US-British statements show floundering in front of the warnings of Sanaa

With Sana’a’s announcement of the arrival of a number of fuel ships to the port of Hodeidah, following President Al-Mashat’s warnings to the countries of aggression and the mercenary government’s admission of seizing the ships, the international sponsors of the aggression found themselves in an embarrassing situation and tried to cover it up with confusion, revealing their direct responsibility for the criminal siege imposed on the country. It also showed Sanaa’s firm and clear position on the armistice.

The announcement of the arrival of a number of seized ships, which amounted to 13 ships, represented an embarrassing slap to the coalition of aggression and its international administration, especially as it came after strong-worded warnings issued by the President of the Republic, in which he stressed that the armistice may end if the ships continued to be detained, which clearly showed that the forces of aggression live a difficult dilemma between its insistence on adhering to the blockade and the use of fuel ships as a blackmail card, and its concern about the end of the truce, the return of escalation, and the resumption of Yemeni deterrence operations.

With the arrival of the ships, it became clear that Sanaa’s political and military position had cut off the path of blackmail in front of the forces of aggression, making them fear the response of Sana’a to their intransigence.

In fact, the forces of aggression had begun to embarrass themselves before the arrival of the ships when they pushed the mercenary government to announce “allowing an exceptional number of ships to enter,” ignoring previous statements that denied the existence of any restrictions preventing the entry of ships to Hodeidah, which represented a resounding scandal that clearly revealed the extent of the confusion and bankruptcy the coalition of aggression is living, and confirmed that the entry of the ships came by an American-British decision, in which the mercenary government had no right in other than their role in the media, and even that role was shameful given the blatant contradiction in the statements.

This was also confirmed by the American and British ambassadors to the mercenaries, who tried to patch up the situation with simultaneous statements that made matters worse, as they rushed confusedly to express their thanks to the so-called “Presidential Council” for allowing the entry of fuel ships into Hodeidah, to be an additional confirmation that they are the ones in charge of preventing the entry of ship into Hodeidah during the last period, and used it as a negotiating card in the framework of the armistice.

The two ambassadors ignored the fact that numerous investigations, reports, and even statements and messages from the US Congress had previously confirmed that the procedures for detaining ships and preventing them from reaching the port of Hodeidah are directly imposed by the warships of the coalition of aggression and its sponsors, and the mercenary government has no decision whatsoever.

Thus, the result was that the ambassadors’ statements clearly confirmed that the United States and Britain were still using fuel ships as blackmail cards, but they failed this time, and were forced to bear their failure to the mercenary government and turn it into a positive step to patch up the scandal.

On the other hand, the two ambassadors tried to blame the delay in the arrival of ships on Sanaa, accusing it of preventing suppliers from following a (new) mechanism that was established in coordination with the United Nations, which represented another recognition of managing the siege process and subjecting humanitarian entitlements to political and military desires and interests; Because the accepted mechanism for entering fuel ships is to inspect them by the United Nations and then allow them to enter the port of Hodeidah, but the forces of aggression want to impose additional restrictions arbitrarily to tighten the siege measures and deprive Yemenis of benefiting from the armistice opportunity.

In fact, the talk of the American and British ambassadors about a “new mechanism” represents a clear acknowledgment that the United States and the United Kingdom are insisting on controlling the entry of ships even with a clear agreement to the contrary, which simply means sticking to the continuation of the blockade.

In this context, Ali Al-Qahoum, a member of Ansar Allah’s Political Bureau, explained that the statements of the British and American ambassadors “confirm that the decision of the siege and aggression and the continuation of aggressive behavior towards the Yemeni people is an American-British decision, and that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are just tools for implementing colonial projects.”

As for the attempt to accuse Sana’a of delaying the entry of ships, it is a flagrant fallacy that highlights the extent of the confusion reached by the coalition of aggression and its sponsors and their inability to even create justifications for the siege. This is because the detained ships are obtaining entry permits from the United Nations, which clearly ends any discussion on this issue, and makes talking about any other “mechanisms” a mere clear deception of public opinion.

This US-British evasiveness clearly indicates that the actual administration of the coalition of aggression does not yet have any intentions to progress in the armistice, but shows a tendency towards the continuation of the siege. The stability of Sana’a’s negotiating and military position, on the one hand, proves that the coalition of aggression and its sponsors are directly responsible for the siege, and there are no longer “excuses” that can be used to circumvent this fact. Also, Sana’a made it clear that the cost of wanting to continue intransigence has become great, heavy and terrifying for the forces of aggression.

In sum, Sana’a has been able to impose the effects of its main equation of war and peace, and the enemy’s intransigence with regard to fuel ships has recently broken only a small aspect of a new reality in which the forces of aggression do not have the “freedom of intransigence”, and the statements of the American and British ambassadors clearly indicate an attempt to evade peace, but to no avail.