Sana’a bloodbath

Published March 22, 2015

FRIDAY’S carnage in Sana’a, in which suicide bombers struck a number of mosques in the Yemeni capital, marks a dangerous new low for the impoverished, strife-torn state. Over 140 fatalities have been reported; the mosques targeted were frequented by supporters of the Houthi movement, while the self-styled Islamic State has claimed credit for the atrocities. While Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has a strong presence in Yemen, this is possibly the first time the so-called caliphate has claimed an attack in the country. The bombings are significant for two reasons: firstly, they threaten to plunge Yemen into a communal quagmire. The Houthis are Zaidi Shias, and the online statement claiming the attacks was full of virulently sectarian invective. Given Yemen’s delicate confessional balance — Zaidis and Sunnis are found in roughly equal numbers in the country — such acts of terrorism can widen sectarian divisions. Secondly, if IS were to gain a perch in Yemen and create a fledgling statelet, it could create a new security nightmare for the Gulf monarchies.

While the IS presence in Yemen should not be overblown, especially considering the lack of major evidence linking local militants to the larger concern in Syria and Iraq, the ferocity of the attacks means the possibility of such linkages should not be taken lightly. IS is an expansionist concern, and when it cannot establish direct control it will look for affiliates. And as the recent terrorist attack in Tunisia, as well as the pledges of allegiance given to the ‘caliphate’ by militants in Nigeria, Egypt and elsewhere, show, there is no shortage of takers of the IS brand. Yemen’s internal situation is precarious: the Houthis swept into Sana’a in September and in January forced the president to flee after surrounding the presidential palace. The Houthi-government stand-off may well be giving AQAP and IS the space to expand. That is why the Houthis must work with the elected government and resolve all differences at the negotiating table in order to confront a common threat.

Published in Dawn, March 22nd, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play

Opinion

A changed world

A changed world

The phrase ‘security provider’ sounds impressive but there is little clarity on what it means for the country.

Editorial

Bannu attack
Updated 12 May, 2026

Bannu attack

The security narrative and strategy of the KP government diverges considerably from the state’s position.
Cotton crisis
12 May, 2026

Cotton crisis

PAKISTAN’S cotton economy is once again facing a crisis that exposes the country’s flawed agricultural and...
Buddhist heritage
12 May, 2026

Buddhist heritage

THE revival of Buddhist chants at the ancient Dharmarajika Stupa in Taxila after nearly 1,500 years is much more ...
New regional order
Updated 11 May, 2026

New regional order

The fact is that the US has only one true security commitment in the Middle East — Israel.
A better start
11 May, 2026

A better start

THE first 1,000 days of a child’s life often shape decades to come. In Pakistan, where chronic malnutrition has...
Widening gap
11 May, 2026

Widening gap

PAKISTAN’S monthly trade deficit ballooned to $4.07bn last month, its highest level since June 2022, further...