Yemen Advances in South as War Equation Shifts Favorably for Ansarullah
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, recent advancements by Yemen‘s Ansarullah movement in the southern regions have reignited discussions on how the movement has managed to alter the war’s dynamics in its favor, despite enduring years of military, political, and economic pressure and facing a Saudi-led coalition backed by regional and international players.
The answer to this complex situation is not solely found in the quantity of missiles, drones, or military equipment. The protracted Yemeni conflict has seen a decisive variable emerge from a combination of Yemen’s challenging geography, the intimate battlefield knowledge of local forces, cohesive command and objective, years of combat experience, and conversely, the fragmentation among opposing forces. These elements, according to Abu Mahdi, the spokesperson for Yemen’s Future of Justice Movement, have gradually shifted the war equation that Saudi Arabia initially envisioned.
In an interview with Mizan News Agency, Abu Mahdi refuted the notion that Ansarullah’s progress is solely a result of external support, emphasizing the movement’s independent decision-making in military and political matters. He clarified that its relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran does not equate to dependency or receiving direct operational orders.
Why Has Ansarullah Advanced?
Abu Mahdi attributes the primary reason to the structural differences between the two fronts. Ansarullah, he explained, entered the conflict with a clear objective and a relatively unified structure. In contrast, the opposing front comprises various groups and forces that do not necessarily share the same goals.
This disparity, he believes, has enabled Ansarullah forces to execute battlefield decisions more rapidly. Meanwhile, the opposing forces have often been hampered by political, local, tribal, and sectarian divisions. “It’s not just about equipment,” Abu Mahdi stated. “When one side has a clear objective and its command and forces move in the same direction, it’s natural for their performance on the ground to differ. Conversely, when several groups with different interests are on one front, coordination becomes more difficult.”
Geography: Mountains That Alter the War Equation
Yemen’s geography presents one of the region’s most complex operational environments. Parts of the country feature mountainous terrains, high altitudes, deep valleys, and arduous routes, making ground operations and long-term control challenging for invading forces.
Highlighting this aspect, Abu Mahdi noted that Yemeni forces possess precise knowledge of their battle zones, a significant advantage accumulated over years of conflict. “Forces that have lived in a region for years know its routes, altitudes, valleys, and critical points better. This means that the equipment superiority of an external force does not necessarily translate to a definitive advantage on the battlefield.” Yemen’s terrain has evolved from a mere natural factor into an integral part of its defense strategy, rendering any attempts at ground advances and consolidating captured areas costly.
A Cohesive Front Against Multiple Groups
However, geography alone does not explain the battlefield developments. The structure of the forces involved in the war is another critical factor.
Abu Mahdi contends that Saudi Arabia has, over the years, sought to build a broad front against Ansarullah by supporting various groups. Paradoxically, this very multiplicity of forces has become one of the opposing front’s weaknesses. He elaborated that the various groups fighting against Ansarullah do not share a unified vision for Yemen’s future, with some differing on political structure, the future of southern regions, and power-sharing arrangements.
These internal disagreements manifest on the battlefield, diverting military capacity from a common objective towards internal rivalries. From this perspective, a key distinction between the two sides lies not just in the quantity of weaponry but in their organizational structures and ultimate goals.
From Military War to Political Narrative Formation
Another factor Abu Mahdi emphasizes is the integration of Ansarullah’s military activities with its political and social narrative. He stated that Ansarullah strives to frame its presence on the ground within concepts such as Yemeni independence, opposition to foreign intervention, and resistance against foreign presence—a narrative he claims has resonated with segments of Yemeni society.
This, he believes, has transformed the conflict for some Ansarullah fighters from a purely military battle into a defense of Yemen’s independence and sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that the enemy’s efforts to portray Ansarullah as an Iranian proxy have not entirely eradicated this narrative, with social slogans and stances in some areas reflecting a different perspective.
Saudi Strategy: From Coalition Reliance to Local Force Reconstruction
Abu Mahdi further elaborated on Saudi Arabia’s strategy, stating that Riyadh has aimed to increase pressure on Ansarullah through various groups and forces. Currently, Saudi Arabia is reportedly attempting to establish or strengthen local forces in the southern regions to create new fronts against Ansarullah—a tactic he views as indicative of initial miscalculations regarding Ansarullah’s swift defeat.
He suggests that Saudi Arabia’s shift from relying solely on airstrikes and coalition forces to bolstering local actors signifies an attempt to align its military strategy with the realities on the Yemeni battlefield.
Taiz: A Strategic Nexus in the Yemeni War Equation
Among the fronts whose developments can influence Yemen’s military balance, the city of Taiz holds a unique position. Its significance extends beyond its geographical location, encompassing its demographic, connective, and political standing as a key factor in the country’s internal dynamics.
Taiz is situated in southwestern Yemen on a route connecting the country’s interior to the Red Sea coast and the passages leading to Bab el-Mandeb. Consequently, military developments around the city can impact the connectivity between different fronts and the troop deployments in western and southwestern Yemen.
In this context, Abu Mahdi highlighted recent developments, identifying pressure on Taiz as a crucial axis for forces aligned with Sana’a. He believes that a shift in the balance in this region could put opposing forces under pressure and influence developments on other fronts. Taiz’s importance is twofold: its geographical and logistical position makes it a vital military point, while its political and social standing means developments there transcend mere shifts in front lines.
Nevertheless, the extent to which these noted advancements will affect the future of the war depends on battlefield specifics, the territories controlled by each side, and the forces’ capacity to solidify their positions—a matter requiring independent analysis of operational axes and the current situation around Taiz.
