Referring to the recent US and British attacks on targets in the four provinces of Yemen and the possibility of the expansion and continuation of conflicts in the region, Amir Ali Abol Fatah said: The most important question that arises after the attacks on Yemen led by the US and UK is that whether the US would be able to achieve its preferred goals and security safeguards and considering Washington’s claim that it is working to ensure free shipping in the Bab al-Mandab area?

In response to a question that it took a long time since the formation of the coalition by the United States to face the Yemeni attacks until the first strike, he said that they delayed the strike because they had concluded that a military attack would not bring security to the Red Sea and they know it. The US and UK have the military capability to strike Yemen, but this is not the whole story; the issue is, what would be the implications of a military strike? Would it lead to the conclusion that cargo ships would feel safe and choose Bab al-Mandeb for traffic? Of course, the answer is negative. Another issue is whether these attacks will stop the launch of missiles from Yemen.

Abol Fatah continued: Now the region is facing a state of war, and the US has carried out military operations. In response, the Yemeni army has announced that it will take countermeasures. We have seen that after the first attack by the US, some ships were attacked again. This situation caused the Israeli ships not to travel through the Red Sea, and Bab al-Mandab and other ships chose a longer route. If this situation continues and both sides continue their attacks, the region will become insecure, and its effect on the global economy will be significant; it will disrupt the production chain, and this disruption will be problematic. So, the American attack is not very important; what is significant is whether they can stop the attacks of the Yemenis, an event that is unlikely to happen.

This American affairs expert stated about the approach of China and Russia and some European countries that did not join the US in these attacks, including France: Meantime, China and Russia are critical of America’s conduct and consider the wrong policies of Washington to be responsible for the performance of the Zionist regime and the Gaza war. They also demand American restraint in supporting Israel. Some European countries are also worried that military strike in this area could endanger their ships and property on the way to Bab al-Mandeb, so they want the flame of war and conflict in Gaza to be lowered so that the Yemenis would stop attacking. These countries do not consider a military attack the solution to the problem; they regard it as escalating the atmosphere of conflict and tension.

He said about England’s harsh positions on this issue: England has always had the closest position to America. It was the same in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and it was not unexpected for London to support the US attacks and side with Washington in this regard. England and America are trying to draw the support of several countries and suggest that they represent the international community without permission from the UN Security Council. This coalition and the presence of some countries that do not weigh global interactions have more of a psychological effect to attract the support of public opinion.

About the fact that the Security Council’s lack of permission to carry out military action has apparently become a normal procedure in the world and among powerful countries, Abol Fatah said: This is an old problem; at the same time, it should be noted that the philosophy of the Security Council was not that there should be no war in the world, but instead that the five permanent members of the Security Council with the right to veto would not go to war with one another. At the same time, the differences between Russia and America have increased, and the Security Council is not very effective in this regard. Maybe the Security Council had a place some ten years ago, but now it doesn’t have that anymore. This is the capacity and strength of the United Nations; even if a resolution is passed, it is unlikely that anyone will implement it and care about it.

Regarding the spread of attacks and the continuation of the response from the Yemenis, he clarified: The first American attack did not stop the Yemenis, and the second attack was for this reason. If this is the case and the third attack occurs, it seems that the Yemenis will continue their position firmly. At the same time, even if the attacks stop here, the insecure atmosphere created in the Red Sea will disrupt the economy and maritime transit. Commercial actors and countries will have to change the route, which will involve many costs. Therefore, when the feeling of security leaves the region, American attacks will not achieve any results, and the normal situation will not be established; therefore, it will be under pressure.

This expert on international affairs noted about the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza: there is no prospect for a ceasefire; what is clear is that the pressure of world public opinion has forced the Zionist regime to reduce the intensity of its attacks. In recent weeks, the bombardment and attacks of the Zionist regime have decreased, and the atmosphere has changed. They said they entered a “low-intensity” war and hoped to convey this to the world. But it is unlikely that this regime will go under the burden of a ceasefire. Instead, he is trying to reduce the pressure of public opinion, and his supporters are doing this for him.