🔴From Alliance to Confrontation: How Yemen Became an Open Arena for Saudi–Emirati Conflict

The war on Yemen is no longer merely an externally imposed military campaign led by Saudi Arabia. Over time, it has evolved into a revealing laboratory of intra-Gulf contradictions, exposing the structural fragility of alliances built on coercion, rentier power, and external patronage. The recent crisis between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi—brought into sharp relief by the Saudi targeting of a vessel allegedly carrying weapons in Yemeni waters and its classification as a “security threat”—signals not an isolated incident, but a deeper strategic rupture within the coalition that launched the war.

What was once marketed as a unified “Arab coalition” has unraveled into a competition over spoils, influence, and post-war positioning, with Yemen reduced to contested terrain rather than recognized as a sovereign political entity.

I. How the Alliance Was Formed—and Why It Collapsed

When the war on Yemen began in 2015, Saudi–Emirati coordination appeared firm, backed by full American and Western political cover. The intervention was framed through familiar rhetoric: restoring “legitimacy,” countering Iranian influence, and safeguarding Arab security. Yet this narrative concealed the absence of a shared strategic vision.

Saudi Arabia entered the war driven primarily by border security anxieties and regime survival logic. Its objective was to impose a weakened, compliant Yemeni authority incapable of exercising independent sovereignty. The UAE, by contrast, approached Yemen as a long-term geopolitical investment—a gateway to ports, islands, maritime routes, and influence extending from the Red Sea to the Horn of Africa.

What initially appeared as coordination soon gave way to latent rivalry, then to indirect confrontation. The current crisis merely brings into the open what had long been evident beneath the surface.

II. Yemen: Not a Civil War, but a Contested Prize

The Saudi attack on the alleged arms ship cannot be understood as a routine security measure. It is, rather, a symptom of collapsing trust between former partners. Riyadh’s framing of the shipment as a threat implicitly acknowledges that control over weapons, territory, and proxies inside Yemen has slipped beyond Saudi command.

The UAE’s sustained backing of local militias—particularly separatist forces in southern Yemen—has actively contributed to state fragmentation. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, remains trapped in a war of attrition, unable to claim victory yet unwilling to withdraw. Yemen, in this calculus, is neither a nation nor a people, but a divisible geopolitical asset.

III. Competing Regional Projects: Borders versus Ports

At the heart of the Saudi–Emirati rift lies a clash between two distinct regional strategies:
• Saudi Arabia seeks a centralized but weak Yemeni state, functioning as a security buffer along its southern border.
• The UAE favors a decentralized Yemen, dominated through ports, islands, commercial corridors, and loyal militias—particularly in Aden, Socotra, and along the Bab al-Mandab Strait.

Southern Yemen has thus become a focal point of this rivalry, stripping the coalition discourse of any remaining credibility.

IV. Washington and Tel Aviv: Managing Disorder, Not Resolving It

The United States has historically viewed intra-Gulf tensions not as liabilities, but as tools of control. Under Donald Trump’s administration—defined by transactional diplomacy and arms-deal politics—Washington showed little interest in resolving structural conflicts. Its priority was preventing escalation only insofar as it threatened energy markets or Israeli security.

Israel, meanwhile, emerges as the silent beneficiary of Gulf fragmentation. Saudi–Emirati discord enhances:
• Israeli leverage over Red Sea maritime security,
• intelligence cooperation with Gulf states,
• and Israel’s role as a pillar of the anti–Axis of Resistance architecture.

Normalization, in this context, is not peace-making—it is regional reengineering at the expense of popular sovereignty.

🔴V. Yemen and the Axis of Resistance: Strategic Reversal

Ironically, fractures within the aggressor camp have strengthened Yemen’s resistance forces, which—despite siege and devastation—have imposed new deterrence equations. The Saudi–Emirati split exposes:
• the failure of the US-backed Gulf intervention,
• the fragility of alliances grounded in opportunism,
• and the limits of military superiority when confronted by organized popular resistance.

Yemen has shifted from being perceived as the weakest link to becoming a site of systemic exposure for the regional order imposed by Washington and its allies.

VI. Where Is the Crisis Headed?

The Saudi–Emirati rift is not a temporary misunderstanding. It is structural and enduring, even if temporarily managed through American mediation. As long as Yemen remains under indirect occupation, conflict among occupiers is inevitable.

Future trajectories include:
• managed rivalry below open warfare,
• proxy-based escalation,
• or forced strategic retreat driven by battlefield realities favoring the resistance.

In all scenarios, one conclusion is unavoidable: the war on Yemen has failed, and its internal contradictions now pose a greater threat to its architects than to their adversaries.

Conclusion

What is unfolding between Saudi Arabia and the UAE marks the end of an era. The illusion of a cohesive Gulf-led regional order is dissolving, while resistance movements continue to consolidate power and legitimacy. Yemen—once targeted for submission—has become a witness to the collapse of hegemonic fantasies and a pivotal arena in the reconfiguration of regional power.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

• Hadhramout, Yemen’s largest governorate and a critical energy corridor, is emerging as the next arena of Saudi–Emirati competition. Saudi Arabia has been expanding its footprint there precisely as Emirati influence elsewhere is questioned. A power vacuum here could either be filled by Riyadh or destabilized further—both scenarios carry risks.
• Taiz, long neglected and fragmented, may experience renewed contestation as external patrons reposition. Emirati disengagement could weaken certain militias, but without a sovereign Yemeni framework, instability may persist.

