Jan 12, 2015

Ever since Sanaa fell into the hands of the Houthis on Sept. 21, 2014, Iranian officials have been rejoicing with their new victory in Yemen, which they consider a new land to spread their influence. The most popular statement was made by the Tehran city representative in the Iranian parliament, Alireza Zakani, who said that Sanaa was the fourth Arab capital to fall into the hands of Iran after Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad. But, how feasible is it to compare the rampant chaos in Yemen and the absence of the state in Sanaa to the situation in Beirut, Damascus and Baghdad?

Iranians are very wrong to believe that the delicate situation in Yemen ended with the Houthis’ control of the capital. In Beirut, Iran has extensive influence held by Hezbollah, which is playing its political role as part of a specific and clear process divided among different parties. In Syria, the sectarian dimension of the regime has only just appeared. In the past, this dimension was marginal in a regime leaning more to nationalistic dictatorships, such as the Baath Party in Iraq. In Iraq itself, the situation is also different. A sectarian regime was established there and favored Shiites after the US invasion in 2003. However, in Yemen, things are completely different, since there is no state and the real power of the president and government is almost totally absent.

The Houthis, who did not abide by the Peace and Partnership Agreement that they had signed on the eve of Sanaa’s fall on Sept. 21, are not moving according to a political framework or system. They refused to withdraw their militias from the cities they had taken control of, while still expanding on the military level and marginalizing the other political powers whose enmity toward them is growing. Moreover, the local communities outside the Houthis’ tribal-sectarian strongholds in the north are rejecting them. However, this military expansion cannot persist in an armed society where some political forces have military wings, such as Al-Islah Party and the General People’s Congress, amid an unclear political situation and in the absence of a state.

Iran completely relies on its sectarian influence in these countries. Here, Yemen seems different yet again. The Zaydi sect in Yemen is part of the Shiite sect, but it is different from the Twelver Shiite Islam in Iran, which prevails in Iraq and constitutes Hezbollah’s sect also. In Syria, the Alawite sect was linked to Shiism, not only due to sectarian common grounds but also due to the shared resistance against Israel. Still, Yemen’s situation tells a different story. Although the traditional Zaydi authorities are worried about the rise of Iranian influence in their country, some Zaydi students have been traveling to Iran to study in Shiite seminaries (hawzas).

As for the sectarian composition, Lebanon is a multiconfessional country, where almost all sects are equally represented. In Iraq, Shiites outnumber Sunnis, while in Syria, although Alawites constitute a minority, the old nationalistic nature of the regime tones down sectarianism. In Yemen, however, Houthis rose to power in 2004, when Iraq and the region entered the sectarian strife. This is to say that Houthis constitute a purely sectarian group, but their sect comprises one-third of Yemen’s inhabitants. What’s more, they do not exactly represent Zaydism, since they attacked some Zaydi mosques, and their relationship with some popular Zaydi authorities is bad.