U.S.A.: REPETITION COMPULSION
The US-UK attack on Yemen shows once again how the United States is irremediably a prisoner of itself, or better yet of the self-image it has always projected onto the world. There is, in this absolutely stupid move, yet another reverberation of the presumption of being the gendarme of the world, the superior body responsible for maintaining the elusive "international order based on rules" - which nothing else is if not a non-existent puppet, a cover that Washington adapts from time to time to justify its actions in its own exclusive interest.
That these alleged ordering 'rules' of the world are nothing other than the hegemonic interest of the United States, and in a broader sense of the West, is very clear to the vast majority of the planet, and certainly not from today, but a series of geopolitical changes that have occurred in recent times - one above all, the war in Ukraine - they have shown that this 'Stars & Stripes order' can be challenged, it is no longer something to which it is necessary to submit, even obtortually.
These changes have made what was known more visible, starting from the fact - precisely - that this alleged "rules-based international order" is not only a mere American invention, an empty container to which the USA from time to time gives the meaning that they want, but which is actually in clear contrast with the only international order to which one can legitimately refer, i.e. the one outlined in international treaties and in the United Nations Charter - despite all its limits. And in fact the Anglo-American attack took place not only without any UN mandate, but in clear violation of its rules.
But the illicit nature of the military action is, in some ways, the least relevant aspect, since - as was said at the beginning - it is a foolish move, completely devoid of any effectiveness; indeed, capable of having exactly the opposite effect to that declared.
If, in fact, the blockade imposed by the Houthis on the Strait of Bab al-Mandeeb, although relating exclusively to ships headed to Israel or connected to it, has nevertheless led to a massive shift in trade routes, regardless of destination, it is completely clear that determining even a state of war means magnifying the threat to the maximum, and pushing maritime traffic even further to choose alternative routes.
Moreover, the micro-coalition set up by Washington knows perfectly well that, unless it ventures into a crazy land invasion of Yemen, it is absolutely unable to defeat the Houthis, but only to inflame the region even more. And this impossibility does not simply derive from the fact that the power of Iran is behind it, nor even from the awareness that the Houthis have a very powerful missile arsenal, but from the simple historical observation: since 2015, Yemen has been at war with the 6 countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia, supported by Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and Pakistan - as well as obviously by the USA. And this powerful coalition failed to defeat the Yemeni Ansarullah government, supported by Tehran, but almost came to defeat by it. Only Chinese mediation, which put an end to the historic clash between Iran and Arabia, led to the ceasefire.
Therefore Washington and London know very well that a few salvos of missiles will absolutely not help to subdue the Houthis.
Furthermore, even regardless of the risk of widening the conflict, with potentially devastating repercussions for the West, the small Anglo-American naval team must deal with a practical problem, namely its inadequacy to sustain a prolonged clash - which is the gigantic problem of the entire NATOstan. The entire structure of the Western military instrument, in fact, is calibrated not only on asymmetric wars, but on the possibility of 'resolving' them quickly, thanks to the overwhelming power of a first strike. When this possibility does not exist, the system enters into crisis.
First of all, to stay in the specific war quadrant, both the US and British navies are quite 'old', and above all suffer from a very large deficit, that of the lack of an adequate number of supply ships. Even though the USA has numerous bases in the Middle Eastern area, supplying the naval team with ammunition is a complicated operation; artillery shells and missiles should be loaded onto aircraft capable of landing on an aircraft carrier, and then transferred from there to other ships. Or, simply, at some point the team should move away to refuel in a friendly port.
Bearing in mind that the Yemenis could launch waves of attacks using $5,000 drones, to shoot down which the ships would have to use $1,000,000 missiles...
Why, then, did the USA and UK carry out an attack full of contraindications?
It will not favor the recovery of maritime traffic, if anything the opposite.
It will not stop Yemeni action in support of Palestine.
It will expose US bases in MO, and the fleet itself, to increased attacks by the Islamic Resistance.
It will make America's arrogance towards the United Nations and the rules of international law more evident.
It will fuel a possible escalation of the conflict, with the risk of it becoming regional if not even larger.
It will downplay the action of the United States itself to avoid the conflict from spreading, showing its political duplicity (with the 'poor' Blinken forced to support the unlikely thesis that bombing Yemen is not an escalation but its opposite...).
The answer to the question is sadly as easy as it is obvious: repetition compulsion. The USA is aware of having lost its main instrument of domination, the capacity for deterrence (which is summarized in being able to use the instrument of war above all as a threat), and is desperately trying to restore it, repeating a consolidated pattern of action, indifferent to the fact that geopolitical changes have made it obsolete and ineffective.
The compulsion to repeat, the attempt to achieve a victory by repeating the same moves over and over again, is merely a symptom of the American empire's inability to deal with the changes that have occurred in the global geopolitical framework. His inadequacy to understand and deal with it is the cause and effect of his refusal to accept change. Just as frighteningly sloppy leadership is, at the same time, the product of imperial decline and the cause that accelerates the decline itself. All this makes it increasingly inevitable, but at the same time multiplies the risk that the search for a definitive Armageddon will ultimately prevail.
π₯π₯π₯ follow me on πππ₯ππ π«ππ¦!