who will control what in Yemen. Both sides have conflicting interpretations of what the deal entails. Hadi sees it as an opportunity to restore his legitimacy and reunify the coalition against the Houthis in the north, where his government still has minimal influence. Really, Hadi is aiming to maximize his control over the south after having conceded presence in the north following the Houthis’ September 2014 coup of Sanaa, which the rebel faction still firmly controls.

Meanwhile, the STC has not renounced its calls for southern secession and sees this deal as an opportunity to secure long-term independence and control over the south. Temporarily ceasing its pursuit of violence, the STC is following the lead of its key Emirati backers, pragmatically operating to secure greater influence in Yemen’s politics.

Furthermore, the STC, like the UAE, has a staunch opposition to Al Islah, Yemen’s Muslim Brotherhood franchise. As Hadi’s government is allied with them, it is hard to imagine that either of these forces would accept a power-sharing agreement with Islah in the long-term.

As Riyadh and Abu Dhabi aim to empower their preferred factions, they will still utilize them as pawns in order to secure their long-term goals. Abu Dhabi could still use its clout with the STC to gain influence over Aden’s port, which president Hadi would oppose. Particularly after Hadi had originally scrapped the Emirati-owned Dubai Ports World’s control over it in 2012, showing he is a hindrance to the UAE’s ambitions.

As with past peace efforts, such as the December 2018 UN-led peace talks, which have stalled, this peace agreement only offers ambiguous solutions addressing the symptoms of the conflict. Meanwhile, the war’s causes are once again ignored. These efforts only address a section of the war, as Yemen hosts a diverse range of groups with various wishes. After all, it is mostly being pushed to alleviate the divisions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, rather than delivering peace and stability to the country. Other Yemeni factions such as the Houthis and local rulers may notice it as an outside attempt from these two powers to exert their will on the country, which could lead to further disagreements and conflict.

It also fails to address the widespread instability and humanitarian emergency in the country, which could give rise to further conflict. Not to mention that Yemen’s humanitarian crisis, which the UN called the “worst in the world”, puts millions of Yemeni lives at risk of starvation, cholera and other severe ailments.

The deal only addresses the wishes of external powers in the country, imposing a top-down solution to the violence. Additionally, such external interference has caused problems in Yemen for decades. Meanwhile, independent factions and Yemenis themselves are not say in the process, which has been a trend since the unfinished 2011 Yemeni revolution, which left behind unsolved grievances.

Only by ending international interference in the country and giving a greater platform for Yemenis to determine their own future, can there be more hopes of ending the conflict.

—–

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

TRT World: “The War in Yemen: Jon Fenton-Harvey, Middle East analyst”

Small but widespread protests recently erupted against corruption allegations lodged against Sisi, his wife and the military by Mohamed Ali, a former government contractor now exiled in Spain. Ali accused Sisi and his military of appropriating millions of dollars in public funds to build a colossal presidential palace and several luxurious villas. Following the protests, security forces arrested over 1900 protestors, while demonstration look set to continue.

Sisi’s Egypt has targeted web content and media platforms, with BBC News being blocked at times, and web services including communication apps, such as Wire. The regime wants to make it harder to communicate or access information.

With Ali having tapped into people’s deep frustrations, the protests are a response to the profound level of inequality across the country, while ordinary civilians fall deeper into poverty. The regime’s repression has clearly made it hard to protest this, which many seek to curtail too.

Such resentment towards this repression and inequality has brewed over several years of repression after the military, long acting as Egypt’s shadow government, launched a July 2013 coup against the democratically elected regime of Mohammad Morsi following the Egyptian revolution.

First the new Egyptian regime went for the Muslim Brotherhood, which was previously in power; then it sought to stamp out any form of democracy.

Over 60,000 political opponents are confined to Egypt’s prisons, hundreds of news outlets have been blocked, and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports Egypt is the third worst imprisoner of journalists worldwide. Targeting the Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed after the military coup, has allowed the regime to increase its power and surveillance over civil society, and effectively stamp out any opponent to the regime’s corruption – Brotherhood or not.

While given a peak opportunity to do so at the UNGA, Donald Trump and other Western leaders show continued indifference to Egypt’s abuses, even at times praising Sisi, despite widespread reporting of his government’s abuses.

