Liberation from Foreign Guardianship is "The Greatest Achievement of September 21 Revolution." He Warns Arabs Against Relying on the American and Israeli Powers, and Calls on Ummah to Unite in the Face of Zionist Plans
Ansarollah Website Report | Sadiq Al-Bahkali
The speech of the Leader of the Revolution, Sayyed Abdulmalik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, on the occasion of the eleventh anniversary of September 21 Revolution, constituted a comprehensive political and strategic document that reaffirmed the revolution's principles and its position in the equation of regional and international conflict. In its content, the Leader focused on the authenticity of the revolution and its freedom from external dependency, as it was a purely liberating act of the Yemeni people. He emphasized that its historic victory represented a turning point that ended the guardianship of international powers, led by the United States. The speech also addressed the sovereign and independent dimensions of confronting guardianship projects, highlighting the sacrifices of the people and their central role in financing the revolution and ensuring its success.
In addition, the speech included other strategic dimensions, such as warnings of external challenges, affirming the military deterrence equation in the face of aggression, and sending internal messages to strengthen steadfastness and national cohesion. Regarding its regional dimension, Sayyed Ali Khamenei placed the Revolution within the context of confronting American and Israeli hegemony, linking the Yemeni path to the broader Arab and Islamic liberation project. Thus, it can be said that the speech was not merely a celebration of a national anniversary, but rather a roadmap anticipating the next phase and defining its political, military, and economic priorities.
The Strategic Dimension of the Authenticity of September 21 Revolution
The first essential characteristic that the leader of the revolution sought to highlight is the authenticity of the revolution and its freedom from any external dependency. This description is not merely a symbolic gesture; rather, it affirms that the revolutionary legitimacy derives its strength from "a purely Yemeni popular will, in which there is no external role: neither at the level of decision-making, nor at the level of practical vision, at the level of steps, and at the level of orientations and positions." Focusing on this aspect places the revolution within its purely liberationist framework and gives it historical legitimacy.
Strategically, it is clear that the speech aimed to block any political or media narratives that attempt to portray the revolution as an extension of a regional project or the product of foreign agendas. Quite the contrary, Sayyed is keen to emphasize that all its elements "were born of a pure, unadulterated, and genuine Yemeni will, with all reliance on Allah Almighty, and all the effort expended by these people." These phrases carry an internal mobilization dimension, but they also send a message to the outside world that Yemen is no longer open to international tutelage or regional interference.
What is also striking is that the speech did not limit itself to emphasizing authenticity as an abstract value, but rather linked it to the historic political achievement of liberating the country from foreign control and tutelage. This tutelage has reached the point where "the American ambassador in Sana'a has become the president's boss, above all authority and above all officials, deciding, imposing, ordering, directing, and controlling." Recalling this scene in the national memory reminds the public of a period when Yemeni sovereignty was completely disregarded, highlighting the magnitude of the transformation brought about by the revolution.
In this context, the strategic analysis reveals that Sayyed, through this presentation, sought to define who is the enemy and who is the ally. The revolution, as he put it, is "a liberation revolution that liberates our dear people from declared foreign control and tutelage... led by US." This direct definition connects the revolution to its resistance essence and gives it a geopolitical dimension that extends beyond Yemen's interior.
The Values and Moral Dimension of September 21 Revolution
Among the most prominent features that Sayyed emphasized in his speech was what he called "unparalleled, impeccable, and high-level performance, characterized by high discipline, and a refined and responsible approach that embodies the morals of faith of this dear people."
This description reflects a crucial strategic dimension, as revolutions are usually associated—in popular and political memory—with violence, score-settling, and revenge. However, Sayyed''s speech sought to establish a different image: a Yemeni revolution that maintained a peaceful and responsible character even at the moments of victory.
The leader asserts that "there were no attacks, abuses, and unjust transgressions by the pioneers of this revolution and its masses; there were no massacres, genocide, and settling of scores."
This direct invocation of historical testimony establishes the narrative of the revolution as a starting point for a new political structure, not a period of revenge that reproduces crises.
Analytically, this moral dimension adds to the revolution a moral and humanitarian legitimacy that parallels its political legitimacy, distinguishing it from the models of chaos and division witnessed in other Arab countries over the past decade.
