Houthi fighters inspect the damage caused by air strikes on the airport of Yemen's northwestern city of Saada, a Houthi stronghold near the Saudi border, March 30, 2015. Reuters “Iran is part of the problem in Yemen, not part of the solution,” said Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States on Wednesday.

The statement was an indirect rebuke of President Obama, who in an interview the day before had said that his administration had "indicated to the Iranians that they need to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem.”

This public disagreement is evidence of a broad rift that has done much to shape the conflict in Yemen. Publicly, Obama claims to support of the Saudis. But behind the scenes, he has tilted much more toward Iran than he lets on. Whereas the Saudi goal is to shut Iran out of Yemen, Obama sees Iran as a principal stakeholder.

His officials have been in constant communication with the Iranians over Yemen, and have been pushing for a Saudi ceasefire. Obama’s position works to the benefit of Tehran. Yet again, he has demonstrated that, in sharp contrast to his allies, he indeed regards Iran as the solution to intractable problems in the Middle East.

The full extent of the administration’s tilt toward Tehran in Yemen has only come out in the last few days. On Monday, unnamed senior officials made plain the White House’s lack of enthusiasm for the Saudi operation.

“The White House would like Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies to curtail the airstrikes and narrow the objective to focus on protecting the Saudi border,” one official said.

“At some point, an air campaign has diminishing and marginal returns,” another official told columnist David Ignatius the following day. “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Yemen conflict will have to be solved politically.”

At the same time, other administration officials played up Iran’s supposedly positive intentions, claiming that Tehran had in fact discouraged the Houthis from taking over Sanaa.

A man reacts at the site of an air strike in Sanaa April 8, 2015. A Saudi-led coalition air strike hit an office of Yemen's Houthi rebels near the pro-Houthi television channel al-Maseera in central Sanaa on Wednesday, witnesses said. Reuters Once the Saudis did announce an end to Operation Decisive Storm, the administration quickly took credit, leaking that it was US pressure that made Riyadh back down. “The Saudis,” a State Department spokesperson said on Wednesday, “understand that the path forward here needs to be dialogue.”

Obama was signaling a kind of indirect partnership with Tehran, which the Iranians were quick to exploit. On Tuesday, hours before the Saudis even made their announcement, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian preemptively declared “that in the coming hours, after many efforts, we will see a halt to military attacks in Yemen.” With this seemingly innocuous statement, the Iranians showed the world that they are negotiating with the Americans over the heads of the Saudis.

Abdollahian had honed this tactic with another US ally: Israel. Following the Israeli strike on an Iranian convoy in the Golan in January, Abdollahian similarly revealed that Tehran was a primary interlocutor with Washington, and that it was telling the Americans to reign in their ally.

Smoke rises from an arms depot at the Jabal Hadeed military compound in Yemen's southern port city of Aden March 28, 2015. Explosions rocked Aden's largest arms depot on Saturday, sending flames and smoke into the sky above the southern Yemeni city, witnesses said. REUTERS/Nabeel Quaiti

In this latest example of the ploy, pro-Iranian media in Lebanon helped drive the point home, claiming that US Secretary of State John Kerry had called his Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Tuesday to inform him that Washington would press Riyadh to shut down its military operations.

According to the State Department’s spokeswoman, Marie Harf, the Lebanese report was false. Even while dismissing it, however, she seemed to affirm the very collusion between Washington and Tehran that the report claimed to reveal. She did not rule out communication between Kerry and Zarif about Yemen “in the last week.”

What’s more, she suggested that Kerry and Zarif had discussed Yemen while in Lausanne—despite the administration’s repeated denials that anything but Iran’s nuclear program was being discussed.

Shi'ite Muslim rebels hold up their weapons during a rally against air strikes in Sanaa March 26, 2015. REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah Meanwhile, the Saudis have not folded. They are continuing operations, if on a different scale, while declaring their will to escalate should the Houthis fail to meet the conditions of the ceasefire.

Second, they openly objected to Obama’s intention to include Iran as a stakeholder in Yemen. “Iran should not have any say in Yemeni affairs,” Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Kingdom’s ambassador to Britain, told Reuters.

Much like the Israelis, the Saudis can no longer operate on the assumption that they will receive American support. President Obama seems to believe that by including Iranians in negotiations, he is bringing “equilibrium” to the Middle East. Seen from the perspective of Saudi Arabia and Israel, however, Obama’s doctrine of “equilibrium” seems like a recipe for further conflict.

It emboldens Iran, which — feeling the American wind in its sails — pushes home its advantage. And it leaves America’s allies with no choice but to resist Iran’s expansion — and Obama’s doctrine, which lends it recognition.

In short, equilibrium is a fantasy. Or maybe it is something much worse. Perhaps it is just the least objectionable way of saying that Obama is now siding with Iran.

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.