Why is this the case? For Trump at least, he has bluntly shown he has favouritism towards ‘strongmen’ rulers, no matter how oppressive them may be. This was crudely reflected when he greeted Sisi with “my favourite dictator!” at a recent G7 summit.

Trump shrugged off New York protestors against Sisi at the UNGA, saying “Everybody has demonstrations. No, I`m not concerned with it. Egypt has a great leader. He`s highly respected.” Not only is Trump clearly aware of Egypt’s repression, he openly tolerates it.

Meanwhile, prominent European figures have accepted Sisi’s regime, with the British government for instance only offering watered-down criticism at most, whilst not following up with any action. French President Emmanuel Macron has been accused of supporting the Egyptian leader, whilst ignoring his human rights abuses.

Sisi has obvious appeal. After assuming power in 2014, he has promoted a counterterrorism narrative, designed to appeal to Western leaders. His ‘war against terrorism’ in the Sinai Peninsula however, also riddled with human rights violations, has created further radicalization according to analysts, as has his repression of the Brotherhood.

Yet the war-on-terror era has created a greater tolerance of human rights abuses and authoritarianism, if the pretext of counterterrorism is used. Trump particularly has worsened this, having shown he is sympathetic towards targeting and outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood, which gives such states more justification to carry out abuses.

Therefore, many European states, along with Washington, willing tolerate such blatant violations against civil society, due to Sisi falsely being viewed as a bulwark against terror.

Meanwhile, Western states continue to profit from the Egyptian regime and its counter-terrorism narrative.

The London-based organisation Campaign Against Arms Trade called the UK ‘complicit’ in the recent repression against protestors just for London’s own profit.

Egypt has long been the second largest military aid recipient of the United States, right after Washington’s close ally and neighbouring country Israel. Not only do these highlight obvious political interests of the USA, originally to protect Israel, but like Britain they also directly profit from weapons sales.

There are other material benefits. The oil company British Petroleum (BP), which is closely aligned with the UK government, signed a $12 billion contract for an oil and gas project with Egypt in March 2015, while Mohammad Morsi’s government actually put obstacles in the way of such investment. Under the Sisi regime, France and Egypt have also consolidated natural resource deals.

While there is more awareness about Egypt’s abuses particularly after Germany had criticised it after the protests, other Western political figures need to address their own governments’ complicity, and put human rights at the forefront of their foreign policy towards Cairo.

This can help bring about more positive reforms, show solidarity with people pushing for change, and empower those within the Egyptian government who could transform the system from the inside.

———

Bonus Video:

France 24 English: “Protests and arrests: Egypt’s Sisi ‘recreating same conditions that fuelled Arab Spring uprising'”

Various violent incidents have led to numerous casualties. Lately on Wednesday UAE-backed southern secessionists clashed with presidential palace guards, in an unsuccessful attempt to seize Aden’s Maasheeq palace. Heavy shelling, including tank usage, puts thousands of lives at risk and could further destabilize the city, which lacks central government control and where UAE-supported forces are a dominant force.

“We announce a general mobilisation of all our southern forces to march toward the Maasheeq Palace,” said Hani Ben Breik, deputy chairman of the pro-secessionist Southern Transitional Council.

While the president of the UN-recognised government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi is exiled in Saudi Arabia, these militias are exploiting his absence, attempting to secure the designated ‘temporary capital’ while the Houthi rebels control Sanaa.

Though some mainstream media articles have focused exclusively on the Saudi Arabia-led war against the Houthis, it has often failed to address the UAE’s role in Yemen, which is far from benign. This has formulated an incorrect narrative that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are unified in Yemen and are both solely focused on defeating the Houthis.

Described by James Mattis as a “little Sparta” in the Middle East, the UAE pursues an assertively expansionist foreign policy to establish itself as a regional hegemon. Asides from fighting the Houthis in Yemen, it seeks control of southern Yemen’s ports to boost its global trade, and give itself a base to influence the wider region such as in East Africa. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia simply seeks to crush any form of independent rule in Yemen, hence its ruthless bombing campaign on Houthi areas, and maintain a weak government it can manipulate in its southern neighbour.

Hani bin Breik, vice president of the UAE-backed STC which seeks an independent southern Yemen state according to pre-1990 unification levels, called for an overthrow of the Hadi government amid the clashes. Clearly the fight for an independent southern Yemen state has currently peaked and could likely worsen.