In both cases, the absence of a unified Yemeni state—a condition deliberately produced by years of intervention—means that withdrawals do not automatically translate into sovereignty.

What This Means for the Houthis—and for Yemen

For Ansar Allah, the Emirati announcement is a strategic vindication. It confirms what the resistance has argued consistently: that the coalition is fragmenting under pressure, and that steadfastness alters equations.

Yet the Houthis are unlikely to misread the situation. They understand that:
• Emirati influence has not vanished,
• Saudi intentions remain ambiguous,
• and external actors may attempt to freeze, rather than resolve, the conflict.

For Yemen as a whole, the moment is ambiguous but consequential. Reduced foreign military presence may lower immediate tensions, but it also exposes the reality that Yemen’s fate has been negotiated over—not with—its people.

Saudi–Emirati Relations: Beyond Tactical Disputes

This episode will not destroy Saudi–Emirati relations, but it has permanently altered them. What once appeared as a unified Gulf front is now unmistakably a managed rivalry, characterized by:
• diverging threat perceptions,
• competition over influence,
• and conflicting endgames in Yemen.

Coordination will continue where interests align—especially under US mediation—but trust has been eroded.

Conclusion: Withdrawal as Admission

The Emirati withdrawal from Yemen does not signal peace; it signals admission—admission of limits, of failure, and of the impossibility of imposing outcomes by force on a resisting society.

As argued in Part I, Yemen was never merely a battlefield. It was a test of regional order. Today, that order is cracking.

Whether this moment leads to genuine Yemeni sovereignty or merely a rebranding of domination will depend less on Gulf declarations and more on the balance forged by resistance, resilience, and political clarity inside Yemen itself.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Vice President of the Popular Mobilization Forces


The position of Vice President of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) did not disappear from circulation because the need for it ceased to exist, but because invoking it has become an embarrassment.

This embarrassment is neither administrative nor organizational; it is eminently political and ethical. It leads directly to the name of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, to an assassination that occurred on Iraqi soil, and to a political class that consciously decided to turn its back on its obligations rather than confront them.

This position was not a bureaucratic detail or an honorary title. It was a complex role that combined the duties of Chief of Staff, supreme field commander, and the political and military management of the conflict during Iraq's most dangerous modern moment. When army units collapsed, cities fell in succession, and terrorism advanced across more than half of the country’s geography, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was not a "symbolic figurehead." He was the brain and the axis of the war: planning, coordinating, providing, and holding the threads of decision-making from the battlefield to the Parliament and the Government. This weight is what linked the position to his person—not because institutions are built on individuals, but because the state itself was absent, and the vacuum was filled by the one who possessed the competence and the will.

It is true that this position was exceptional, and perhaps indeed, no one was—or is—able to fill it with that same specificity and complex blend of military expertise, political acumen, and regional reach. But this fact, however valid, does not justify what happened later. The absence of a successor does not explain the erasure of the position itself. We are not talking about a technical inability here, but a conscious political decision to cancel the post from the official memory because its permanence opens a file that many do not wish to approach.
More dangerously, this erasure has been accompanied by a deliberate re-engineering of rhetoric. A significant number of politicians prefer to use the expression "Leaders of Victory" instead of clearly mentioning names and titles. This linguistic choice is neither innocent nor spontaneous; it is a vague description, carrying less legal and political cost. It allows for the achievement to be generalized and diluted, avoiding the explicit recognition that an official Iraqi figure of the stature of the Vice President of the PMF was targeted in a direct American assassination on Iraqi soil.

From here, the systematic mitigation of responsibility begins. Since day one, the idea has been promoted that the target was not Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, but General Qasem Soleimani. This is a deliberate disregard for leaks and statements issued from within the U.S. administration itself—most notably the U.S. President’s description of the operation as "two for the price of one." Denying that al-Muhandis was a target is not an error in judgment, but an intentional attempt to transform the crime from an assault on Iraqi sovereignty into an ambiguous regional file, the consequences of which are cast beyond the borders.

In this manner, al-Muhandis's name is forcibly merged with Soleimani's and presented as if he were an escort or a secondary detail, rather than an official Iraqi leader. The result is clear: an evasion of the duty to pursue legal and political accountability for the assassination of an Iraqi citizen and military commander, and the avoidance of any serious confrontation with the United States—which does not hide its disdain for the political class in Baghdad.

Even the Iraqi judicial decision to issue an arrest warrant for Donald Trump was no exception to this path. It was issued to be recorded, not executed, and quickly became ink on paper amidst continued political meetings. The height of political absurdity was reached when the Iraqi Prime Minister nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here, silence is no longer neutrality; it becomes actual participation in emptying justice of its substance.

The conclusion requires no linguistic softening:

The position of Vice President of the PMF was not sidelined simply because its holder is irreplaceable, but because sidelining the position serves a clear objective: burying questions of sovereignty, assassination, and political responsibility.

The ruling class chose to manage memory instead of confronting the truth, preferring safety with foreign powers over acknowledging a crime within its own borders.

