This approach maintains India’s credibility as a neutral actor, preserves its regional relationships, and avoids entanglement in ideological militancy or Iranian proxy politics.

The Red Sea tragedy involving the sinking of the vessel Eternity C on July 10, 2025, which endangered the life of an Indian national, has understandably stirred geopolitical anxieties. Yet, it should not be used as a launchpad for flawed diplomatic prescriptions.

In his recent opinion piece published by Firstpost, American analyst Michael Rubin proposes that India take a diplomatic lead in Yemen by supporting separatism in the south. Rubin’s thesis is not only historically inconsistent but strategically unwise—and risks aligning India’s image with the destabilizing agendas of Iran and its proxy militias.

Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, laments the so-called failure of Western diplomacy in Yemen, proposing that India should replace it by supporting the secession of South Yemen. His argument is built on three questionable premises: that unity has failed, that separatism would bring stability, and that India’s legacy and interests are best served through interventionist diplomacy in the Arabian Peninsula.

A Misreading of History and Strategy

Rubin’s narrative cherry-picks Yemeni history to justify separatism. It is true that Yemen’s unification in 1990 brought its own challenges. But portraying this union as the sole driver of instability is historically myopic. Yemen’s strife is primarily the result of decades of corruption, political exclusion, and, most critically, Iranian-backed insurgency through the Houthi militia.

By advocating a fragmented Yemen, Rubin ironically finds himself echoing Tehran’s strategic wishlist. As Saudi political analyst Salman Al-Ansari rightly noted in response, “The Houthis and Iran are actually very grateful for the actions of the separatists.”

That’s because separatism fractures the already strained national military, dilutes the central government’s authority, and distracts from the core task of defeating the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency.

Rubin’s promotion of the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a separatist faction with limited legitimacy and narrow geographic influence, overlooks the broader political, tribal, and demographic complexities of Yemen.

It ignores the voice of Hadramout—a massive, resource-rich governorate in the south that remains largely resistant to STC’s ideology. Hadramout has consistently demanded greater autonomy within a federal framework, not secession. To paint all of South Yemen with the STC brush is analytically lazy and politically dangerous.

Iran’s Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Rubin suggests that dividing Yemen will curb Iranian influence. But the opposite is true. Tehran’s strategy in the Arab world has always thrived on institutional collapse, factionalism, and governance vacuums—be it in Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon. Splintering Yemen into northern and southern states would only legitimize the Houthi coup in Sana’a and give Iran formal control over a puppet state in the north, while maneuvering to extend its tentacles into the south via co-opted militias.

Salman Al-Ansari highlighted a chilling but telling remark from Ali Larijani, former Iranian Speaker of Parliament, “We want a state loyal to us in the north, and another friendly state in the south.”

That alone should send alarm bells ringing for Indian strategists. Supporting the breakup of Yemen would play directly into Iran’s long game in the region—pitting tribes, provinces, and ideologies against one another to prolong chaos and weaken the regional coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

India’s Role: Stability, Not Subversion

Rubin also appeals to India’s historical ties with Aden and its anti-colonial legacy. While it is true that Indians once had a vibrant presence in southern Yemen during the British period, invoking this colonial history to advocate for Indian-backed secessionism today is both insensitive and ill-conceived.

India’s current posture in the region is one of non-intervention, stability, and multilateral diplomacy. As the fourth largest economy and a strategic stakeholder in the Indian Ocean basin, India gains from freedom of navigation, secure shipping lanes, and a united front against piracy and Iranian militarism.

Championing the disintegration of a sovereign Arab nation would mark a dramatic and unwelcome shift in India’s foreign policy ethos, alienating long-time allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt—nations who view Yemeni unity as essential to regional security.

Moreover, Indian diplomats have successfully walked a tightrope in Middle East politics, maintaining relations with Iran while deepening strategic cooperation with Gulf Arab states and Israel. Rubin’s advice risks compromising this delicate balance.

Separatism Is Not a Silver Bullet

Rubin’s comparison of Yemen to Kosovo or Moldova is deeply flawed. Both Kosovo and Moldova were born of violent disintegration of multiethnic empires, not voluntary national unions like Yemen’s. Additionally, unlike Kosovo, South Yemen does not have unified political institutions, coherent leadership, or international recognition.

The Southern Transitional Council remains a militia-backed entity that has clashed violently with other Yemeni factions and has yet to present a credible vision for inclusive governance.

In fact, many Yemenis see the STC as a proxy force themselves—backed by competing foreign agendas that don’t necessarily align with the welfare of Yemenis at large.

