The relationship between the regime of the Sudanese President (General Omar al-Bashir/ the Islamic Front) and the official Arab system was strained.
At the very least, its relationship with the big sister and neighbor (Egypt) was at its worst after al-Bashir was accused of being involved in the assassination attempt of President "Mubarak" in Addis Ababa and for harboring his Islamist attackers in June 1996.
However, when the administration of U.S. President "Bill Clinton" launched its aerial aggression on the "Al-Shifa" pharmaceutical factory in the suburbs of Khartoum on August 20, 1998, the situation flipped, and "Bashir's Sudan" became the object of widespread sympathy from the public opinion across the Arab world.
I remember at that time – I was working in the Arab affairs department at "Al-Ahram" newspaper – the news of the bombing of the Sudanese capital hit. Colleagues of different generations, each with diverse perspectives, united in anger against this aggression. Some had witnessed the American fleet's invasion of the Lebanese capital Beirut in 1958, others its bombing in 1983, and the majority had taken in the American raids on the Libyan capital "Tripoli," along with "Benghazi" in 1986.
Archives Document How the Arabs Would Get Angry Despite Their Differences
Overall, the anger throughout the Arab world had its impact on the official Arab system, and it couldn't overlook or remain silent. This rage is documented by a Reuters wire describing it as "near boiling" and published by "Al-Ahram" on its front page on August 21, 1998.
From the Arab League, the General Secretariat issued a statement less than 24 hours after the bombing, denouncing the American attack on Sudan as "an unjustifiable act, a blatant aggression on the sovereignty of an Arab League member state, and a breach of international conventions."
Hours later, Egypt's then Foreign Minister "Amr Moussa" stated that "no country can be a substitute for the Security Council, and Cairo's position is clear on the necessity of all measures against terrorism to be through international legitimacy and under the United Nations' umbrella."
The archives also preserve "Al-Ahram's" editorial two days after this aggression. Under the title: "Collective Confrontation with Terrorism is the Solution," it criticized the United States for donning the policeman's uniform, striking here and there. It cautioned that "American unilateral action in this manner could lead to some popular sectors sympathizing with the terrorists themselves, which is certainly not desirable."
American Bombing of an Arab Capital Once Again
One does not need a "sifter" or to be without it to understand the oversensitive consensus beyond differences when an Arab capital is attacked by children of colonizers: British, French, and their successors, the Americans. Nor is one blind if they fail to consider the consequences of this aggression.
Indeed, Yemen / Sana'a / Houthi rule today is outside the official Arab system and its league of states. It has been accused and campaigned against for over a decade as merely being an "agent for Iran," and by mimicking the media's popular term (proxy), as a party in the Sunni-Shiite axis conflict in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In my opinion and others, it's a conflict that is manufactured, harmful, and serves Zionism and enemies of nations.
All this places Sana'a, now under American and British aggression, in a weaker position than Khartoum was during the past quarter-century American aggression.
"Rogue Outcast" Gaining Popular Support
But despite all that, the Yemeni forces' military contribution in the Red Sea, in support of Gaza and the Palestinian people after October 7, 2023, granted Sana'a popularity among the Arab public opinion, transcending sectarian and political ideological divisions.
Simply put, this appreciated contribution placed Sana'a – this "rogue outcast" not recognized by the official Arab regime – at the heart of the Arab-Zionist conflict today on the map.
And although Yemen – due to geopolitical considerations – was not among what were called "frontline states" or the "confrontation states," and with the history of facts since 1948, it did not have a notable participation in the wars of the Arab armies with Israel.
Surely, the military forces of the past did not have the historical record of armies in Arab states far from the borders of Palestine, such as Iraq, or adding Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco to it with the 1973 war. However, we cannot forget South Yemen – Aden's contribution – in cooperation with the Egyptian navy – in closing "Bab el-Mandeb" during this war, besieging the enemy and its fleet and ports in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba.
In short, Yemeni forces' actions after October 7 in the south of the Red Sea and their impact on the naval blockade of Israel and missile launches toward it, have placed this country unprecedentedly in the heart of the conflict with Zionist colonialism and its allies. It also somewhat melted away sectarian divisions that had grown and become fierce over decades in our region, especially since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
Also in brief, the Yemeni forces' contribution in supporting Gaza to this day has quickly found its acceptance among the Arab peoples, whose gap with their regimes in every state – and with the entire official Arab system – has widened due to the Zionist-American genocide on the Palestinian people in Gaza and the legendary resilience of its resistance. Comparing positions, statements, and actions between this and that is stark now and will likely – in assumption – have its effects for future generations.
