Riyadh could tap Iran’s diplomatic clout to help resolve Yemen crisis
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
While Saudi officials have accused Iran of involvement in Yemeni operations, Tehran has dismissed the allegations and expressed its readiness to use its good offices to help bring the hostilities to an end, offering to draw on all its capabilities if requested by the parties. In an interview with Iran Daily, international affairs expert Abed Akbari said Riyadh could benefit from Iran’s diplomatic clout, provided it viewed Tehran not as part of the problem but as a player capable of helping resolve it. Ultimately, the success of any such effort will depend on whether both sides see de-escalation not as a concession to a rival, but as an investment in their own national security.
IRAN DAILY: Given that the escalation of Saudi-Yemeni hostilities coincides with broader military developments across the region, what do you see as the strategic calculations of the Yemeni forces? Could the current situation affect their assessment of the balance of power and how they pursue their demands? What factors could prevent the conflict from widening and help bring the parties back to a political process?
AKBARI: From a strategic perspective, the actions of the Yemeni forces should be analyzed in the context of their efforts to turn military capabilities into leverage at the negotiating table. These forces have come to recognize that Yemen’s geopolitical position, particularly its proximity to the Bab al-Mandab Strait and vital global trade routes, gives them leverage that extends well beyond their conventional military capabilities. Yemen’s strategic significance, in fact, is not confined to its territory and population; it stems from its location at the intersection of security dynamics in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
The escalation of regional tensions could affect the Yemeni forces’ calculations in two ways. On the one hand, increased pressure on regional rivals and the expansion of conflict fronts could create opportunities for them to strengthen their bargaining position. On the other hand, the same conditions could pave the way for broader military coalitions and raise the political, economic and security costs of their actions. It would therefore be wrong to assume that any escalation in hostilities will necessarily enhance these forces’ strategic standing. At times, the use of military power without a clear political endgame can undermine the very gains the actor deploying it seeks to secure.
Preventing the conflict from spreading requires a distinction between Yemen’s security concerns, regional rivalries and the country’s humanitarian crisis. Halting reciprocal attacks, ensuring maritime security, reducing military intervention and establishing an inclusive political framework that takes into account the demands and concerns of Yemen’s main actors could help contain the crisis. The key point is that a lasting solution cannot be pursued through military pressure alone. Any arrangement imposed without regard for Yemen’s political and social realities is likely to reproduce the crisis.
What diplomatic tools and capabilities does Tehran have at its disposal to ease tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni side? How optimistic can one be about Tehran’s ability to play a role in this regard? Might Riyadh also draw on Iran’s diplomatic potential to advance a political solution?
Iran has a range of political, diplomatic and regional capabilities that could enable it to play a constructive role in easing tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni forces. Diplomatic ties between Tehran and Riyadh, their experience of bilateral dialogue in recent years, and Iran’s contacts with some influential actors in Yemen’s political and security landscape could provide a basis for conveying messages, facilitating dialogue and helping reduce security-related misperceptions. However, it is important to distinguish between having the capacity to mediate and being able to guarantee an outcome. No actor, even one with considerable influence, can single-handedly substitute its own will for the political will of the parties to a conflict.
In my view, Iran’s greatest diplomatic advantage in this context lies in its ability to link bilateral talks to a broader framework for regional security. Tehran can stress the need to halt the cycle of attacks and retaliatory actions, ensure the security of maritime routes, respect national sovereignty and resolve disputes through political means. At the same time, any diplomatic initiative will be effective only if it takes a realistic view of the limits of various actors’ influence and recognizes the independence of the Yemeni parties’ political calculations.
The resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia has not, in itself, resolved the two countries’ strategic differences, but it has created an essential channel for managing them. There is therefore reason to be optimistic about Tehran’s potential role, provided it is defined as part of a multilateral process based on mutual interests, rather than as a unilateral initiative or a competition to secure geopolitical advantages.
Riyadh, too, could benefit from Iran’s diplomatic capabilities, particularly if it concludes that prolonging the conflict carries greater security and economic costs than reaching a political settlement. This would, however, require Saudi Arabia to view Iran not as part of the problem, but as an influential player in managing it. Tehran, in turn, could demonstrate that stability in Yemen and regional security serve the shared interests of countries across the region, regardless of their bilateral differences. Ultimately, the success of such a process will depend on whether both sides view de-escalation not as a concession to a rival, but as an investment in strengthening their own national security.
Page 3