What India Should Actually Do

India’s best move is to remain a force for balance, humanitarian engagement, and economic rebuilding in Yemen. Rather than choosing sides in a domestic power struggle, New Delhi should increase its engagement with the UN-led peace efforts and offer logistical and humanitarian support in Aden and other liberated cities. It must work closely with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to secure maritime routes and deter Houthi aggression in the Red Sea.

At the same time, India can support federalism and decentralization within a united Yemen—an approach that respects the aspirations of southern regions without compromising national sovereignty.

This approach maintains India’s credibility as a neutral actor, preserves its regional relationships, and avoids entanglement in ideological militancy or Iranian proxy politics.

Michael Rubin’s op-ed exemplifies a recurring pattern in Western commentary—well-articulated and perhaps well-meaning, but ultimately detached from on-the-ground realities. His argument overlooks the complex regional dynamics at play, misjudges the priorities of key stakeholders, and unintentionally echoes the agendas of actors like Iran and the Houthis who thrive on instability.

India, with its growing diplomatic weight and deep regional ties, should resist being drawn into such flawed narratives.

Salman Al-Ansari’s rebuttal serves as a timely reminder that durable peace in Yemen will come not from fragmentation, but from inclusive governance, national unity, and regional cooperation. India must stay the course—supporting stability over secession, diplomacy over division.

By painting convicted criminals as victims and disregarding facts provided by official channels, some Western outlets compromise their own credibility

A shocking revelation has emerged debunking a high-profile claim by Paris-based “Reporters Without Borders” (RSF), which falsely portrayed a convicted Saudi terrorist as a journalist. According to direct and well-informed Saudi sources, the man in question, Turki Al-Jasser, was never associated with journalism but was in fact a former employee of a sensitive government agency who betrayed the Kingdom by working with foreign intelligence services.

Saudi political analyst and researcher Salman Al-Ansari, known for his incisive commentary on regional geopolitics, took to social media to expose the misleading narrative pushed by RSF and amplified by several Western platforms. In what he called a “gross failure of fact-checking,” Al-Ansari accused the watchdog of falling victim to naïve political manipulation and amateur activism disguised as journalism.

“It’s unacceptable for any credible organization to issue a statement without verifying the most basic facts,” Al-Ansari said. “Turki Al-Jasser was never a journalist—he was a traitor, and his betrayal came at a high cost to national security.”

Who Was Turki Al-Jasser? Not a Journalist, But a Mole

Contrary to the fabricated image of Al-Jasser as a brave dissident journalist, Saudi authorities confirm he was a government insider, entrusted with access to classified information. After serving a four-year prison term—during which he was treated according to Saudi legal procedures—Al-Jasser was released and given a chance to reintegrate into society.

But instead of reform, he resumed subversive activities—this time with far more dangerous intent. He was reportedly recruited by a foreign intelligence agent and became involved in a network dedicated to undermining Saudi national security. His tasks included espionage, coordination with terrorist operatives, and strategic disinformation campaigns.

He was convicted of high treason, conspiracy, and terrorism—charges that would result in the death penalty in many countries. According to legal experts, his offenses violate both Saudi and international law, especially due to their cross-border implications and intent to destabilize a sovereign state.

Western Media’s Double Standards

The saga has reignited longstanding criticism about the selective outrage and politicized narratives often adopted by Western media and rights organizations. Analysts note that this is not the first time foreign platforms have romanticized individuals who turned out to be security threats.

Western media ignored Saudi warnings about Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, Al-Ansari noted. “They glorified Saudi fugitives like Talib Al-Abdulmohsen, who turned out to be a terrorist and murdered innocents in Germany. The same mistake is being repeated with Al-Jasser.”

By painting convicted criminals as victims and disregarding facts provided by official channels, some Western outlets compromise their own credibility, while simultaneously threatening international cooperation on counterterrorism.

A Broader Disinformation Campaign?

Experts warn that the Al-Jasser case is likely part of a coordinated disinformation effort aimed at discrediting Saudi Arabia on the global stage. The use of platforms like RSF—often relied upon by media institutions for credibility—adds an alarming dimension to the manipulation of human rights narratives.

“This isn’t about free speech or journalism—it’s about weaponizing misinformation,” Al-Ansari said. “Saudi Arabia will not allow acts of treason to be disguised as activism.”

The Saudi government has reiterated that it remains committed to the rule of law and to transparency. However, it emphasized that national security is non-negotiable, and no country—regardless of public relations optics—would tolerate espionage and terror conducted from within its ranks.

Journalism Must Not Shield Treason

As this case unfolds, it serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of blindly adopting unverified claims under the guise of advocacy. It also poses a serious question to rights organizations: Where is the line between defending freedom and defending a threat?

For Saudi Arabia and its allies in the fight against terrorism, the line is clear—and so is the truth about Turki Al-Jasser.