TEHRAN – The Israeli strategy in Yemen centers on exploiting the war between Saudi Arabia and the Sanaa government to establish a new reality.
This strategy has taken on added significance following U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks that Israel had been very helpful to Saudi Arabia against Ansarallah. Separately, reports cited officials as saying Saudi Arabia held CENTCOM-mediated talks with Israelis to receive the regime’s intelligence against Ansarullah. Trump also indicated that the possibility of a Saudi-Israeli normalization agreement was once again under discussion.
Taken together, these developments have raised a broader issue: Is Israeli-Saudi security cooperation being used to revive the stalled normalization process and lay the groundwork for new regional arrangements that primarily serve Israeli interests?
Analysts have pointed to four key factors that underline the Israeli regime’s position:
The security dimension
The regime views the war as a testing ground for its security assessments. Rather than treating Iran and Yemen as separate fronts, it sees them as parts of a single, interconnected theater of confrontation. From this perspective, the conflict provides a real-world test of Ansarallah’s military capabilities, particularly their latest missile arsenals, drone systems, and other military assets.
The strategic dimension
Israeli strategic calculations are based on the premise that the Yemeni and Iranian fronts cannot be treated separately. It views the ongoing war as an integral part of its broader effort to dismantle the Axis of Resistance.
From this perspective, the regime has a strong interest in weakening Ansarallah politically and militarily. Israelis regard Ansarallah as a significant component of the Axis of Resistance because of its military capabilities and its ability to threaten security in the Red Sea against Yemen’s foes. The Sanaa government has also demonstrated its capacity to strike targets deep inside Israel while supporting Gaza during the U.S.-backed genocide in the Strip.
Conversely, if Ansarallah emerges with strategic gains, the outcome would directly undermine Israeli efforts to weaken the Axis of Resistance. It could also reinforce the perception that the Israeli military can be challenged and that new strategic realities can be imposed across the region.
Israel’s regional positioning
The Zionist regime sees the war between Ansarallah and Saudi Arabia as an opportunity to strengthen its geopolitical position in the region.
Israeli public statements about Saudi security, reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu proposed providing the kingdom with military and security assistance, and Trump’s subsequent remarks on the matter are particularly significant. Together, they point to the regime’s efforts to establish itself as a security partner capable of providing intelligence and helping Saudi Arabia counter shared regional threats.
The regime also views these developments as a potential opening to revive its stalled normalization process with Saudi Arabia and create the political and security conditions for a broader regional coalition against Iran.
The significance of Yemen in Israel’s strategic calculations extends well beyond the immediate military confrontation. Tel Aviv may also seek to capitalize on the conflict to reshape regional relationships and alliances, establishing a new political reality in which it plays a more prominent role in regional security arrangements aimed at containing Iran.
Role of the United States
The U.S. dimension highlights Washington’s influence over the course of the war on Yemen. It also raises questions about whether the U.S. will intervene directly or limit its involvement to providing political, military, and intelligence support.
Any reduction in direct U.S. involvement could push the Israelis to strengthen their military, security, strategic, and political autonomy, expanding their ability to influence regional conflicts without relying entirely on the American security umbrella.
This would allow the regime to test its capacity to operate more independently, develop direct security relationships with regional actors, and increase its influence over developments involving Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Such a shift would not signal a weakening of the Zionist-American alliance. Rather, it could reflect a redistribution of responsibilities, with the U.S. retaining its central role in providing political and military support to the regime while it assumes greater responsibility for managing regional wars and threats.
Another possible outcome, given Saudi Arabia’s publicly stated position on Palestine, is that intelligence cooperation could continue and even expand without developing into a comprehensive political and military alliance or leading to full normalization.
Under this scenario, the prospects for normalization would depend on what Riyadh is willing to concede in exchange for the intelligence assistance it receives in confronting Ansarallah, particularly if the war escalates.
The limits of Israeli strategy
The Zionist regime’s approach to Yemen goes beyond confronting Ansarallah’s military capabilities. Its broader objective is to weaken staunch regional Iranian allies. This goal is hardly concealed: Tel Aviv ultimately seeks to reshape regional alliances in ways that serve its own interests.
Yet this strategy confronts two fundamental realities. Yemen is not a peripheral component of the Axis of Resistance but an important front within it. And Iran is not a country that can easily be brought to its knees simply by increasing pressure on Yemen.
Ansarallah’s strategic geographical position and military capabilities allow it to pose significant challenges to the Zionist regime’s calculations. Iran, meanwhile, remains a major regional power with substantial strategic influence and multiple options at its disposal, as demonstrated by its ability to withstand war and sustained pressure, including sanctions and other forms of coercion.
Consequently, even if the regime succeeds in weakening one of the fronts within the Axis of Resistance, that alone will not guarantee that it achieves its broader strategic objectives.
Israel’s attempts to neutralize or weaken the Yemeni front as a prelude to containing Iran could instead become a strategic liability. Military power can destroy infrastructure and inflict significant damage, but it cannot guarantee the achievement of political objectives. Nor does attacking resistance movements necessarily mean they will be dismantled. These groups can reorganize and rebuild their capabilities, which is part of their broader strategic doctrine.
Ultimately, it has been demonstrated that Ansarallah’s ability to withstand pressure, combined with Iran’s capacity to manage the confrontation and endure despite the scale of the challenges it faces, is crucial to preventing the imposition of a regional order that serves Zionists at the expense of the region’s peoples and their causes.
The situation in Yemen illustrates that the real test is not the extent of intelligence cooperation between Tel Aviv and Riyadh, nor the scale of the airstrikes against Yemen. It is whether the pressure exerted on the ground can be translated into tangible political gains. This is where the Zionist regime has failed on every front it has launched direct military aggression.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
