The British government refrained from commenting on the possibility of attacking Ansarullah’s positions in Yemen

According to the report of Fars News Agency International Group, an official of the British government refused to comment on whether London considers itself committed to asking Parliament for possible airstrikes on Ansarullah positions in Yemen.

In addition, the spokesman of the British Prime Minister’s office did not give a clear answer to the questions about whether London has any intention to carry out such attacks.

England’s evasion

According to the English website “Standard”, the official spokesman of the British Prime Minister’s Office responded to Asked whether Britain might take military action without parliamentary permission, he said: “I will not speculate on what military action will or will not be taken.”

He then Referring to what he claims are attacks by Ansarullah forces against commercial ships in the Red Sea, he added: “We have clearly stated and specified that these attacks are illegal and dangerous and cannot be accepted. Therefore, we keep all the options available to us.” The Prime Minister has been identified.

The British Prime Ministers have previously taken different approaches regarding obtaining permission from the Parliament to carry out airstrikes by the British Army. In 2013, the British Prime Minister took the request to take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Parliament, but this request was rejected by the British lawmakers.

One ​​year later, in 2014 The British House of Lords responded positively to the request of the British government to carry out airstrikes against ISIS positions in Iraq. In 2018, the British government attacked places inside Syria without obtaining permission from the parliament.

Theresa May, the British Prime Minister at the time, said in justifying her action to join the airstrikes against the positions of the Syrian government. that doing this action by London was “morally and legally” correct.

On Tuesday, David Cameron, the British Foreign Minister, addressed the members of the Parliament in a meeting in the British Parliament. Yemeni attacks in the Red Sea are “unacceptable”. He said: “No one wants to see the escalation of conflicts in the Middle East, but it is unacceptable that the freedom of maritime traffic is harmed in this way.”

British provocative plan

The British Defense Minister Grant Shapps yesterday on Tuesday decided to send the frigate HMS Richmond of the British Navy to the Red Sea for what is believed to be participation in ” The International Mission for the Protection of Maritime Navigation” in Khand region announced.

He announced on X that “HMS Richmond is on its way to the Red Sea to ensure that the UK has a strong presence in the face of Iran-backed Houthi attacks (Yemen’s Ansarullah). Together with the United States, we will continue to lead the global response to the crisis and do what is necessary to protect lives and the global economy.”

At the end of December, Britain also sent the Royal Navy’s “Diamond” ship to the region to join the Lancaster frigate, three minesweepers and a support ship of the British Royal Fleet.

Earlier, the English publication The Times reported that the British army is preparing a provocative plan to launch a wave of airstrikes against the positions of the Yemeni forces in the Red Sea, which has the prospect of a significant escalation of tensions in the region.

Attack in the Red Sea

A few hours earlier, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed in a statement that Yemen’s Ansarullah forces carried out a “complex attack” by firing several missiles and drones in the Red Sea.

Centcom, in a statement published on the X social network, claimed that the attack took place at around 9:15 am local time, and that it involved suicide attack drones and cruise and ballistic missiles. Anti-ship missiles fired from Yemen at dozens of ships in the Red Sea were used.

Yemen’s Ansarullah, which currently controls a large part of this country, since the beginning of Israel’s attacks in Gaza, has announced that ships owned by, under the flag of, or destined for Israel are in the sea Red targets the attack. Despite this, Ansarullah stated that the Red Sea is safe for other ships.

The attacks of the Yemeni army in the Red Sea began on November 19, and the Ansarallah movement announced that until the end of the Israeli attacks in Gaza will continue.

The Central Command of the US Army in West Asia recently announced in a statement that it clashed with Yemeni forces in the Red Sea and killed 10 Yemeni soldiers.

In response, Brigadier Yahya Saree, the spokesman of the Yemeni armed forces, emphasized that America must accept the responsibility of martyring the Yemeni naval forces and that its actions prevent the Yemeni forces from fulfilling their religious and moral duty towards It will not become Palestine.

Following the Yemeni attacks on Israeli ships and related to this regime, the US formed an international coalition that did not meet with much success from its allies and according to the Pentagon’s announcement 12 The country is currently its partners. The US is also seeking a Security Council resolution on Red Sea shipping.

About 15% of the world’s maritime trade, including 8% of world wheat trade, 12% of seaborne oil trade. And 8% of liquefied natural gas trade in the world is done through Red World.

admit failure

The US naval coalition has already admitted to failing to carry out the mission they set up for AT.

On December 13th, all members of this coalition admitted in a joint statement that ships still do not consider using the Red Sea for safe traffic.

This statement states: “International shipping companies continue to use Cape Omidnik to divert their ships, which causes significant price increases and weeks of delays in delivering goods, and finally , jeopardizing the transportation of vital cargoes of food, fuel and humanitarian aid around the world.” Attacks against ships in the Red Sea have chosen the route around Africa for their vessels.

Areas of failure

The American Maritime Alliance has faced doubts from the shipping industry since its inception. Reuters reported on January 1, quoting sources in the shipping industry, that They don’t know much about America’s new naval alliance. Shipping sources said at the same time that many ships still prefer not to cross the Red Sea or cancel their contracts.

Shipping industry sources say they have been provided with few practical details about the plan, and they do not know whether Washington will intervene directly in the event of an armed conflict.

Another reason for the failure of the US coalition was the failure of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to join this coalition. When the United States of America announced the formation of a naval coalition under its leadership to protect ships in the Red Sea, the absence of the names of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which were the main members of the coalition fighting the Yemenis, surprised some experts.

end of message/