In the declaration, Mohammed bin Issa Al-Jaber—founder, chairman and chief executive of the MBI Group, a multinational conglomerate with assets exceeding $10 billion—said decision-making over war and peace in Yemen has shifted away from the state and into the hands of actors aligned with a regional agenda linked to Iran.

Power Fragmentation and Loss of Sovereignty

Al-Jaber argued that Yemen’s institutional framework has effectively collapsed into a dual structure: an internationally recognised government lacking operational authority, and a rival administration in Sanaa dominated by the Houthi movement, which he said imposes military decisions without public consent.

He characterised this imbalance as a “confiscation of national sovereignty,” warning that Yemenis are being drawn into conflicts that do not serve their national interests. His remarks echo broader assessments that Yemen’s war has increasingly become entangled in regional geopolitical competition, particularly involving Iran and Gulf states.

Federalism as a Structural Remedy

Positioning federalism as a viable exit strategy, Al-Jaber called for a decentralised Yemeni state in which regions are granted full administrative and political authority. He argued that such a framework would enable local governance, reduce corruption, and shield communities from externally driven military escalations.

He pointed to developments in Hadramout, where intervention by Saudi Arabia helped stabilise tensions late last year. Saudi Arabia has been a central actor in Yemen since 2015, backing the recognised government against Houthi forces.

Federal restructuring has previously been proposed during Yemen’s National Dialogue process, though implementation has stalled amid ongoing conflict and institutional breakdown.

Tihama and the Self-Determination Debate

Al-Jaber highlighted Tihama as particularly exposed to the consequences of continued instability. Home to more than eight million people and possessing strategic access to the Red Sea, he said the region holds the economic and geographic foundations of a viable state.

He warned that, in the absence of sovereign decision-making and public consent, calls for self-determination could intensify. “When people are forced into wars that do not serve their interests, self-determination becomes a legitimate political option,” he said.

While such claims remain legally and politically contentious, the principle has been invoked in cases where state authority collapses or fails to represent local populations (UN Charter, Article 1).

International Appeals and Escalating Rhetoric

The statement also urged former U.S. President Donald Trump and the international community not to interpret current developments as reflective of the Yemeni population’s will. It called on the United Nations and the UN Security Council to convene urgently and organise elections under international supervision.

Al-Jaber further issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Houthi leadership to cease claiming representation of the Yemeni people and to issue an apology, warning that failure to do so could trigger widespread public mobilisation across regions from Mahra to Saada and from Aden to Medie.

He concluded that Yemen should only engage in war in self-defence, stressing that long-term stability depends on political consensus and national interest rather than what he described as “reckless military adventurism.”

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.