Tag Archives: Aden

January 6, 2025 · 08:26

The reverse effect for some

Today I got some news in Arab News (at https://www.arabnews.com/node/2585317/saudi-arabia) where we see ‘Saudi project clears 1,151 Houthi mines in Yemen’ We are given “The total included 32 anti-tank mines, 1,115 unexploded ordnances and four explosive devices, according to a recent report” Members of Saudi Arabia’s Project Masam has been active since 2018. In that time they cleared a total of 477,583 mines since its inception. And the western (most likely corrupt media) ignored this for years. The prefer bashing Israel and giving others a clean pass. But the numbers are not to be ignored. If we go by averages, it implies that the placement of 477,583 mines at $50 a pop implies a investment of a little shy of 24 million, a lot more if you consider that jot all are found and those who did explode don’t need clearing. So when did Houthi terrorists have that kind of money?

They didn’t and this implies that Iran has forwarded them the good and optionally money and other elements too. But the media steers clear of that part don’t they? The other side of the coin is worse, Saudi Arabia had to invest people and somewhere around $1,000,000,000 (one billion) to get rid of this Iranian menace. At present the demining operations took place in Marib, Aden, Jouf, Shabwa, Taiz, Hodeidah, Lahij, Sanaa, Al-Bayda, Al-Dhale and Saada. The problem is that wide spread. But leave it to the media to report on the hardship of those poor poor terrorists. It is time that the media wakes the fuck up and does their actual job, which is reporting the news, not chase digital dollars through flaming the audience.

All this was given more then once (I saw the report in 2021) and the western media gives us nothing, or perhaps whatever flames people the most. The more I notice, the more the western media disgusts me.

Have a great day and try to avoid mines by not walking backwards into one.

Spy Games

The first thought I had. An excellent movie with Brad Pitt and Robert Redford, yet what would you think when I told you it is now the BBC who engages this scenario? In comes the BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67945137) giving us ‘UAE has funded political assassinations in Yemen, BBC finds’. Finds? Found how? Is my initial feeling. I am not stating that the UAE is innocent, I cannot prove that, but can the BBC prove it? So here we get “Counter-terrorism training provided by American mercenaries to Emirati officers in Yemen has been used to train locals who can work under a lower profile – sparking a major uptick in political assassinations, a whistleblower told BBC Arabic Investigations.” So what mercenaries? Not stating that this wasn’t happening, but the question becomes who and to what degree. You see, the presumption linked to “sparking a major uptick in political assassinations” is nothing more than speculation and who is that whistleblower? This first stage has two speculations absent of evidence and all this is linked to American mercenaries? Not the best or most credible source. Wouldn’t you agree? The best we get is that mercenaries possibly trained Emirati officers in counter intelligence. That is quite the leap towards assassination. As I personally see, the better hit is done by the three drivers. Separation, Isolation and Assassination. Yet we can all agree that this isn’t always possible, yet Yemen has a better stage. Get a Houthi rifle (sniper rifle with silencer is best), pay a few kids to be ready to paint ‘traitor’ slogans on the targets house and in the early evening blow his head of and at that very precise moment get those kids to paint the slogans with the reward of cash and each a bag full of food for the family. Not much required for that, was it?

Then we are given “The BBC has also found that despite the American mercenaries’ stated aim to eliminate the jihadist groups al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) in southern Yemen, in fact the UAE has gone on to recruit former al-Qaeda members for a security force it has created on the ground in Yemen to fight the Houthi rebel movement and other armed factions” in this, where is the evidence that “the UAE has gone on to recruit former al-Qaeda members”, what evidence is there? The press has very little credibility left. As I personally see it, at best, the UAE has a list of Houthi terrorists and spread a list around with ‘There people are wanted dead or alive’, the fact that alleged members of Al-Qaeda see that as a way to make money is beside the point. You see, what evidence is there to state that former members of any organisation are now part of a UAE security force? You see the issue is evidence and we aren’t seeing any.