This is not a fleeting shortcoming, but a failure that will remain recorded in the political and ethical ledger of the Iraqi state.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Gunboat Diplomacy of the Unipolar Twilight: The Illegal U.S. Aggression Against Venezuela



The early hours of January 3, 2026, mark a definitive fracture in the crumbling facade of the "rules-based international order." Under the direct authorization of Donald Trump, the United States has launched a naked act of military aggression against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This operation—characterized by the U.S. executive as a "large-scale strike"—reportedly involved the illegal abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores by elite Delta Force units.
For the Axis of Resistance and the broader Global South, this is not merely a regional crisis; it is an existential challenge to the principle of Westphalian sovereignty. Washington has once again demonstrated that when its economic blackmail and hybrid warfare fail to crush a defiant nation, it resorts to the primitive logic of the pirate and the colonial administrator.


1. Operational Barbarism: The Delta Force Abduction

The mechanics of the attack reveal a terrifying evolution of the U.S. "regime-change doctrine." Reports from Caracas confirm at least seven major explosions targeting strategic installations, including the Fuerte Tiuna military complex and the La Carlota airbase. However, the core of the mission was not destruction, but the "forced removal" of the head of state.
According to high-level leaks and official boasts from Washington, members of the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment–Delta (Delta Force) conducted a surgical extraction of President Maduro. This act of state-sponsored kidnapping is a direct descendant of the 1989 invasion of Panama and the 2004 removal of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti. By treating a sovereign leader as a "high-value target" in a pseudo-criminal operation, the U.S. seeks to delegitimize the very concept of the Venezuelan state, reducing a nation of 28 million people to a mere "jurisdiction" for American law enforcement.


2. The Imperial Consensus: Bipartisan Complicity

While Trump’s rhetoric is uniquely abrasive, the attack is the fruit of a long-standing bipartisan imperial consensus. The silence and tactical support from Democratic Party leadership underscore a fundamental truth: the U.S. political establishment is unified in its commitment to hegemony.
The Democratic opposition, while occasionally critiquing Trump’s "unilateralism," has historically paved the way through the "Extraordinary Threat" executive orders and the recognition of "parallel" puppet governments. This attack is the logical conclusion of a decades-long policy that views Latin America as a private plantation. There is no "anti-war" wing in the halls of the American Congress; there is only a debate over the most efficient method of subversion.


3. International Reaction: The EU’s Moral Bankruptcy

The response from the European Union has been a masterclass in colonial hypocrisy. While EU officials offer "great concern" and platitudes about "moderation," their refusal to unequivocally condemn the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty speaks volumes. By maintaining a political alignment with Washington’s "regime change" goals, the EU has rendered its rhetoric on international law irrelevant.

In contrast, the regional response highlights a sharpening divide. While U.S. satellites in the region remain paralyzed or supportive, sovereign voices like Cuba and Colombia (under President Gustavo Petro) have denounced the strike as "state terrorism." Petro’s call for an emergency UN Security Council meeting reflects the desperate need for a collective defense against a resurgent Monroe Doctrine.


4. Trump’s Sixth Strike: The Colonial Project Reaffirmed

This aggression marks Donald Trump’s sixth major military or coercive action against a sovereign state since his return to power—a list that includes strikes in Iran, the Sahel, and the ongoing naval blockade of the Caribbean. This is not "isolationism"; it is unfettered colonialism.
Trump’s strategy utilizes the U.S.

military as a tool for "extortion," as described by Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. By framing the attack as a "narcotics" operation, the administration attempts to bypass the laws of war, treating the Caribbean as a "non-international armed conflict" zone where U.S. power is the only law.


5. Multipolarity vs. Unipolarity: The Global Response

The attack on Venezuela is a direct assault on the emerging multipolar world. Russia and China have swiftly condemned the aggression, with Moscow describing it as a triumph of "ideological hostility over pragmatism." For the Axis of Resistance, Venezuela is a frontline state.

Strategically, the U.S. expects that by removing Maduro, it can sever a critical node of the BRICS+ influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, this move is likely to backfire. As Washington burns its remaining bridges of diplomatic credibility, the necessity for a parallel security and financial architecture—one that can withstand U.S. piracy—becomes the primary objective for the global majority.


6. The Death of International Law at the UN

Legally, the U.S. attack is a grotesque violation of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There is no "self-defense" justification (Article 51) for kidnapping a foreign leader on their own soil.
The UN Security Council’s current state of paralysis—rendered impotent by the U.S. veto—demonstrates that the post-1945 institutions are no longer capable of restraining the hegemon. The "cowboy behavior" condemned by Russia and China at the UN is not a glitch; it is the operating system of a dying empire attempting to preserve its unipolar status through raw violence.


Conclusion: Resistance is the Only Path

The illegal attack on Venezuela is a clarion call. It proves that within the current U.S.-led order, no state is sovereign if its resources or ideology conflict with Washington’s interests.

The resistance of the Venezuelan people and the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) is now the vanguard of a global struggle. The Axis of Resistance does not just fight for Caracas; it fights for the right of every nation to exist free from the shadow of the Delta Force and the hangman's noose of U.S. sanctions.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴A- Empire's Plunder: Why Did Washington Target Venezuela?

✏️Dr.Zeinab Mehanna

The recent U.S. military attack on Caracas, which included precision airstrikes on 12 key military sites and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro in a 4-hour special operation, is not merely a traditional "regime change" operation but a blatant declaration of Washington's "imperial plunder" phase to salvage its collapsing economy—which recorded a 2.1% contraction in Q4 2025 per Federal Reserve reports—and secure its technological supremacy in the AI era, where the global AI market is projected at $1.8 trillion by 2030. This aggression, which resulted in 47 deaths and over 200 injuries according to initial UN reports, strikes at the heart of Global South nations and poses a stark challenge to the Axis of Resistance and the "BRICS+" bloc, now comprising 10 countries representing 45% of the world's population and 37% of global GDP.



