There Is a Moral Lesson in All of This

Anyone who speaks about these people as though they were inferior people, as though theirs were an inferior civilization, is an idiot. An absolute idiot, if he truly believes what he is saying. Then you do not know enough history. You do not understand enough geography, and you do not know the history of empires well enough to face the truth. Instead, you are simply lying straight to these people's faces. It is time for us to leave. It is time for us to be driven out of Southwest Asia. What have we actually done there? Almost every day, we have helped corrupt rulers and enabled them to rule over their populations, siphon off an enormous share of their country's wealth, and corrupt themselves ever further — sometimes to an obscene degree. We allowed that to happen. We made it possible. The American empire has stood behind this kind of malign governance in Southwest Asia, and particularly in the Arab countries. Condoleezza Rice was right when she gave her speech in Cairo and said, “It is time for change.” Dick Cheney did not like that at all, but she said it nonetheless. I do not know what has happened to her since then. Her name was even on a Chevron oil tanker. These days, she almost seems to have become a little Cheney herself.

American Support for Saudi Arabia

Nima Alkorshid: Colonel, they are trying to help Saudi Arabia in two areas. On the one hand with air defense, and on the other with Saudi Arabia's military capabilities. The United States is supplying fighter aircraft and ammunition.

Wilkerson: And they are also providing intelligence, just as they did before. We tell them where the targets are, who is where, where troop concentrations are, and so forth. As I understand it, the Saudis are mainly using their long-range F-15s. They are also receiving maximum-range munitions. In effect, that gives you something that functions almost like a glide bomb, with a range of about 55 to 57 kilometers, perhaps even 60 kilometers. What the Saudis used to do — and I suspect they are doing the same thing now, because they have not become much braver in the meantime — was fly at very high altitude to avoid being shot down. They would then release their munitions from such a great distance and altitude that they sometimes reached their theoretical maximum range and thereafter fell from the sky almost like an ordinary unguided bomb because the target was simply too far away. I believe that is roughly what happened with that school bus in which dozens of children and their teachers were killed. We seem to have become particularly good at killing children and teachers and blowing up schools and school buses. The Saudis would scarcely know how to define a war crime. Do not forget: these are the same people who cut Jamal Khashoggi into pieces.

Drones, Missiles and a New Form of Warfare

Nima Alkorshid: In one of the videos Ansar Allah released today, you can see how accurately they strike the Saudi-backed forces. Take a look at these images, Colonel. Look at the target and at the vehicles.

Wilkerson: This is the new warfare: drones and ballistic missiles. Their capabilities and the accuracy with which they strike targets are remarkable. One of the main reasons they are so successful is that they strike as soon as they discover that enemy troops are gathering — for example around a headquarters or at another location where larger numbers of personnel are assembling. Then they hit them hard. I do not know this as a fact, and I want to emphasize that, but I have to consider the possibility that satellite information is being shared, possibly through Iran and perhaps originating from China. These people are also extraordinarily resourceful. They do remarkable things. So it is also possible that they themselves have found a way to gain access to existing satellite links. 

By that I obviously do not mean that they have launched satellites themselves, but perhaps they have learned how to make use of other people's connections. It would not surprise me, however, if some form of information-sharing exists. I have been listening to Xi Jinping for quite some time, certainly since that recent meeting that almost had the character of a summit. I think he has made a decision. First: in his view, they have gone mad in Washington. Second: he cannot afford to do nothing about that madness. And by “accommodate” I do not mean that he is trying to satisfy Washington. I mean that he will have to challenge that madness and take measures to prevent it from penetrating areas that will ultimately be harmful to China — insofar as that has not already happened. I therefore think Xi will henceforth be a particularly difficult adversary. Perhaps what he has seen in Trump has led him to conclude that there is no hope of a workable relationship. He therefore appears to have decided to support those who are capable of truly teaching the empire a lesson.Could the War in Yemen Become Regional?

Nima Alkorshid: Do you think, Colonel, that the United States or other countries might at some point become involved in Yemen with ground troops? Just look at the terrain.

Wilkerson: Let me make one point first. I think this conflict will become regional. I have said that from the beginning. Perhaps it will ultimately even become global. That is what we are playing with here. We may be seeing the opening shots of a much larger war. Donald Trump started it, and he is going to regret it deeply — at least, if Donald Trump is capable of regretting anything at all. Sometimes I doubt that.

Nima Alkorshid: Look at the terrain of Yemen.

