The Houthis fired missiles at the M/V Huang Pu as it was transiting the Red Sea just days after a reported agreement between the rebels and Beijing.
  • The Houthis reportedly said they would avoid attacking Chinese ships off the coast of Yemen.
  • But the Iran-backed rebels fired multiple missiles at a Beijing-owned tanker on Saturday.
  • Last week, a US general warned lawmakers about deepening ties between Iran, China, and Russia.

The Houthis said they would refrain from attacking Chinese ships off the coast of Yemen, but this past weekend, the Iran-backed rebels did exactly what they said they wouldn’t.

Early Saturday morning local time, the Houthis fired four anti-ship ballistic missiles toward the M/V Huang Pu, a Chinese-owned oil tanker, as the ship was transiting the Red Sea, according to US Central Command, or CENTCOM.

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
    102·
    3 months ago

    I’m not sure the US is or should be concerned with the Middle East uniting, all you have to do is look at all of recorded history in the middle east to see that’s not realistic. As for Pakistan, which isn’t even in the Middle East:

    I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

    Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

    “Hey we’re not happy with what your PM is doing and if it continues don’t expect support from us.” Is somehow the US doing regime change?

    • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      54·
      3 months ago

      Oh the horror. A sovereign nation is allowed to pick which countries they want to partner or support! The way tankies have twisted that cable leak with Khan is enough to give anyone a stroke.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      57·
      3 months ago

      As for Pakistan, which isn’t even in the Middle East:

      That depends on your definition of the Middle East. Pakistan is sometimes included.

      I’m not sure the US is or should be concerned with the Middle East uniting, all you have to do is look at all of recorded history in the middle east to see that’s not realistic.

      What? The middle East has been united for most of its history since the Rashidun Caliphate. It was also reasonably united against the US in the 70s, causing the oil crisis. United doesn’t have to mean one country.

      “Hey we’re not happy with what your PM is doing and if it continues don’t expect support from us.” Is somehow the US doing regime change?

      I mean look at Cuba and none other than Iran itself. “Don’t expect support from us” is putting it lightly; we’ve what the US does to governments it doesn’t like. The US put pressure on the Pakistani military to remove the democratically elected PM and install one friendly to US interests, that’s two steps removed from a coup.

      • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        3 months ago

        The same Rashidun Caliphate that ended with Ali getting assassinated and his son abdicating after an assassination attempt? Replaced by the Umayyad caliphate that then quickly ran into the second Muslim civil war? I wouldn’t characterize calphates borne of wars of conquest to be a symbol of unity rather than what they are, empires not dissimilar to the US empire you’re arguing against. I just don’t see the US putting as much weight on shaping the middle east over time as oil becomes less and less relevant, although I admit I may be overly optimistic about the timeframe of weaning off of fossil fuels.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
          33·
          3 months ago

          The same Rashidun Caliphate that ended with Ali getting assassinated and his son abdicating after an assassination attempt? Replaced by the Umayyad caliphate that was then quickly succeeded by the second Muslim civil war? I wouldn’t characterize calphates borne of wars of conquest to be a symbol of unity rather than what they are, empires not dissimilar to the US empire you’re arguing against.

          Admittedly the Rashidun Caliphates should’ve really gotten their stuff together when it came to succession, but these were all wars of succession, not wars of secession. The idea that the Muslim world was meant to be ruled by one Caliphate was an assumption nobody tried to challenge. That’s unity. I like to compare it with the Roman empire, and I think we can agree that the Roman empire was mostly united. Anyway that unity continued until the late Abbasid reign when the Abbasid Caliphate started disintegrating, and stayed like that for a while until it got conquered by the Ottomans who held things together until WWI. The track record isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty good.

          I just don’t see the US putting as much weight on shaping the middle east over time as oil becomes less and less relevant,

          It’s not just oil. I mean a lot of it is oil, but it’s not just oil. The Middle East is a generally resource-rich region with a shared cultural identity and tendency towards unity (pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism are very common ideologies among Middle-Eastern people).

          So I ran into this some time ago and setting aside the idea of whether these divisions did cause conflict or not, I think it’s telling that only two of these don’t have any sort of large-scale international influence, with one of those being the Islamic one despite being among the top in terms of people, resources and land area.

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I know we don’t fully agree but I appreciate the conversation!