The formation of an extensive Arab coalition, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt in an effort to prevent Yemen from becoming an Iranian outpost in Cairo and Riyadh's backyard, is something of a fresh approach, reflecting a pan-Arab awakening the likes of which we have not seen in years. Nevertheless, it does not represent a new Middle East, different from what we have come to know. A civil war in Yemen, in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia are involved, is old news, taking us back some 50 years, when the same tribes fighting each other today clashed in the early 1960s. Back then, however, it was Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser who was trying to take advantage of the turmoil in Yemen by sending his troops to annex it, only to face off with Iranian and Saudi forces, with clandestine support from Israel. Nasser had ended up sinking in the Yemeni quicksand, and his failure, alongside Egypt's defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War, brought about the end of Nasserism in the Arab world. One can assume Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi is aware of this chapter in his country's history. Despite these bitter memories, the Arabs have decided to take action, most likely for three main reasons: The first is the Iranian threat. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have apparently decided to do what Israel, at the time, did not dare do on its northern and southern borders, namely stop the formation of an Iranian base in their immediate proximity. Both are convinced that Iran seeks to one day turn Yemen into a "Hamastan" or "Hezbollahstan," which it could use to threaten Saudi Arabia and Egypt as it threatens Israel. Riyadh and Cairo are determined to stop Tehran before it is too late. The second is the disappointment in the United States, and the overall feeling that Washington no longer sees Tehran as the source of all problems in the Middle East, but rather the opposite -- it now sees Iran as part of the solution and as a potential partner in the war on al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. Indeed, as a nuclear deal with Iran looms despite last-minute difficulties and crises, it seems the U.S. is willing to accept an Iranian role in Iraq, Syrian, and in Yemen, so to curb what Washington perceives as the main threat -- al-Qaida and Islamic State. While the Arab world sees both terrorist groups as a threat as well, it is Iran that poses the existential threat, which is why the Arabs are troubled by the possibility that Washington might abandon them, or even be willing to allow Iran's enhanced regional influence at their expense. The third is the sense of regeneration in the Arab world, following the ascension to power of the (relatively) energetic King Salman in Saudi Arabia, and Sissi in Egypt. The former replaced Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the latter replaced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak -- both of whom were elderly and barely functioning rulers. These are the main reasons driving the pan-Arab coalition, but the Saudis and Egyptians are well aware of their limitations. The campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen is a Saudi-Egyptian move other Arab countries are willing to endorse, but not necessarily to the point of sending troops to fight on the ground. Moreover, Riyadh and Cairo know that fighting elusive targets -- tribal gangs rather than an actual army --- across a difficult, mountainous terrain is a near-impossible mission. The coalition's offensive in Yemen is therefore limited mostly to airstrikes, and any military move on the ground would be limited, as well. This offensive seeks to deter Iran and sever the direct aerial and maritime link between Tehran and its Yemeni supporters, undermine the Houthis and their allies, and provide the moderate forces in Yemen with the backing and assistance they need to regain control of the country. The new Middle East is shaping up to be a theater where Arab rulers are willing to take initiative, fight the Iranian threat, and ward off the chaos spreading through the region, and this, for a change, is an Israel-friendly situation.
