ABNA24 - Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed that the lies told by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio cannot replace the facts, saying that Ansarullah is an independent actor that makes its own decisions; it takes orders from no one and is not a proxy for anyone else.
These remarks by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei directly address what the US Secretary of State is trying to conceal. Washington once again seeks to separate the Yemen crisis from its actual context and portray Iran as the main cause of regional instability. By claiming that Ansarullah is an “agent and proxy of Iran” and that Iran is behind some of the movement’s attacks on Saudi Arabia, Rubio is in fact constructing a political narrative designed to evade US responsibility and justify Washington’s interventionist policy in the region.
The relationship between Iran and Ansarullah is a well-known reality. Tehran provides political and strategic support to the Yemeni resistance, and this relationship has deepened over the years. However, this fact does not mean that Ansarullah is a force under Tehran’s command and that every operation it carries out is conducted on Iran’s orders. Even studies by US research centers emphasize Ansarullah’s independence in decision-making. This is precisely where Rubio’s problem lies. He deliberately fails to distinguish between “alliance,” “support” and “command” so that he can directly attribute any action by Ansarullah to Iran.
This distortion has a clear political objective. The United States seeks to define every regional crisis in terms of the “threat posed by Iran and its proxies” in order to legitimize its military presence and interventions. In this narrative, Yemen’s history is erased: a war that began in 2015 with the military intervention of a Saudi-led coalition, which the United States also supported with intelligence, weapons and logistical assistance throughout the years of the conflict. Washington does not want anyone today to ask which powers turned the war in Yemen into a prolonged humanitarian and security crisis. Therefore, it chooses the simplest course: blaming Iran in order to conceal its own responsibility and role.
But the reality on the ground does not allow this. Ansarullah is now a powerful Yemeni actor that has consolidated its independent political structure and military capabilities over more than a decade of war. The movement’s decision to confront Saudi Arabia and forces aligned with it is part of its own calculations regarding Yemen’s security and future. Automatically attributing these decisions to Tehran is less an analysis than a political operation aimed at shifting responsibility.
The importance of this narrative for Iran is not limited to a verbal dispute with the US secretary of state. Washington is making claims of an “Iranian hand” behind attacks from Yemen at a time when the region is experiencing one of its most sensitive security periods. The Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz are interconnected, and any military development in this geography could affect global energy security and trade. Under such circumstances, attributing the actions of a regional actor to Iran could create the political groundwork needed to expand the scope of confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Washington’s objective is clearer than to require any complex interpretation: first, to create an image of “Iran behind all crises”; second, to attribute the actions of regional actors to Tehran; and third, to provide political justification for pressure or military action against Iran. This is the same pattern that has been repeated in US policy for years. The United States first labels a regional actor as a force affiliated with Iran, then calls its actions an “Iranian attack,” and ultimately presents its own military response as legitimate self-defense.
The Islamic Republic of Iran does not deny its relationship with Ansarullah, but neither does it accept responsibility for the movement’s independent decisions. This distinction must be clear. Supporting regional resistance is a strategic policy; accepting the accusation of “commanding operations” is something entirely different. Washington cannot erase the independent decision-making of regional actors with a label and shift responsibility for crises resulting from its own policies to Tehran.
Therefore, Baghaei’s response to Rubio is in fact a warning that Washington cannot erase the history of its interventions and replace facts with accusations simply by attributing every regional crisis to Iran. The Yemen crisis was not created by Iran; rather, it is the product of the Yemeni resistance to foreign intervention and years of war.
/129
Your Comment