Whoever Fights in Yemen Ends Up Losing, Analyst Warns
As British warplanes strike targets in Yemen, critics caution that foreign powers have repeatedly failed there, saying, “anyone who fights in Yemen ends up losing.”
The United Kingdom has joined the United States in launching airstrikes against Yemen, aiming to curb the country’s attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes in retaliation for a US-supported blockade of Gaza Strip and an ongoing genocidal war by the occupying regime of Israel there.
The UK Ministry of Defense claimed that the strikes were informed by detailed intelligence and conducted at night to reduce civilian harm.
Yet the broader objective remains murky. The Yemenis have disrupted global trade.
Despite their threats for the supporters of Israeli crimes in Gaza, the article indicated that a central argument raised is historical: Yemen defeats its invaders.
“Other people have fought in Yemen over the last sixty years and they did not tend to win,” the author states in The Telegraph.
Egypt’s 1960s intervention devolved into a military quagmire.
Saudi Arabia’s campaign against the Ansarullah led to a humanitarian catastrophe and exposed it to sustained drone and missile attacks.
The commentary suggests Britain and the US risk repeating these failures.
Trump intensified air operations under Operation Rough Rider, continuing from earlier limited strikes under Biden.
However, no Western air war in recent memory — whether in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan — has yielded lasting stability.
Airstrikes may offer short-term satisfaction, the article notes, but lack strategic payoff.
In Afghanistan, massive bombing campaigns under Trump still ended with Taliban rule and the resurgence of ISIS.
In Iraq, air power slowed ISIS but could not destroy it without ground intervention.
“Yemen is like Afghanistan,” the writer argues. “People who fight there tend to lose.”
As history shows, the terrain, politics, and people in Yemen have outlasted every foreign power that tried to control them.