1. Oil: The Grand Prize and Hungry Corporations:

Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves at 303.3 billion barrels per OPEC's 2025 report, surpassing Saudi Arabia (267 billion) and Iraq (145 billion). For the United States, which imported 3.8 million barrels daily in 2025 while relying on 40% of its strategic reserves, controlling these reserves is not just about energy but imposing "real guarantees" against its sovereign debt exceeding $35.7 trillion in December 2025, or 130% of its GDP.

- Chevron:

The sole U.S. company operating in Venezuela under limited Biden-era licenses imported 120,000–150,000 barrels daily in 2025 from fields like Perijá, contributing $4.2 billion to its revenue. Chevron aims through this attack to regain full control over joint fields with the state oil company (PDVSA), currently producing 800,000 barrels daily, without sovereign restrictions, with plans to ramp up to 2 million barrels daily within 3 years.

- ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips:

These firms seek to reclaim assets nationalized under Hugo Chávez in 2007, including 11 major fields in the Orinoco Belt. They demand compensation and profits over $20.8 billion, including $8.5 billion for Exxon and $7.9 billion for Conoco from international arbitration rulings. The military attack aims to convert these claims into actual ownership of land and fields, with total estimated value up to $100 billion over a decade.


2. Minerals of the Future: Fuel for the AI Arms Race


In a televised address broadcast by PDVSA before his abduction, President Maduro revealed the true target as "gold, gas, and rare earths," with Venezuela producing 32 tons of gold in 2025 alone.

Beyond oil, Venezuela is a global treasure trove of strategic minerals critical to modern industries, boasting reserves of up to 1.2 million tons of coltan per USGS 2024 surveys.

Coltan is essential for manufacturing capacitors in smartphones (used in 80% of devices), drones, and missile systems, with an annual market value of $2.5 billion; thorium (500,000 tons in reserves) serves as a clean nuclear fuel alternative and massive energy source for small reactors powering AI data centers (up to 1 gigawatt per reactor), with projected value of $1.8 billion; gold (5,000 tons extractable reserves) provides monetary backing and is vital for precision conductors in military and space hardware (used in 90% of space chips), boasting a global annual value of $12.4 billion; while lithium (1.5 million tons) and nickel (2.8 million tons) form the backbone of electric vehicle batteries (Tesla uses 10 kg per car) and renewable energy storage systems, valued at $45 billion for lithium alone.

3. Targeting Venezuela as a Direct Threat to Iran

The Caracas aggression—executed by SEAL teams with support from 45 F-35 aircraft and involving 1,200 U.S. special forces troops—cannot be separated from ongoing threats to Tehran, marking a culmination of escalating tensions since the 2019 U.S. "maximum pressure" campaign that imposed $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets. The two nations forged a strategic alliance that shattered the U.S. blockade:

🔴Venezuela shipped 2.1 million barrels of oil to Iran in 2025 via a fleet of 25 sanctioned tankers, while Iran provided $500 million in military aid, including training for 1,500 Venezuelan soldiers on Fateh-110 missiles and delivery of 200 Shahed-136 drones adapted for PDVSA security. Bilateral trade reached $1.2 billion in 2025, bypassing SWIFT through BRICS mechanisms.

- Dangerous Precedent:

By abducting a sovereign state's leader in a raid reminiscent of the 1989 Panama invasion (which killed 3,000), Trump sends a direct threat to Iran's leadership, signaling tolerance for "decapitation strikes." As Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted on January 2, 2026: "If I were Iran's leader, I'd head to the mosque to pray." Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responded on state TV: "Caracas today, Tehran tomorrow—resistance will prevail."

- Next Plot:

Resistance Axis experts, including analysts from the Tehran-based Center for Strategic Studies, view Venezuela as a "testing ground" for a new model of lightning raids (Operation "Southern Thunder," per leaked Pentagon docs), potentially targeting IRGC commanders in Tehran or Quds Force bases.

This follows Trump's Fox News statements on January 1, 2026, pledging support for Iranian internal movements like the 2022 protests (which drew 500,000 participants) and readiness for military force, amid U.S. deployment of 3 carrier strike groups (USS Eisenhower, Truman, and Lincoln) in the Persian Gulf carrying 150 aircraft and 15,000 sailors. Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi warned of "asymmetric retaliation" via proxies in Yemen and Iraq, where Houthis have sunk 12 U.S. vessels since 2023.


4. Entrenching the "Monroe Doctrine" and Challenging BRICS

The attack is a desperate bid to reclaim America's "backyard," where U.S. influence in Latin America fell from 70% in 2010 to 42% in 2025, and to curb China's expansion ($65 billion invested in the region) and Russia's (arms sales of $4.2 billion) alongside Iran. Washington fears Venezuela's formal BRICS+ entry at the 2026 summit, which would remove the world's largest energy reservoir (303 billion barrels) from dollar dominance—a currency that lost 15% against the yuan since 2023.


