The Saudi intervention in the South: an investigation into decision-making behind the scenes and the cost of control
A careful reading of the southern scene reveals that the Saudi intervention is no longer managed solely through official channels, but through a complex network of undeclared understandings. Far from conferences and official statements, real policies are shaped in security and political backrooms, where roles are redistributed according to precise regional equations rather than the needs of local stability.
Multiple sources indicate that Riyadh has adopted a policy of containment rather than decisive resolution. It does not allow a total collapse, yet it does not push toward building a strong political entity either. This choice reflects concern over the South turning into an independent political model capable of imposing itself regionally. Consequently, local forces are treated as instruments of balance rather than partners in a state-building project.
Investigating the course of recent events shows that security decisions are often taken in isolation from the social context. The harsh handling of tribes and the use of force in sensitive areas have ignited latent tensions that could have been contained through dialogue. This purely security-driven approach has ignored the very nature of the South, where tribal structures play a central role in stability.
More dangerously, this approach has contributed to the creation of temporary security vacuums, quickly exploited by extremist groups. Each time local forces that have accumulated experience in combating terrorism are weakened, these groups emerge as a ready alternative. The question therefore becomes legitimate: are these risks being underestimated, or are they deliberately overlooked within broader calculations?
Politically, the Saudi intervention has helped to destabilize the internal scene by supporting contradictory paths at the same time. This contradiction has undermined trust among local actors and entrenched mutual suspicion, making any internal consensus more difficult. In the absence of a clear vision, politics has turned into the daily management of crises.
The outcome is that the South is now paying the price for policies in whose formulation it has no say. Instead of being a partner in determining its own destiny, it has become a testing ground for shifting regional choices. This reality threatens to transform a potentially solvable political crisis into a long-term structural one.
