The intervention in Yemen, which is led by Saudi Arabia and the participations of Gulf countries and Pakistan, is belated but still spot on. In Yemen, where the Arab Spring process interestingly occurred at the beginning and where the transition period is being administered by a dialogue parliament after Abdullah Salih's pullout, there had been anti-revolution operations and interventions of the same type in other Arab Spring countries.
Saudi Arabia's attempt to bring Abdullah Salih back to the field against the Reclamation Party, which had grown stronger during the process and started to have a voice in the country's administration, by reinforcing him had created a frustration and remorse due to Salih's cooperation with the Houthis. Salih made a rulership plan by adding the support he had from Saudi Arabia on top of the Houthis' support; however, in this way he doomed himself and dragged the country into chaos.
As for the Houthis' attempts to establish dominance over Yemen, in a way that exceeds their power and representation capacities, from the way paved by Abdullah Salih, it seemed certain to gradually drag the country into a civil war. The Reclamation Party decided to be a passive spectator to the invasion movement, which had become evident in return for the Abdullah Salih and Houthis' alliance, rather than standing against it. Because the party had no trust towards the people, who demanded the resistance expected from them at a certain point, and thus, abstained from playing a role as an actor upon realizing that showing any type of resistance would risk being declared as terrorists or being completely removed.Thus, the party preserved its existence as is. However, it also confronted them from having a say over the future of the country, at least for now.
Since the intervention in Yemen is against Houthis, it's not completely unfair to perceive it as a Sunni-defending or sect conflict. Unfortunately, through Iran's policies in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, Iran's priority, as it had been seen by the Islam world, is “rendering Shi'ite”. It's being stated that the Iranian Qasem Soleimani, who organized the Shi'ite militias that had turned into slaughter machines in Iraq and Syria, said; “they had taken four capitals of the Sunni Arab World (Sana'a, Baghdad, Beirut and Damascus) under the dominance of Shi'ite”.
As a matter of fact, these four capitals, which are under Iran's influence, are all wrecked. What's more acute than Iran's dominance over those capitals is Iran's approach towards this matter, seeing the state of these capitals and regarding it as boasting occasions. Was this the message given by the Islam Revolution, which happened in 1979, towards the world and Islam world?
We had mentioned it before. It's stated that, due to the regions captured by Iran during their dominance struggle and their activities, it all turned out profitable; however, no one is speaking about how deadly this profit was and how it ultimately destroyed the sympathy towards and positive image directed at Iran.
However, before the anti-revolution process of the Arab Spring began, Iran possessed, more or less, a sympathy throughout the Islam world. When Iran captured the capitals of Iraq, Syria and Yemen at the cost of wrecking them, they had lost the hearts in the Islam world, other than some Shi'ite regions, completely.
This must have turned into an urgent situation for Iranian administrators to ponder on. At this point, Iran cannot convince anyone that they are representing and fortifying a front against the Zionist evil alliance. No Zionist attack until now had inflicted the damage Iran is now inflicting on the integrity, morale and spirit of Islam world.
Turkey never took a sectarian stance against Iran nor their politics in the Middle East. On the contrary, Turkey refused any kind of sect-based tension and conflict since the beginning and even now. When Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Libya's Gaddafi, Tunisia's Zine El Abidine Ben Ali or Yemen's Abdullah Salih were all being overthrown, Turkey was never carried away with or approached their sorrows by saying “Those are Sunnis!”. In fact, they were all Sunnis; however, this couldn't be of importance, because the sect of a dictator, whose hands are covered in blood, couldn't have any value. Similar to how we don't regard Assad's sect when he is butchering his own nation. The sectarian accusations towards Turkey had started because of Turkey's attitude towards Assad. However, Turkey's attitudes in previous similar cases were discharging these claims.It was expected from Iran, who is in the claim of becoming an Islam Republic, to remember the values of Islam and be loyal to those values even a tiny bit.
As for the intervention in Yemen by the Islam countries led by Saudi Arabia; it should be regarded as a sanction mechanism, since it has been mobilized against a negativity within the Muslim world without needing a foreign intervention.
Where does Sisi stand in the coalition?
It's said that Egypt is also participating in the intervening coalition in Yemen. In other words, the matter of “what will be Egypt's contribution” is a critical question. Sisi's attempts to provide legitimacy to Assad by calling him to the summit in Şarm el şeyh, and, to keep all these initiatives as some kind of a trump card against Gulf countries by meeting with the Houthis and Russia, are all being regarded as developments that shake the trust towards him and thus the matter of his contribution towards the coalition is obscure. The same Sisi gave no visas to the Syria international coalition for the meetings in Cairo, and this had been regarded as an open support towards the Assad regime, which is being regarded as an enemy of coalition forces. Sisi's unreliableness had been registered after this event. Thus, it should be recorded that there is a serious reserve against Egypt's participation in the coalition.