5. Trump’s Statements: When Language Becomes a Doctrine of Plunder

Understanding the assault on Venezuela is incomplete without pausing at Donald Trump’s public rhetoric, which was never diplomatic but rather a blunt declaration of a doctrine rooted in force and plunder. Unlike traditional U.S. administrations that cloaked their interventions in the language of “values” and “international law,” Trump openly expressed his worldview as one of deals and spoils.

On multiple occasions, Trump directly linked U.S. foreign policy to resource acquisition. In a well-known 2019 speech about Venezuela, he stated:

“Venezuela is very rich… incredibly rich. We’re talking about one of the greatest oil reserves in the world.”

This statement, in Trump’s logic, was not a neutral economic observation but a preemptive political justification for intervention. In this worldview, “resource-rich” countries become legitimate targets if they defy American obedience.

🔴In an even more brazen remark during a 2020 television interview, Trump said:

“We protect a lot of countries. Without us, they wouldn’t have anything. Sometimes you have to get something in return.”

This statement encapsulates the essence of what’s unfolding in Caracas: protection in exchange for plunder—or more precisely, sovereignty traded for oil and minerals.

On the matter of direct military threats, Trump consistently employed the language of “preemptive strikes” and “cutting off the head.” In reference to Iran, he famously declared:

“If they do anything, the response will be swift and harsh.”

This same rhetoric materialized in the attempted kidnapping of President Maduro, turning Venezuela into a live laboratory for Trump’s taboo-breaking policy: stripping sovereign immunity, bypassing the United Nations, and normalizing the idea of abducting heads of state.

More dangerously, Trump never concealed his overt hostility toward international law. He repeatedly described the United Nations as a “useless club” and dismissed international arbitration as “a scam used against America.” Thus, Washington’s disregard for legal accountability following the attack on Venezuela is not an anomaly—it’s a full alignment with Trump’s vision of the world as a jungle, not a system of law.

In other words, the assault on Venezuela was not a misstep or a miscalculation—it was a literal enactment of Trump’s own rhetoric :

The world runs on force, resources are seized, and dissent is punished.

Conclusion: Resistance as the Only Option

What is happening today is "state piracy" under the guise of "defending democracy," with U.S. justifications citing "human rights violations" despite Human Rights Watch reporting a 28% improvement in 2025. Venezuela, with its people's resilience (85% support for Maduro in 2025 polls), army (250,000 active troops), and Global South allies, stands today as the last bulwark against the unipolar power's barbarism—one that lost military prestige to Russia ($500 billion Ukraine losses), trade to China ($900 billion U.S. deficit), and is left with direct plundering of peoples' resources.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Monroe Doctrine: History, Revival, and Contemporary Geopolitics


The Monroe Doctrine remains one of the most enduring and flexible constructs in international relations. Originally established as a defensive framework in the 19th century, it evolved into a symbol of hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and, more recently, a blueprint for managing American decline in a multipolar world.


1. Origins and Historical Context

President James Monroe articulated this doctrine on December 2, 1823, during the post-Napoleonic era when the "Holy Alliance" (Russia, Prussia, and Austria) threatened to restore Spanish colonial rule in newly independent Latin American republics.

* Original Objectives: It established two pillars: non-colonization (no new European colonies in the Americas) and non-intervention (Washington would remain neutral in European wars in exchange for Europe staying out of American affairs).

* Expansionist Evolution: While initially a "shield," by the mid-19th century it transformed into a "sword" for expansion, justifying the Mexican-American War and the displacement of indigenous populations.

* Historical Reinterpretations:

* The Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Theodore Roosevelt asserted "police power" to intervene in Latin American nations to prevent European creditors from doing so, turning the doctrine into a mandate for military intervention.

* The Cold War: It was used to justify the containment of Soviet influence (e.g., the 1954 Guatemalan coup and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis).

* Post-Cold War: Secretary of State John Kerry declared in 2013 that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over," before its recent resurgence.


2. Consequences and Legacy
The doctrine's legacy is defined by a deep tension between protective intent and imperial practice.

* Interventionism: It provided the ideological architecture for over 50 U.S. military interventions in the region, reinforcing "dependency structures" where Latin American economies were integrated as raw material exporters.

* Normative Impact: Historically, the doctrine challenged the Westphalian concept of absolute sovereignty by creating a regional legal system that sometimes superseded international law under the guise of a "special relationship."

3. The Trump Revival: From "Monroe" to "Donroe"

Donald Trump explicitly revived the doctrine to signal a return to "principled realism" and the consolidation of regional influence.

* Context of Revival: Trump first cited it during his 2018 UN General Assembly speech: "It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere."

* The "Trump Corollary": As of late 2025 and early 2026, the administration rebranded it the "Donroe Doctrine." Unlike previous iterations based on ideology, this version is pragmatic and resource-driven.

* Strategic Intent: It serves as a tool for decline management. By relinquishing "global policeman" roles elsewhere, Trump seeks to fortify "Fortress Americas" against Chinese economic penetration and Russian security ties.


4. Alexander Dugin and the "Eurasian Monroe Doctrine"

Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin has long advocated for a "Eurasian Monroe Doctrine" as a cornerstone of his Neo-Eurasianist ideology.

* Logic: Dugin argues that if the U.S. claims the Western Hemisphere, Russia must claim "Great Eurasia" as its exclusive civilizational sphere.

* Multipolarity: This vision is not for global hegemony but for a "world of many Monroes," replacing universalism with regional spheres led by dominant powers.