Tensions had been brewing for a while, however. In February last year, Emirati-backed southern secessionist militias clashed with Hadi government forces in Aden, while they attempted a coup. While a truce was forged, albeit a temporary one, the tensions that sparked the clashes were not appropriately addressed, amid a focus on addressing the Houthis. These latest clashes were therefore inveitable.

Such geopolitical tensions had manifested elsewhere in Yemen, in places like Taiz. A large Yemeni city, Taiz has born the brunt of Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s rivalry. The Emiratis have backed the Al-Qaeda-linked militia of Abu al-Abbas, not just to fight the Houthis but to curtail the Saudi-supported Al-Islah party while, who are soft Islamists and tied to the Hadi government. The UAE opposes Al-Islah not just for its alleged ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it has been an outspoken opponent to the Emirati occupation of Yemen.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s war on the Houthis, now in its fifth year, has failed to defeat the faction. If anything, they have become more empowered in northern Yemen since their initial insurgency from September 2014.

The recent Houthi-claimed attack on an Aden military parade is arguably an attempt to send a message to the Emiratis, opposing their occupation of south Yemen.

This will likely lead to a further proliferation of Emirati-backed militias, which could in the long-term deepen tensions between the Yemeni government and southern secessionists.

“This attack was planned to make all of Aden fall into the hands of Islah,” Hani Ali Breik said, showing that Emirati-backed secessionists seek to use the violence as a pretext to mobilize their own forces for their own ends, and are still less preoccupied with the Houthis.

As Abu Dhabi has shifted its focus from fighting the Houthis, rather than withdrawing from Yemen entirely, it shows a greater rift in Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s agendas. Their political rivalries will have further consequences for Yemen, beyond that which has already occurred.

Though the UAE was claimed to have commenced a withdrawal from Yemen, this is merely an illusion. Not only was there no official statement from the Emirati government confirming this, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash claimed that they were preparing for the ‘next phase’ of the Yemeni war.

For the UAE this means continued support for its various secessionist militia factions, which come under the umbrella of the so-called ‘Security Belt’.

Saudi Arabia has sent more military reinforcements to Aden, which could further aggravate tensions, and push the southern secessionists into taking a more hard-line stance among fears of a plan to crush its ambitions. That the Yemeni authorities are tightening their security after the latest incidents could develop into a sterner military response from them. Meanwhile the UAE backing of militias will continuously provoke violence.

The United Nations has called for a decrease in Aden’s violence, expressing that it is ‘alarmed’ at the latest clashes. Yet it has failed to address the root causes of it, or condemn those provoking it. Meanwhile UN special envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths has visited the UAE frequently, while not taking the opportunity to use his position to call for a better and more positive solution or urging the Emirati government to support peace. Clearly the UN’s role has been ineffective so far.

Further reigning in on Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s provocative role, particularly giving greater attention to Abu Dhabi’s divisive actions, is therefore crucial in rescuing any dwindling hopes of peace in Yemen. Their Western backers and military suppliers, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France, must play a key role in this.

——

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

France 24 English: “Dozens killed in attacks on security forces in Yemen’s Aden”

Europe’s voice to revive the Joint Cooperation Plan of Action (JCPOA), penned in 2015 to provide Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for curtailments to their nuclear program, is marginalized amid increasing Saudi and Emirati pressure on the Trump administration, along with influential US neoconservatives like John Bolton.

Meanwhile, more sensible voices in Washington are ignored, including from a recent letter to the US President, signed by 76 former prominent US military figures, ambassadors and diplomats.

Though some may interpret Trump’s backing down from striking Iran as a positive step, after Tehran downed the US drone, that US strikes were originally ordered shows hawkish voices are succeeding to sway Trump. There is clearly an endgame to isolate and even attack Iran.

Trump himself claimed he wanted to “destroy Iran”, echoing the aggressive narratives that have the ruling power in Washignton. This also trashes some claims in Washington that the US does not seek conflict with Iran.

Though Trump will likely not strike Iran pre-emptively, Washington seeks to punish and isolate the Iranian regime, while pushing them into a desperate situation where they would be forced to react.

“If the leadership of Iran behaves badly, then it’s going to be a very, very bad day for them,” Trump himself said.

Yet far from scaling back Iran’s ambitions, Iran will further assert itself regionally giving the hardliners a boost.