This goes on with “The killing spree in Yemen – more than 100 assassinations in a three-year period – is just one element of an ongoing bitter internecine conflict pitting several international powers against each other in the Middle East’s poorest country.” Now consider that the UN gives us “Over 150,000 people have been killed in Yemen, as well as estimates of more than 227,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine and lack of healthcare facilities due to the war.” This implies that they are dealing with almost 380K kills from various reasons. So where are these 100+ assassinations? Where is the data? Where are the names? We don’t get any and in the first example I gave you, how can you see or prove that there was an assassination and not an execution by who gives a darn? We cannot get the west the acknowledge the Iran backed Houthis attacking Saudi civilian targets with drones and now they have a case of 100+ assassinations? I have some serious doubts here.

Then we see links to two other sources the BBC iPlayer (UK Only) that is not evidence, it is merely a BBC recruiting drive covered in a chocolaty spy story. Then we get more emotions and “Leaked drone footage of the first assassination mission gave me a starting point from which to investigate these mysterious killings. It was dated December 2015 and was traced to members of a private US security company called Spear Operations Group”, so who leaked the drone footage? Has the drone footage been verified as authentic? And suddenly out of the shrubberies comes the Spear Operations Group, so who are they? Apparently a Delaware outfit. And the source gives us a meeting in London 2020. Not dripping in any level of evidence. The other scenario is that a former Navy seal told a BBC person a spy story and he got paid for this. There is no verification on ANY level. There is a photo (anyones guess if that is a real person) with “He refused to talk about anyone who was on the “kill list” provided to Spear by the UAE – other than the target of their first mission: Ansaf Mayo, a Yemeni MP who is the leader of Islah in the southern port city of Aden”, so we will not get any facts, other then the mention that Ansaf Mayo was a target. All the news started spreading these tales 8 hours ago. In a few cases a few hours before the BBC told their story. I have some serious doubts. So who was Ansaf Mayo? The BBC article gives us nothing apart from the fact that he was an MP, so why was he killed? What evidence is there that he was assassinated? What evidence is there that who did that to this person? The list of doubts go up and it all reflects on a simple Spy game story, nowhere near good enough to be the stamped with ‘Approved by John le Carré’. Last we get to ‘investigators from the human rights group Reprieve’ with the text “They investigated 160 killings carried out in Yemen between 2015 and 2018. They said the majority happened from 2016 and only 23 of the 160 people killed had links to terrorism”, so where is their top line data? Consider that that areas had a rather large slice of 380K deaths (this list is a subset of that number) and a group with little to no visibility for the longest of time has any data on 160 people and only 23 had links to terrorism? More questions, especially as too many parties (including the UN) have been silent on Houthi terrorism, they blatantly kept silent to smear the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and this has been going on for years. The list goes on and on and this is the latest approach, now against the UAE. So what gives? The west angry that the UAE joined BRICS? They angry that the UAE is giving too much options to China? Your guess is as good as mine. I have no idea. I am merely questioning the validity of what the BBC is claiming here. I have my own version of these events, which I will not state, because it is pure speculation, I have no facts to support my version and I think that I have that in common with the BBC, we did not get to see any real evidence. Consider that if any of these sources were Iranian, or Iranian sympathisers the entire article collapses like a house of cards.

Consider that as you start this Tuesday and I am about to enter Wednesday. A simple spy game story that isn’t worthy to sit on any shelf next to spy story masters like Le Carre, Ignatius, Herron, Greene or Deighton. It was a simple setting and I am rejecting what the BBC is telling us on the simple stage of missing evidence, missing verification and missing top line data in a stage where over 380,000 people were killed, finding 650 people (including children) that were assumed to be assassinated is extremely easy, the evidence was everything here and the BBC didn’t give us any.

Have fun today and that red dot on your chest? Pure imagination.