* Comparison: While the U.S. version historically claimed to spread republicanism, Dugin’s version is rooted in "civilizational values" and the rejection of liberal democracy as a universal norm.


5. Implications for Europe and the EU

The rise of competing "Monroe-style" doctrines poses a structural threat to European "Strategic Autonomy."

* Strategic Decoupling: As the U.S.

🔴prioritizes its own hemisphere, the EU is forced to choose between being a junior partner in an American-led Atlanticist bloc or developing independent military capabilities.

* Eastern Europe: This region becomes a "shatter zone" where Russian and Western spheres overlap, leading to constant instability and a return to "buffer state" politics.


6. Latin America and Future U.S. Policy

Events in 2025–2026 indicate that the active re-application of the doctrine under Trump is now a reality.

* Targeting China: The focus has shifted from "anti-communism" to "anti-Chinese infrastructure," with Washington using the doctrine to block "Belt and Road" projects.

* Military Dimensions: U.S. movements in early 2026 suggest a readiness to use force to "clear" the Western Hemisphere of external influence.


7. Theoretical and Normative Assessment

The re-normalization of Monroe doctrines signals a retreat from a rules-based international order toward a neo-mercantilist imperial system. Multipolarity is not resulting in a "global village," but in a world fragmented into fortified spheres of influence, undermining the sovereignty of small states in the "near abroad" of great powers.
Extension to the Arab and Islamic World: The "Eisenhower Doctrine"
Although the Monroe Doctrine was geographically designed for the Americas, its "geopolitical logic" (enforcing exclusive spheres and barring foreign powers) migrated to the Middle East in the mid-20th century.

* The Eisenhower Doctrine (1957) as a "Middle Eastern Monroe Doctrine": Following the 1956 Suez Crisis, President Dwight Eisenhower declared the U.S. would use military force to aid any Middle Eastern state requesting help against "communist aggression." This was a clone of the Monroe Doctrine; Washington sought to fill the "vacuum" left by British and French colonialism.

* Application to Muslim Peoples: This logic justified interventions in Muslim-majority states under the pretext of protecting regional sovereignty while securing oil flow and supporting allied regimes (e.g., Lebanon in 1958).

* The Carter Doctrine and Gulf Security: In 1980, Jimmy Carter expanded this, declaring any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf as an "attack on the vital interests of the United States." Analysts view this as an "Oil Monroe Doctrine."

* Impact on Sovereignty: Like in Latin America, this led to the marginalization of national sovereignty and turned the region into an arena for Great Power competition, fueling resistance movements that rejected American tutelage.


Conclusion

The logical conclusion of this analysis is that the return of "Monroe Doctrines"—whether "Donroe" in Washington or "Eurasian" in Moscow—heralds the end of liberal globalization and the beginning of an era of "Geopolitical Feudalism."

In this new system, superiority is no longer measured by the ability to impose universal values, but by the ability to draw clear geographical boundaries and prevent rivals from crossing them. For the Arab and Islamic world, this logic means the region will remain a hostage to the struggle over "vital spheres." The future of international stability depends on the ability of emerging powers in Latin America and the Middle East to break this "Monroe Cordon" and seek a true multipolar system based on sovereign balance rather than imperial protectorates.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴This editorial describes the U.S. military operation in Caracas on January 3, 2026, the failure of Venezuela’s Russian-made air defenses, and Dmitry Medvedev’s declaration that only nuclear weapons can guarantee sovereignty. Its origin is linked to reports in outlets such as Military Watch Magazine, AtlasPress, and Afghan Voice Agency (AVA), which covered Medvedev’s reaction to the alleged U.S. operation in Venezuela .



🔹 “Medvedev’s Summary”

How 150 minutes over Caracas humiliated military physics and ignited the Second Nuclear Age.

At 02:01 a.m. on January 3, 2026, a thermal cutting tool (3000°C) began penetrating the fortified chamber of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

• Russian S-300VM radars 1400 miles away were silent.
• 4000 miles away, Dmitry Medvedev (Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council) wrote the phrase that would define the next decade:
“The only reliable guarantee for protecting any state is a nuclear arsenal! Long live nuclear weapons!”


This was not just anger—it was an official admission of the collapse of “conventional deterrence.” Russia told the world: “Our conventional weapons cannot protect you from America. Only the bomb can.”



1️⃣ Kinetic Reality – Operational Perfection

• CIA infiltration: They knew Maduro’s guards’ schedules, his movement corridors, even his pets. A spy guided forces moment by moment.
• Air fleet: 150 aircraft from 20 bases.• F-22 Raptors cleared the skies, invisible to S-300VM radars.
• F-35 Lightning II acted as “God’s Eye,” linking all sensors.
• EA-18G Growlers created a “noise wall,” blinding Venezuelan radars.

• Result: 150 minutes to end a regime, with zero U.S. losses.




2️⃣ Cyber-Kinetic Fusion – Turning Off the Lights

• Trump said: “We turned off Caracas’ lights.”
• Method: Cyberattack on SCADA systems at the Guri Dam (70% of Venezuela’s electricity).
• Effect: Darkness blinded MANPADS operators, while U.S. “Night Stalkers” helicopters flew at 100 feet.
• Message: Future wars begin with blackouts, not bombs.




