Iran's Mediation Fails to Secure Saudi-Ansarullah Ceasefire; Why Does Sanaa Reject the Short-Term Deal?

Yemen's Ansarullah has announced the failure of efforts to reach a temporary ceasefire between Saudi Arabia and Sanaa through Iranian mediation.

According to the report of Arjan's international reporter, Ambassador Mohammad Al-Bakhiti, a member of the political office of Yemen's Ansarullah Movement, announced that Sana'a welcomes any mediation to end the tensions with Saudi Arabia, but considers this process conditional on the cessation of attacks and the complete lifting of the blockade of Yemen.

According to al-Bakhiti, efforts to reach a temporary ceasefire of two weeks to one month with the mediation of Iran have not been successful; Because Sana'a is not willing to accept agreements that, from the point of view of this movement, only lead to a short-term cessation of conflicts and do not resolve the main issues of the war.

Saudi Arabia's request to Europe to escort ships in Bab al-Mandab; Will Europe enter the war in Yemen?

bloody attack on Riyadh airport; Are Saudi Arabia and America entering a new stage of war with Ansarullah?

These statements have been made in the context that the crisis in Yemen has turned from an internal conflict into a regional issue over the past years, and the relations between Sana'a, Riyadh and Tehran have also played a role in its developments.

From this point of view, the possible failure of the cease-fire negotiations cannot be seen simply as a dispute over the duration of the cessation of attacks; Rather, it should be examined in the context of the dispute over the nature of the final agreement and the balance of the parties' obligations.

Why does Sana'a oppose the temporary ceasefire?

One of the main axes of Al-Bakhiti's statements is the opposition to agreements that only lead to a temporary reduction of conflicts without determining the role of blockade, economic restrictions and human consequences of war.

From Ansarullah's point of view, a ceasefire can be a foundation for peace when it is accompanied by clear and measurable obligations. Otherwise, the cessation of hostilities may simply provide an opportunity for the parties to rebuild their military capabilities without resolving fundamental differences.

On the other hand, a temporary ceasefire can be a tool for the conflicting parties to immediately reduce casualties, prevent the spread of war and create opportunities for political negotiations. Therefore, the dispute over the short-term ceasefire can be seen as a result of the difference in the priorities of the parties: one side may consider the immediate cessation of conflicts as a prelude to negotiations, and the other side may first want guarantees about the end of the siege and the resolution of the main issues.

Al-Bakhiti's accusation against Saudi Arabia; Mediator or party to the conflict?

Al-Bakhiti has accused Saudi Arabia of being involved in the war in Yemen on the one hand and trying to present itself as a mediator to end the conflicts.

This criticism highlights one of the important issues in peace negotiations, which is the difference between an actor's role in the conflict and its possible role in the dispute resolution process.

From Ansarullah's point of view, Riyadh should accept responsibility for its role in the war and provide specific commitments to stop the attacks and lift the siege. In such a framework, mediation alone is not enough and Saudi Arabia must be part of an agreement that determines mutual obligations.

Iran's role in mediating between Riyadh and Sana'a

Al-Bakhiti's reference to Iran's mediation efforts once again shows the importance of the relations between Tehran, Riyadh and Sana'a in regional equations.

Due to its relations with Ansarullah and its experience in regional negotiations with Saudi Arabia, Iran can play a role in conveying messages and facilitating dialogues. However, a mediator's political influence alone is not enough to secure an agreement; Because the final decision about accepting the ceasefire and committing to its implementation is in the hands of the conflicting parties.

If al-Bakhiti's account of the failure of efforts to establish a temporary ceasefire is accurate, this failure could indicate a gap between the initial goals of the negotiations and the expectations of the two sides from the agreement. However, without access to the details of the negotiations and the official positions of all parties, the cause of the failure cannot be attributed solely to one factor or one party.

On the other hand, Iran's mediation may still be important to reduce tensions if there is political will in Riyadh and Sana'a. Especially if the negotiations go beyond a limited agreement on the cessation of attacks and include issues such as reopening trade routes, facilitating the entry of goods and addressing humanitarian issues.

UN ceasefire in 2022; Why was lasting peace not achieved?

The UN-sponsored ceasefire in 2022 was one of the most important efforts to reduce the conflicts in Yemen. The truce contributed to a partial reduction in violence, but did not lead to a final agreement to end the war.

The experience of that period showed that the reduction of military conflicts, although necessary, alone is not enough to solve a complex crisis. Issues related to the payment of employee salaries, public revenues, reopening of airports and ports, exchange of prisoners, security arrangements and Yemen's political future have been important topics of negotiations.

In such an atmosphere, any dispute over the implementation of commitments or the order of actions can hinder the peace process. If one party wants to remove restrictions before implementing other obligations and the other party prefers simultaneous or phased implementation of obligations, even agreement on the principle of cessation of conflicts may become difficult.

From this point of view, Ansarullah's emphasis on ending the siege and stopping the attacks should be evaluated in the context of trying to turn the ceasefire into a more comprehensive agreement. However, the realization of such an agreement requires the acceptance of mutual obligations by all related parties.

Three scenarios for the future of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Ansarullah

According to the announced positions, we can consider three possible paths for the upcoming developments. The first scenario; Return to negotiations and a phased agreement. In this case, the parties first agree on the cessation of attacks and the reduction of restrictions, and then negotiate more complex issues such as security arrangements, humanitarian issues, and Yemen's political future. This path requires the flexibility of the parties and the existence of a mechanism to monitor the implementation of commitments.

the second scenario; The political deadlock continues. If disputes continue over responsibility for the war, the lifting of the blockade, and the order of implementation of commitments, negotiations may continue without reaching a comprehensive agreement. In such a situation, even in case of temporary reduction of tensions, the risk of return of conflicts will still remain.

the third scenario; Intensification of military and economic confrontation. If the attacks and counter-threats continue, the scope of the crisis can expand and the critical infrastructures and regional transportation routes will face more risk. The realization of this scenario depends on the military and political decisions of the parties and the reaction of regional actors.

Mohammad Al-Bakhiti's statements show that, from Ansarullah's point of view, the main issue in the negotiations with Saudi Arabia is not simply a short-term cessation of attacks; Rather, how to end the war, lift the siege and determine the obligations of the parties in the post-conflict phase is of fundamental importance.

For Saudi Arabia, reaching a stable agreement can help reduce the security and political costs of the Yemen crisis. However, reaching such an agreement requires that disputes over responsibilities, performance assurances, and the order of actions be managed in a manner acceptable to the parties.