Wilkerson: These are essentially mountain people. It is incredible terrain. They come from the mountains in the north. In a sense, they resemble the Afghans of the Hindu Kush. It evokes the attitude: “Come into my mountains, British soldier. I will wait for you at the mountain pass with my rifle. You may bring your Gatling guns, long-range rifles and all your other weapons; I will be waiting for you at the pass.” They are that kind of people. They are hard. They are extraordinarily tough. People who live in such mountains often are. Think, for example, of the Basques in Spain. Merely carrying a rifle and other equipment through terrain like that is incredibly difficult. It is almost reminiscent of the campaigns on the islands of the southwestern Pacific during the Second World War. When you see those mountains, you understand why armies had to transport artillery and supplies by mule. People asked: why do they need mules? Well, that is why. You cannot get a truck up there. You can barely get a jeep up there.Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey

Nima Alkorshid: Yesterday there was a meeting between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey. They discussed sending weapons and military personnel to Saudi Arabia. It has not been confirmed whether troops will actually be sent. Do you think they will send military personnel to Yemen?

Wilkerson: Perhaps they will send a symbolic unit. But I do not think they will commit themselves on a large scale on the ground to defend Mohammed bin Salman and Saudi Arabia. I simply do not believe anyone is going to do that. The French and the British can beat their chests and say they will send this or that. Other Europeans can do the same. But as Douglas Macgregor constantly points out: the European NATO countries — leaving Turkey aside — would scarcely be capable of fielding a full operational division. And how would they even get those troops there? Are they going to use our ships and aircraft for that? The idea that Europeans, Pakistanis, Turks or others would become involved in this conflict on a large scale makes little military sense. Unless, of course, you are thinking about Israel. Then it becomes a different story.

Are the Troop Movements Actually Directed Against Israel?

If you move and maneuver forces to get them into certain positions, you may not be doing so to fight the Houthis at all. Perhaps you are ultimately positioning them so that they can act against Israel. I think this may be the real meaning of this rapprochement and of the so-called defense pact. Perhaps it is not directed against Iran. Perhaps it is directed against Israel. Think, for example, of what happened when Qatar became isolated and ran into problems with the other Gulf states. Turkey actually sent military personnel to Qatar at that time. In doing so, Ankara made clear to the other countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council that it was prepared to deploy troops on the ground to protect Qatar. 

Perhaps we are now seeing something similar. Perhaps troops are being repositioned so that they are available for other possible operations. Think, for example, of Iraq and what that country might potentially do if it received support from Pakistan and Turkey. Geographically, Iraq lies on Israel's flank and from that position might potentially undertake something against Israel. I find it difficult to believe that these countries genuinely intend to sacrifice their military personnel to defend Mohammed bin Salman. But I can believe that they are positioning forces with a possible future conflict with Israel in mind. And that brings us back to the same danger: the regionalization and ultimately perhaps even the globalization of this conflict.

Ukraine and the Danger of a Global Conflict

Add Ukraine to that, and the danger that this conflict too will become further regionalized or even globalized. Putin is now talking about what Russia might do if Norway and other countries continue to intercept or seize Russian ships. And if Kaliningrad were genuinely threatened and troops were actually sent there with the intention of taking the territory, then we would have a global conflict. We would have tensions in the south. We would have them in the center. And why should we not then say that we have them in the Arctic as well? Because there too we are currently creating all kinds of new problems.

The United States, Yemen and the Red Sea

Nima Alkorshid: Larry, there was some kind of agreement between the United States and Yemen. Perhaps it was not formally written down, but there was at least an understanding. Donald Trump himself referred to it when he decided to withdraw from military operations in the Red Sea. You probably remember that. That happened in 2025. Now attacks on Yemen are taking place again, and American tanker aircraft are reportedly supporting Saudi Arabia in operations against Yemen. How does that change the situation around Bab al-Mandab? Could Ansar Allah and the other forces therefore change their policy and once again attack European or American ships — for example cargo vessels carrying goods for the United States or Europe?

Wilkerson: They could. But I think the Houthis are wise enough to understand an important strategic principle: the principle of limiting the number of enemies. A country — or in this case a movement — never wants to have more enemies than it can handle at the same time. That is a sound principle, and I think they understand it. Perhaps they have never read an academic work on international relations, but they understand the principle very well: at no point do you want to create more enemies than are strictly necessary. At the same time, they have demonstrated in the past that they can conduct such operations very selectively. In earlier attacks, their criterion seemed to be roughly: does this ship support Israel? Their argument, after all, was that by doing so they were defending the Palestinians. In fact, apart from Iran, they were virtually the only regional power that actually took military action on that basis. If they once again limit their actions in that way, I think they can retain political support, or at least understanding, in much of the world. And militarily, they can probably manage it as well. They have demonstrated that before. When we tried to prevent them from doing so, they showed that they were capable of it.