Tehran is divided between two camps: the conservatives, largely made up of the elite revolutionary forces after the 1979 Iranian revolution, and reformists like President Hassan Rouhani. The former evidently has the most influence over the latter, and now Trump’s isolation of Iran will empower these further, and potentially radicalize some of the moderates.

As Trump shows he is disinterested in talks with Iran, his increasingly hostile stance confirms to Iran that Washington cannot be trusted. While the United States had adopted an antagonistic position towards Iran after 1979, the 2015 JCPOA built trust in the Iranian regime that they had a real Western negotiating partner for the first time. Trump has shown an unprecedented hostility towards Tehran.

Hardliners in both Washington and Iran will become more empowered as a result, meaning that future US administrations will struggle for peace. Trump winning a second term in 2020 could worsen this crisis.

Trump’s decision to impose further sanctions on Iran after the drone shooting last week signifies that he is keen to escalate tensions with Iran. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported on Saturday that, in another provocative and unnecessary move, the US had conducted a cyber-attack on Iranian missile control systems and a spy network. Tensions are clearly going to worsen unless drastic changes are made.

Asides from striking Iran, further US support to the opposition MEK (People’s Mujahideen of Iran) which Tehran has outlawed as a terror group will likely continue. Washington considers MEK as a pro-Western vehicle of regime change in Iran.

Yet despite having comparatively limited military and technological capabilities, Iran is still a strong regime. Tehran will easily be able to crush MEK and continuing to oppose it will in turn give the state more power, as counter-terrorism responses often do for governments.

Iran still has allies such as China and Russia, who shore up the regime to secure their own economic and geopolitical interests. Along with crushing America’s credibility as a peacemaker, and thus further diminishing its global diplomatic influence, Iran could move further towards Beijing and Moscow’s arms.

Could Iran strike back at the US, to a harsher level? While much of its rhetoric, such as armed forces general staff spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi saying “Firing one bullet towards Iran will set fire to the interests of America and its allies,” is likely just that.

Yet despite two years of pressure from Trump on Iran, Tehran’s regional influence – particularly in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, has not declined. It will likely try to further boost its own regional influence, in response to Washington’s antagonism, and further create friction.

Another perceived benefit of this anti-Iran propaganda is that it justifies more weapons sales to Washington’s Gulf allies. While the US Senate successfully blocked an $8 billion arms transfer to Saudi Arabia, to allegedly counter Iran, Washington’s unconditional support for the Gulf monarchies opposition to Iran drives a regional wedge.

Though Saudi Arabia’s coalition says it targets Iranian influence in its war on Yemen, despite Tehran only giving limited assistance to the Houthi rebels, their war with an anti-Iran pretext, backed by Washington’s wider regional policies, actually drives the Houthis closer to Iran.

Meanwhile, if Iran lashes out, by firing missiles or blocking the Strait of Hormuz, GCC countries, particularly the United Arab Emirates would be the first to suffer, throwing the region into more instability.

Clearly Washington’s own aggressive attempts to curtail Iranian hardliners and belligerence is having a reverse effect.

Trump has clearly not learnt from past US military failures, particularly the disastrous invasion of Iraq which handed the country to Iran on a plate, after Washington backed the same anti-Saddam Hussein and anti-Ba’athist factions and politicians as Iran did.

In the absolute worst-case scenario, that Washington invaded Iran, this would be a war which America could not win. It would cost America billions of dollars in military expenditure, and Washignton would be ingulfed in a futile, costly operation that could last several years.

Europe should push for a stronger, more unified voice, in order to bring about a more multilateral change. This means that the JCPOA deal should be tried to be revived, particularly as Iran has been the only state sticking to the deal so far. Meanwhile, more sensible figures in Washington should continue pressuring for a more peaceful solution, to revive any fragile hopes of peace with Iran.

—-

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

RT: “‘Stay tuned’: Bolton warns of more US sanctions on Iran”

While full-blown hostility is a distant prospect, further escalations could still proliferate. Especially if Trump continues to ramp up the pressure against Tehran and if small clashes gradually emerge from Washington’s suffocation of Iran. Furthermore, hawkish figures like John Bolton whispering in the President’s ear, and pressure from America’s regional allies who antagonize Iran, could steer Trump’s seemingly incoherent Iran stance towards a coherently aggressive one.

