Commentary
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
Source: Getty
Paper
What Comes Next in Yemen? Al-Qaeda, the Tribes, and State-Building
There are limits to how much foreign intervention can accomplish in Yemen. To overcome its daunting security, economic, and political challenges, Yemen’s political system needs to become less centralized and more inclusive.
By Sarah Phillips
Published on Mar 11, 2010
Western policy makers are scrambling to respond decisively to Yemen’s instability after the failed Christmas Day attack on a U.S. passenger jet was tied to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But there are limits to how much foreign intervention can accomplish—Yemen’s political system needs to become less centralized and more inclusive.
Key Conclusions:
- Although it is feared that Yemen’s collapse could usher in a Taliban-style regime and create a haven for al-Qaeda, the regime’s failure would not necessarily be a win for the militants. Al-Qaeda arguably benefits more from Yemen’s weak state.
- Even though there are areas in Yemen that lack formal state control, this does not mean that they are ungoverned—there are local mechanisms that maintain a level of order. Al-Qaeda is trying to present itself as an alternative to the regime, but as it grows stronger and seeks control of more territory, it risks competing with local tribes.
- Al-Qaeda’s goal of establishing an international caliphate, propensity for extreme violence against civilians, and hard-line religious ideology conflict with local norms and weaken al-Qaeda’s appeal to the Yemeni people, including the tribes.
Policy Implications:
- Western policy makers need to consider the intricacies of Yemen’s domestic politics before responding. Military intervention, like the U.S.-assisted air strikes in December, is likely to further entrench al-Qaeda in the country by inflaming public grievances.
- Merely increasing development assistance risks reinforcing a regime that is poorly equipped and poorly motivated to effectively distribute aid.
“The establishment of a more stable political settlement is a domestic endeavor, and Westerners’ chances of encouraging a more inclusive political system are questionable,” writes Phillips. “In the long term, only a fundamental restructuring of the political system to become much more inclusive will lead to stability.”
About the Author
Sarah Phillips
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran
- Kuwait’s Bidun in the Face of Climate Change are Invisible, yet ExposedArticle
Mitigating the repercussions of climate change in Kuwait is crucial for lessening economic disparities and achieving social justice.
Courtney Freer
- The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week CeasefireCommentary
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
- What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?Commentary
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
- Tehran’s Easy TargetsCommentary
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