Indeed, we can say that this Yemeni military participation – and along with the public demonstrations in Sana'a and other cities there alongside Gaza and the Palestinian people – allowed people from the ocean to the Gulf to discover that those labeled "Houthis," whom they knew stereotypically as "extremist Shiites and agents for Tehran," do not speak Persian, nor do they wear black turbans.
Moreover, considerable segments of public opinion now see what they do – despite their weakness, poverty, and misery – as an "Arab bravado" lacking in others who are wealthy with unlimited, unmonitored budgets, enormous capabilities, and the most lethal modern weapons.
But they are Inevitably Embarrassed
The American-British aggression on Yemen – with participation from allies outside the region and from within, as President "Biden" promptly stated – puts the Arab system, its pillars, and its leadership in Saudi Arabia in a more severe and dangerous embarrassment. Or as the Arabic expression goes, "it adds insult to injury." This is not just due to this popular and elitist mood in the Arab world and its inherent sensitivity towards the Americans and British hitting an Arab capital.
This time the targeted goal is Sana'a, at the peak of its presence in the Arab-Zionist conflict, and at a critical moment faced by the Palestinian people and their cause, along with all the free Arabs and the world.
There's also a list of additional reasons, including that the aggression on Sana'a and other Yemeni cities came immediately after U.S. Secretary of State "Blinken's" tour and his reception in several Arab capitals. It raises equally embarrassing questions, such as:
- Did he inform them of his administration's intentions to launch these strikes? Or did he conceal from the leaders and officials in these capitols what would happen immediately after leaving the region?.
- And what signifies his reassuring them about Washington's determination to work on preventing the expansion of the war (especially to Lebanon)? While his administration has not relinquished its outspoken and insolent criminal support for the ongoing Zionist genocide in Gaza. And then here is Washington expanding the war to the southern Arabian Peninsula, with the risks of retaliatory actions that might revive the oil tanker war from the late 1980s.
Additionally, reasons for the most severe and dangerous embarrassment for the Arab official system and its components and leadership are that the American-British aggression – with Washington's quick announcement of allies from inside and outside the region – might reopen the door to armed conflict within Yemen. It could cut off the road to cementing ceasefire lines, calming tensions, and reconciliation efforts with regional parties involved in this conflict for about nine years.
It would inflict more migration, displacement, famine, and suffering on millions of Yemenis, who have not yet recovered from it.
And atop all these reasons for embarrassment, the question looms: Why did the American administration choose to hit Sana'a and other Yemeni cities on the same day that the International Court of Justice began looking into the Zionist Israeli genocide crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza? Is this one of the media "cover-up and carpet-pulling" tactics? Doesn't Washington realize that this timing – the coincidence – pours oil on the fire of the comparison in the Arab public opinion between South Africa's initiative and their allied and friendly states and their league?
Except for Foolhardiness…
The American aggressor has not yet provided evidence against Yemen / Sana'a akin to its justification – even with lies – for bombing the "Al-Shifa" drug factory. Not when they claimed back then that it was producing chemical weapons and nerve gas, or that the Sudanese regime was involved in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania before that, with "Taliban" regime in Afghanistan, where it also directed aerial strikes on the same day. Now, the American aggressor only appears nakedly as the defender of Zionism and the protector of its terrorism, even acting as its agent, fighting its battles.
History Has Its Lessons and Wisdom
What is most astonishing about the addiction to repeating follies is that the American administration during "Bush Senior's" era acknowledged the mistake of ignoring the suffering of the Palestinian people and their cause and the consequences of continuing this historical injustice.
After noticing and realizing – along with the world – the massive public support for the former Iraqi President "Saddam Hussein" bombing Israeli towns and colonies with missiles from afar, while he was the aggressor and occupier of a neighboring Arab country (Kuwait).
Thus, the administration hurried to hold the "Madrid Peace Conference" before the end of 1991, just months after driving "Saddam's" forces out of Kuwait. And although the invasion of Kuwait had caused a rift within the official system and a division in the Arab public opinion, which was not the case with the capitals: Khartoum in 1998 and Sana'a in 2024, and before that Tripoli in 1986, when they were hit by American aggression.
But it seems there's no cure for such foolhardiness, and as the saying goes: "Nothing is as incurable as folly." It's as if they learn nothing – after more than one lesson – other than that injustice, aggression, and attacking and bombing capitals will recoil on the aggressor, even if he is in his own home.