Meanwhile, Britain is inevitably torn. Previously a signatory of the Iran P5+1 deal in 2015, granting sanction relief to Tehran, the UK still sought to keep trade ties open with Iran following Trump’s tearing up of the agreement, and re-imposing of sanctions. However, it shows signs of wavering, and Britain’s historic alignment of foreign policy could re-emerge if Washington’s aggression heightens.

British ministers, particularly Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt had previously called for a de-escalation of tensions between Trump and Iran.

Yet it is important to look at how Britain has been involved in past America-led military campaigns in the wider region, and its susceptibility to following Washington’s lead on foreign policy issues, especially compared to other Western European countries.

Among the obvious cases, like Iraq and Afghanistan which had tarnished Britain’s foreign policy legacy, the UK even had a role in regime change in Iran in the past, with the MI6 and CIA jointly overthrowing Iran’s Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 after attempting nationalize Iranian oil.

Despite its past attempts to seemingly commit to sanctions relief on Iran, UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt effectively summed up Britain’s position, writing in a recent tweet that after meeting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in May. “we share the same assessment of the heightened threat posed by Iran.”

Soon after, at a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, Hunt then echoed the United States’ aggressive rhetoric, announcing: “if American interests are attacked, they will retaliate. And that is something that the Iranians needs to think about very, very carefully.”

Even Bolton himself seemingly declared this, stating that “there is no end to US-UK cooperation on global challenges and opportunities”.

British Special Ops forces have even reportedly joined US troops in the Gulf, in response to their proliferation, showing that Britain is covertly increasing its regional military presence.

Clearly the British government promotes Washington’s claims that Iran is a threat, and looks set to follow its lead on further proliferation.

Even if a conflict were to not break out, Iranian civilians continue to suffer anyway under harsh American sanctions, with living conditions plummeting and poverty rising as a result. Britain is offering little opposition to America’s sanctions, and could even support harsher sanctions on Iran, if it further aligns itself with America.

Yet along with the traditional ‘special relationship’, Brexit is also pushing Britain away from the EU’s stance and aligning it further with Washington. The UK parliament has failed to agree on a unified solution for Brexit, and therefore there is a risk that if the UK fails to agree on a deal with the EU, it will face great economic vulnerability and will drift towards its traditional allies like the US and regional countries like Saudi Arabia, to desperately secure trade.

Britain is already going down this path. The government already looks set to increase trade ties with Washington, leading to Britain becoming more dependent on American trade, and has therefore granted the US greater leverage over Britain.

A poorly planned Brexit may subordinate Britain further towards America’s foreign policy. With Trump at the helm in America, this could lead Britain to taking an even more aggressive foreign policy if the US President goes ahead with such a stance.

Furthermore, Britain could drift further towards Saudi Arabia, having drastically increased trade ties with Riyadh following the 2016 Brexit referendum. As analysts have suggested that a no-deal Brexit could leave Britain with less leverage over Riyadh and more dependency on ties with the Saudi Kingdom, this could lead Britain to supporting any face-off by Riyadh against Iran, or at least failing to subvert any Saudi antagonism towards Tehran.

There are voices within the UK establishment that have questioned Washington’s narrative about Iran, including a top British military official. Yet the fact this had gained much attention shows how rare it is for British figures to criticize Washington, and how London’s narrative is increasingly aligned with America’s.

Other figures like former Middle East Minister Alastair Burt have delivered surprising criticism towards Washington’s stance on Iran. Yet current ministers have shown no signs of listening.

Other determining factors of Britain’s future foreign policy stance could also include the next Prime Minister. Theresa May who is due to step down will be replaced by another Conservative Party candidate. Boris Johnson is considered a favoured candidate, and as a pro-Brexit candidate this would leave Britain more vulnerable towards drifting towards the United States, and therefore its political position. Trump has recently praised Johnson, suggesting that the two could share a similar stance on regional issues. Yet as the Conservative Party is driving Britain’s drift towards America, a general election would be a greater shot at changing Britain’s foreign policy alignment.

Clearly the UK risks drifting down a dangerous path. If Britain was able to unify with the rest of Europe’s stance on Iran, and more sensible, anti-war British political figures were able to push the UK government against joining Washington’s stance, this would give Europe greater leverage to oppose Washington’s increasingly aggressive stance and call for a positive solution for peace.

——-

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

Sky News: “Could Iran break the US-UK special relationship?”