3️⃣ Physics of Failure – Why S-300 Fell

• Venezuela invested $2B in Russian air defenses (S-300VM, Buk-M2E). Result: zero interceptions.
• Stealth reduced radar detection range from 200 km to 20 km.
• Electronic warfare forced operators into a dilemma: turn radars on and be destroyed, or stay blind. They chose blindness.
• Impact on Russia: Global arms buyers (India, China, Turkey, Algeria) shocked. “Stealth killer” weapons failed their first real test.




4️⃣ Medvedev Doctrine – Inevitable Nuclear Proliferation

• Medvedev’s statement was the logical outcome.
• If U.S. tech can penetrate any conventional defense and arrest any leader, sovereignty is an illusion for non-nuclear states.
• New equation:• Nuclear states = immune (e.g., North Korea).
• Non-nuclear states = targets (e.g., Venezuela).

• Impact: Threshold states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Korea) will rush to the bomb. The NPT died in Caracas.




🔴 Strategic Conclusion

Operation Absolute Resolve was not just an arrest—it was a demonstration of Full Spectrum Dominance.
America declared: “No bunker is deep enough, no radar strong enough to protect you.”
Russia replied: “Get nuclear weapons or face annihilation.”
We are entering an era where survival belongs to the nuclear-armed, sovereignty to those with the button of mass destruction.



🌕 Origin on the Net

The narrative is based on real statements by Dmitry Medvedev after the alleged U.S. operation in Venezuela. He explicitly said that “only nuclear weapons guarantee sovereignty” following Maduro’s reported abduction avapress.com +2.

• Military Watch Magazine – Reported Medvedev’s warning that only nuclear arsenals provide sufficient security.
• AtlasPress News – Covered Medvedev’s condemnation of the U.S. operation and claim that Maduro was kidnapped.
• Afghan Voice Agency (AVA) – Quoted Medvedev saying nuclear deterrence is the only guarantee of sovereignty.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Geopolitics | Iran Protests 2026

⚠️ Asymmetric Warfare & Internal Fissures

🔴Iran’s 2026 protests are not just about inflation or the collapsing rial. They unfold within a geopolitical siege:

• 💰 Economic War: Rial at 1.4M per USD, inflation >50%, oil revenues cut to 16%.

• 🚨 Military Pressure: Post–“12-Day War,” dissent treated as existential threat.

• 👍 Kurdish Dimension: Real grievances in Kermanshah, Sanandaj, Mahabad—instrumentalized by Komala & PJAK.

• 📺 Media Narratives: Western framing hides cyber ops, assassinations, and blockade tactics.


📌Bottom Line:
The protests are a contested political space, where genuine suffering is weaponized to weaken Iran’s deterrence and regional ties.

#IranProtests #Geopolitics #AsymmetricWarfare #MiddleEast #ResistanceAxis #EconomicWar #HybridWar

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

We will not tolerate foreign subservience.
Whoever you may be—when you become an agent of foreigners and work for them—the people reject you, and likewise the Islamic system rejects you.

And that one who sits arrogantly, issuing judgments on the whole world, must know that the tyrants and the arrogant throughout history—such as Pharaoh, Nimrod, Reza Khan, Mohammad Reza, and their likes—fell at the height of their pride. This one too will fall.

🔴 Excerpts from the wise Leader’s remarks in his meeting with the honorable people of Qom (anniversary of the January 9, 1987 uprising).

🔴There are those whose mission is destruction.
Last night, a group of saboteurs completely destroyed buildings belonging to their own country to please the American president.

🌕The American president made an irrelevant statement, claiming he stands with the rioters. If it were up to him, he would rule his own country.

🌕Trump’s hands are stained with the blood of more than a thousand Iranians.

🤲This person (Trump) said: I ordered the attack on Iran.

👌Everyone must know that the Islamic Republic came to power through the blood of hundreds of thousands of honorable people, and it will not retreat in the face of saboteurs.

📄Dear youth! Maintain your readiness and unity; a united nation overcomes every enemy.

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Title: The Maritime Noose: Investigating the UAE-Israeli Military Enclave on Samha Island


🔽Category: Geopolitical Analysis / Military Intelligence

💳Countries: Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Somalia, Eritrea

👍Organizations: Axis of Resistance, Southern Transitional Council (STC), Mossad, EDGE Group


🤔While global attention is fixed on direct naval confrontations in the Red Sea, a more subtle and dangerous architecture of occupation is solidifying in the shadow of Yemen’s Socotra Archipelago. Recent satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies (October 2025) has exposed a "secret" Emirati military airstrip on Samha Island. This development is not a localized infrastructure project; it is a critical node in a "maritime noose" designed to decouple Yemen’s strategic islands from its mainland and integrate them into a foreign-controlled intelligence grid.


⚪️Strategic Shift: Control of Vital Corridors

🔴This base signals a fundamental change in the pattern of regional dominance. Instead of traditional territorial conquest, the focus has shifted to the "Control of Vital Strategic Corridors." This strategy aims to weaken the retaliatory capabilities of regional states, stripping them of the power to punish Israel for its massacres or aggressions. Since the beginning of the Yemen conflict, the UAE has notably avoided the struggle for the central state, focusing instead on seizing ports and islands. This approach has served Abu Dhabi’s economic and political interests while simultaneously creating an ideal environment for Israeli freedom of movement in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea—a necessity for the Zionist entity after being severely disrupted by Yemeni deterrence operations.