They had been warned

Only hours ago, the NY Times gives us a part that wants to makes me want to go ‘I told you so!‘, but I will not. With ‘The U.N.’s Uncomfortable Truths About Iran‘, Nikki Haley gives us the goods from a report published a week ago (at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/nikki-haley-united-nations-iran.html). The quote: “A panel of experts found that Iran is violating a United Nations weapons embargo — specifically, that missiles fired by Yemen’s Houthi rebels into Saudi Arabia last year were made in Iran“, part of these issues I raised in ‘Disney’s Yemeni Cricket‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/02/04/disneys-yemeni-cricket/) two weeks ago. The part I had not looked at is seen in Nikki’s article. She captures it perfectly in: “The mullahs in Iran don’t want to hear this news, because it proves Iran is violating its international agreement. Die-hard defenders of the Iran nuclear deal don’t want to hear it because it proves, once again, that the Iranian regime can’t be trusted. And some members of the United Nations don’t want to hear it because it is further proof that Iran is defying Security Council resolutions, and the pressure will be on the U.N. to do something about it“. Yet, the UN is not acting, is it? The Guardian on Jan 11^th gives rise to the ‘need’ that the US is not tearing up the Iranian nuclear deal. With “the three EU signatories to the deal insisted that Iran was respecting the agreement signed in 2015” they are making a reference to the UK, France and Germany. The fact that we see: “Federica Mogherini, said the deal, denounced by Trump as the worst ever made, had in reality “made the world safer and prevented a potential nuclear arms race in the region”“, which might hold some truth in regards to the fact that it was the worst deal, but that is pretty much it. In addition she gives us “any doubts the EU harboured over Iran’s development of ballistic missiles, or its overall policy of interference across the Middle East, were separate from the nuclear deal – also known as the JCPOA“. Now the part in the Guardian happened a week after the actual attack. I think that the entire event is a sham. I think that the three nations had been clearly briefed on the entire Houthi matter, as well as the fact that the three parts that Nikki Haley gives us is on par, the EU is merely in denial, because after all the wasteful blunders and failures they had signed up for, another failure is a lot more than any of the three could handle. The intelligence services did what they needed to do, but here it is again short-sighted side in all this, whilst they remain nationally protective, for now that is.

So is that true?

Well that is the issue. Apart from e not having the original texts, there are a few issues that Nikki is completely correct in, yet in the end she is not (not completely at least). When we look at United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, we see “The resolution updates and adds to the list of technical items related to nuclear and missile proliferation that are banned for transfer to and from Iran“, which makes the view of Nikki Haley correct, then there is “Iran is subject to a new regime for inspection of suspicious cargo to detect and stop Iran’s smuggling. States should inspect any vessel on their territory suspected of carrying prohibited cargo, including banned conventional arms or sensitive nuclear or missile items. States are also expected to cooperate in such inspections on the high seas“, so is this enough, can we state that the arming of Houthi’s in Yemen is a ‘smuggling operation’, or ‘a classified shipment’ in support of Houthi’s? You see, the classification is everything in this limelight.

The resolution holds a lot more, yet most of that is directed at shipments to Iran and/or nuclear materials. Yet now we get to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which makes the view of Nikki Haley wrong. Here we see: “Resolution 2231 calls for Iran to refrain from activity related to nuclear-capable missiles (“Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology“, however, the Deutsche Welle give us: “according to diplomats the language is not legally binding and cannot be enforced with punitive measures“, so basically, Nikki is in spirit very correct, yet in black letter law, there is no clarity and more important, no punitive option. In all this, we see that top EU diplomat, Federica Mogherini was correct.

In the spirit of it all, Iran seems to become a bigger player and a much larger danger to any level of Middle Eastern stability. Nikki ends the article with “Today, armed with this evidence, we have the chance to rein in Iran’s behavior and demand that it live up to its international agreements that discourage conflict. But if action is not taken, then someday soon, when innocent Saudi civilians are killed by Iranian weapons, the chance for peace will be lost.”

I am not sure of that, you see, just like Turkey, Iran will do whatever it pleases and the US knows that, as did the three players (UK, France and Germany), who are desperately trying to hold on the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) like it is the golden fleece.