Recent Attacks: Can Bombing Alter the Battlefield Balance?
In this scenario, recent attacks against Ansarullah positions should be analyzed as attempts to halt ground developments. Abu Mahdi posits that aerial assaults, even on a large scale, do not necessarily change the ground balance, as past experiences have shown Ansarullah’s military structure has largely adapted to prolonged warfare and airstrikes.
He stated that the United States continues to provide intelligence, logistical, and military support to Saudi Arabia, with other nations potentially offering political, intelligence, or equipment support to Riyadh. However, the extent and nature of direct involvement by countries like Turkey or Pakistan require distinguishing between speculation, requests for cooperation, and direct entry into combat, with any claims of direct military participation needing independent verification.
Why Did the War Not Become a Short-Term Conflict for Ansarullah?
A significant point in Abu Mahdi’s remarks is the emphasis on the Yemeni forces’ preparedness from the outset for a protracted war. He believes that the continuation of the war over the years has equipped Ansarullah with substantial experience in military operations, missile and drone usage, battlefield intelligence, and countering airstrikes.
In essence, the long war has not merely been an attrition period for Ansarullah but also a phase for gaining experience and rebuilding its military structure. This could be a key reason why, despite extensive pressure, Ansarullah has not been removed from Yemen’s political and military equation.
Shifting Pressure from Yemen’s Borders to Saudi Arabia’s Depths
In another part of his statement, Abu Mahdi stressed a shift in Ansarullah’s military strategy, one where attacks on Yemen would no longer be without cost to the opposing side. From his perspective, the objective is for any attack on Yemeni territory to be met with a response deep within Saudi Arabia, thereby increasing the cost of military decisions for Riyadh.
If sustained, this strategy could transform the Yemeni war from a predominantly internal conflict into a more complex regional equation, where the security of Saudi Arabia’s southern borders and vital facilities are factored into the decision-making of Riyadh’s leaders.
Saudi Arabia Between Two Choices: Escalation or Political Path
Responding to the question of the Yemeni war’s future trajectory, Abu Mahdi identified two primary paths: first, a renewed escalation of the civil war and the opening of new fronts; and second, increased military and security pressure on Saudi Arabia to compel Riyadh toward a political solution.
He believes that if Saudi Arabia continues its support for forces opposing Sana’a and maintains economic and political pressure, military operations will persist. Conversely, if conditions arise for halting military support, easing restrictions, and moving towards a political agreement, a reduction in hostilities could be possible.
From this viewpoint, the battlefield and the negotiation table in Yemen are not separate; any change in the balance of power on the ground can influence political calculations, and any political development can alter military deployments.
Iran and Yemen: A Relationship Ansarullah Does Not Consider Dependency
Another significant focus of the discussion was the role of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Yemen’s developments.
Abu Mahdi reiterated Ansarullah’s independence in its decision-making, stating that even if the United States or other foreign actors directly entered the Yemeni war, Iran would not necessarily be drawn into the country’s internal conflict. He further emphasized that while Ansarullah maintains close ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, this relationship should not be interpreted as receiving orders or complete dependency in military decisions.
This stance is, in fact, part of Ansarullah’s political narrative regarding its independent identity, aiming to portray the movement as a local actor with independent calculations in Yemen’s equations.
The Core Issue: A War That Is Not Yet Over
What emerges from recent Yemeni developments and Abu Mahdi’s statements is that the war’s equation in the country remains fluid, with neither side able to completely sideline the other. Ansarullah’s recent advances, if consolidated on the ground, could exert greater pressure on opposing fronts. However, Saudi Arabia’s efforts to rebuild local forces and leverage regional capacities indicate that Riyadh has not abandoned the pursuit of military and political competition in Yemen.
Meanwhile, while airstrikes can impose costs on Yemen’s infrastructure and military capabilities, the war’s experience has shown that air power alone is insufficient for lasting balance shifts, particularly in a country where mountainous terrain, local networks, and prolonged war experience enhance resistance capacity.
Yemen’s Equation No Longer Determined by Air Power
Over the years, the Yemeni war has transformed from a military operation to change the power structure into a multi-layered conflict. Geography, troop cohesion, military experience, social support, missile and drone capabilities, and ultimately, regional calculations all play simultaneous roles.
According to Abu Mahdi, the primary reason for Ansarullah’s advance lies in the convergence of these factors: intimate knowledge of Yemen’s geography, cohesive command and objectives, extensive war experience, contrasted with the dispersion and conflicting interests within the opposing front. Taiz, he noted, could be one of the most critical points, where developments surrounding it will influence the future military deployment, not solely due to its geographical position but also its demographic, political, and connective standing in Yemen’s equations.
Consequently, the issue in Yemen is no longer about which side possesses more equipment; the core question is which side has greater capacity to translate military power into a stable political and battlefield balance. Should Ansarullah succeed in consolidating recent advances and transforming military pressure into a political leverage point, the Yemeni war would enter a different phase—one where Saudi Arabia confronts not a removable insurgent group but an actor that has, over a decade of war, sustained its military and political structure and partially shifted battlefield dynamics in its favor.
Conversely, if the opposing front can reduce internal divisions and organize regional and international support within a cohesive strategy, a shift in the balance could again be possible. Therefore, recent developments should not be viewed as the end of the Yemeni war but as an indication of the conflict entering a new stage of competition for power balance. This new stage will see the outcome determined not only on the front lines but also by each side’s ability to maintain cohesion, control territory, and convert military gains into political advantages.