⚪️Technical Analysis: A Base for Shadow Operations

🫶The Samha airstrip, measuring 1 kilometer by 35 meters, is perfectly tailored for Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) UAVs like the Chinese Wing Loong II and the Israeli Hermes 900. Unlike traditional airports, Samha is designed for "ghost operations"—persistent surveillance providing a 24/7 digital eye over critical shipping lanes.


⚪️The Electronic Eye: Surveillance and Espionage

✌The island has been transformed into an advanced "listening post" equipped with cutting-edge Israeli technology:

👌 Radar Systems: Deployment includes ELM-2084 AESA radars—the technology behind the "Iron Dome"—capable of tracking 1,000+ targets simultaneously up to 470 km.

👌 Electronic Intelligence: The UAE’s SIGN4L (EDGE Group) has integrated SIGINT suites to provide the Mossad with a "Southern Eye" for monitoring naval movements and regional resistance activities.

👌 Coastal Sensors: Under-sea sensor arrays and thermal imaging track small-boat movements and submersible drones used by resistance forces.


⚪️The "Two Coasts" Strategy and Stripped Sovereignty

🫶The Samha base works in tandem with UAE hubs in the Horn of Africa (Assab and Berbera) to create an "asymmetric encirclement" of the Bab al-Mandab Strait. This results in the creation of weak states with fragmented sovereignty, where critical infrastructure is managed by a "UAE-Israeli network" or private companies serving Western-Israeli interests. In this model, the UAE acts as the executor, allowing Israel to control the region from the "Nile to the Euphrates" at a minimal cost. This infrastructure allows Israel to launch airstrikes, carry out assassinations, and commit massacres without real accountability.


⚪️Asymmetric Response: Yemeni Counter-Measures

🔻The Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) are not passive observers of this buildup. To counter these "ghost bases," the YAF and the Axis of Resistance have developed a multi-layered asymmetric doctrine.

🌕 Saturation Strikes: Utilizing low-cost loitering munitions (kamikaze drones) like the Samad-3 and Wa'id series, the YAF can overwhelm the ELM-2084 radar systems through sheer volume, targeting fuel depots and drone hangars on Samha.

🌕 Submersible Threat: The deployment of Al-Qaria Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) allows for the targeting of sub-sea sensor arrays and Emirati supply vessels that service these remote outposts, bypassing surface-level radar detection.

🌕 Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs): By utilizing long-range precision missiles such as the Aasif or Tankil, the YAF can establish a "fire control" zone over the archipelago, effectively blockading the occupiers' own base and preventing the safe landing of military transport aircraft.

🌕 Electronic Warfare (EW): Developing localized jamming capabilities to disrupt the SIGINT links between Samha and Israeli command centers, blinding the "Southern Eye" during critical regional escalations.


📌Resistance Conclusion: A Legitimate Target for Liberation

🔻From the perspective of the Axis of Resistance, the transformation of Samha into a Zionist-linked enclave is an act of war. These "ghost bases" are direct extensions of the Zionist military apparatus. By providing Israel a platform to strike or spy on the region, the UAE has forfeited any claim to "neutrality." Consequently, the Yemeni Armed Forces regard these installations as legitimate military targets. The liberation of the Socotra Archipelago is now inextricably linked to the liberation of Al-Quds, as both represent the struggle against a singular web of colonial encroachment.


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

Local officials, however, pushed back. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey demanded ICE withdraw from the city, while Governor Tim Walz mobilized the National Guard to manage protests. State prosecutors urged citizens to submit evidence, fearing federal suppression of facts. Minneapolis Public Schools even canceled classes due to safety concerns amid mass mobilizations.



6. Trump’s Focus on Iranian Demonstrations Instead of Domestic Unrest

While domestic protests escalated, President Trump publicly emphasized Iranian demonstrations abroad, portraying them as democratic uprisings against Tehran. His administration amplified these narratives through official statements and social media, contrasting sharply with its dismissive stance toward domestic unrest.

This selective focus reveals political incentives: foreign demonstrations serve U.S. geopolitical strategy, while domestic protests challenge federal legitimacy. For international audiences, particularly within the axis of resistance, this hypocrisy underscores Washington’s double standards in championing “freedom” abroad while suppressing dissent at home.



7. BORTAC Involvement and Legal Questions

The Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), a specialized arm of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is trained for counterterrorism and high-risk operations. Though originally designed for border missions, BORTAC has been deployed domestically, including during the Portland protests of 2020.

Its involvement in Minneapolis raises legal and civil liberties concerns. While DHS regulations permit federal tactical deployments, critics argue such actions blur the line between law enforcement and military occupation, potentially violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The use of BORTAC against civilian demonstrators highlights the militarization of immigration enforcement and suppression of lawful protest.



8. Conclusion and Evidence Base

The killing of Renee Nicole Good has become a catalyst for nationwide demonstrations, exposing deep fractures in U.S. governance and public trust. Her death, disputed narratives, and the federal government’s heavy-handed response have galvanized communities demanding accountability and justice.

The Trump administration’s dismissal of domestic unrest, contrasted with its focus on Iranian protests, illustrates the political manipulation of dissent. Meanwhile, the deploymentl
of tactical units like BORTAC raises urgent questions about legality, civil liberties, and the militarization of immigration enforcement.

For international audiences and those aligned with the axis of resistance, these events reveal the contradictions of U.S. democracy: a state that claims to defend freedom abroad while silencing it at home


🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5