However, only 4 hours ago Reuters treats us to: “Britain, the United States and France want the United Nations Security Council to condemn Iran for failing to stop its ballistic missiles from falling into the hands of Yemen’s Houthi group and commit to take action over the sanctions violations, according to a draft resolution seen by Reuters“, with “The U.N. Security Council has banned the supply of weapons to Houthi leaders and “those acting on their behalf or at their direction.” It can also blacklist individuals and entities for threatening the peace and stability of Yemen or hindering aid access” we see the other part the Nikki mentioned and here she is proven right. Even as Iran claims that it is fabricated, there is enough evidence, that the parts are indeed from Iranian missiles, which invalidates their side in all this. The most striking part is the part that both Nikki Haley and Reuters are giving us and that part seems to be ignored by too many. The mention of: “Some members of the United Nations don’t want to hear it because it is further proof that Iran is defying Security Council resolutions, and the pressure will be on the U.N. to do something about it” is a much larger issue. Is it because they are unwilling to act, or has the coin toppled in the many outstanding issues in play and the UN is now unable to do anything?

That part is more important, because that means that the UN has no longer options to set issues against rogue nations like Iran, it could be a renewed signal for North Korea to do whatever it pleases as well and that could give more worries regarding stability in Far East Asia as well.

The question becomes can the situation be diffused? Should Iran comply and seize all missile shipments, it will change the Houthi field. They will not win (they never could) but a larger consideration to remove Houthi forces and start larger humanitarian aid would become increasingly more realistic. The bad side is that the Houthi’s would go underground so the humanitarian aid groups would have to deal with sabotage and armed strikes on a daily basis if no green zone can be established. That part is also no longer a real issue as we got only a few days ago that civilian life in Aden is safe, stable and calm, with all signs of life returning to normal, almost three years after diplomats and UN staff fled Aden. Saudi Ambassador to Yemen Mohammad Al Jabir also mentioned that recent demands made by a single social strait, which later led to clashes, have been calmed and resolved. We get this from the Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper (at https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/1170916/saudi-ambassador-yemen-says-arab-coalition-proved-efficiency-resolving-aden), the issue now becomes, will Iran back off, or continue in its actions to remove stability from the Middle East, that alone gives support to Nikki Haley and her view regarding Iran, If she is proving correct and Iran remains on the path they are now, we should consider that soon enough, the JCPOA will not be worth the paper it was printed on, because if Iran can play games to this extent, there will be absolutely no guarantee that Iran will not break word and move on their path to enrich Uranium, I have no doubt in that regard, the issue has been diminished to a mere when they will start, there is no longer an ‘if’ in the matter.

In my view, these matters are only increasing stresses and pressures between Israel and Iran, they were never cordial, but now they are at an all-time high on the volatility aggressive response scale and that is mainly due to the Syrian issues in play. This now gives more and more rise to the dangers of escalations and the moment this happens all bets are off. The Guardian gives us: “Emboldened by a belief that Assad is winning, Iran is turning its eyes, and guns, on Israel – or so Israeli leaders believe. Their “red lines” – forbidding a permanent Iranian military presence in Syria and the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah – are being ignored”, Another source gave us much earlier (November 2016) that “the Chief of Staff of the Iranian armed forces announced to commanders of the Iranian fleet that Iran may establish naval bases in the future far from its shores”, which was Major general Mohammad Bagheri at that point, in that address both Syria and Yemen were raised as options. Now, if this is happens in Syria the IDF would reacts and Iran will plunge the Middle East in another war, if it is in Yemen, there is every indication that this will set off the legitimate Yemeni government as well as Saudi Arabia optionally starting a war with those players, giving again full support to the views Nikki Haley gave earlier, more important, at that point any UN representative avoiding that discussion better give up their seat quick and proper as the fallout of that discussion will impact the confidence levels of the UN on an almost global scale and it again would open the door for North Korea to do whatever it pleases. A scenario that roughly 98.4% of the UN nations who are currently part of the UN will not be too happy about either.

As I personally see it, too many issues have become interconnected, it has become a mess that several nations want to steer clear off, they want to ignore it and/or they remain in denial. It would make for an excellent front page though, when the moment comes and we get to read ‘UN in denial of Iranian actions’, how will you react?

Tag Archives: Aden

The reverse effect for some

Spy Games

They had been warned

Recent Posts

Archives