Most significant in this context is that the revolution—as described in the speech—provided security and reassurance "to all the people of Sana'a, to all the people of Sana'a, to all the classes, to all the sons of this nation, regardless of their orientations and affiliations."
This phrase is strategicly valuable, as the ability to control the security situation after a radical political transformation is usually the primary criterion for judging the success of any revolution.
On the other hand, the leader of the revolution contrasted the purity of September 21 Revolution with the actions of foreign-linked forces, which, as he put it, have no other power than "inciting sectarian, regional, and ethnic strife, and mobilizing them with grudges, rancor, and hatred."
This direct comparison serves not only to highlight the superiority of the Yemeni model, but also to draw a dividing line between an authentic national project and foreign subordination projects that are tearing apart the social fabric in service of the American and Israeli agendas.
The moral dimension here is not merely a value-based observation; it is a strategic tool in the media and political war. It gives the revolution an exceptional position within the national memory and fortifies it.
This is a clear attempt to defame the external influence and enhances its ability to gain popular and regional legitimacy. Ultimately, "the second advantage of the revolution—its high-quality and clean performance—is not only an added value, but is part of its essential structure that enabled it to endure and transform into a state project, not just a fleeting moment of protest."
The Greatest Achievement: Overthrowing Foreign Guardianship
The Leader believes that "the greatest achievement of this popular revolution is: overthrowing foreign control and guardianship over this country." This description places September 21 Revolution in the category of a historic transformation, not limited to Yemen's interior, but extending to affect the structure of regional and international influence. Guardianship—as defined by the speech—was not merely a fleeting political influence, but rather a state of comprehensive subservience to the United States, which became "the core of the matter, while others were merely its helpers.
The American ambassador controlled everything, from military and security affairs to economic, educational, and cultural affairs."
This approach makes the revolution a liberation event par excellence, as it ended a period of public submission to foreign tutelage and transformed the battle into an existential struggle between the project of independence and the project of subordination. Hence, the achievement—by the rhetorical standard—carries a great religious and faith-based value: "The greatest and fundamental principle of the true divine religion, in the great Islam, is the principle of liberation from tyranny and servitude to Allah alone."
However, the religious dimension does not stop at being a moral reference; it transforms into a strategic pillar in building the revolution's legitimacy: Liberation from American tyranny was not merely a political choice, but a religious and existential necessity to ensure the survival of Yemen's faith-based identity and preserve its human dignity. Therefore, the leader considered the revolution to have restored dignity to a people whom American tutelage had attempted to "rob of their identity, empty of their faith and moral values, and render them slaves to foreign dictates."
From an analytical perspective, it can be said that the discourse establishes an intertwined national-religious narrative: liberation from abroad is not merely a sovereign decision, but rather a restoration of human dignity, as expressed by his statement: “The great importance of the great achievement of human value, restoring the dignity of this great people, is that we are slaves only to God.” This connection gives the revolution a global dimension, making it part of a humanitarian battle against tyranny and subjugation, rather than merely an internal Yemeni affair.
The strategic importance of this achievement is also evident in the foreign reactions: Netanyahu at the time considered the victory of the revolution more dangerous than even the “Iranian nuclear deal,” a description that reveals the Zionist enemy’s awareness of the profound transformation the revolution has brought about in the equation of conflict in the region. The development of a nation like Yemen on the basis of independence and sovereignty means introducing a new player in the confrontation with the American-Israeli project, and even restores a historical dimension when Yemen was “supporters of Islam and supporters of the Messenger of Allah.”
The leader of the revolution points out that the revolution's greatest achievement was not merely the overthrow of political tutelage, but rather "reformulating Yemen's position in the regional and international equation" and establishing a new identity for the Yemeni state: a free, independent state that rejects foreign hegemony. In this sense, the revolution not only achieved an internal transformation but also ushered in a new strategic phase that redefined Yemen as a central actor in the struggle for liberation in the region.
The first characteristic is not simply a description of the revolution as being of a local will. Rather, it is, in essence, "a declaration of political and sovereign independence, and a message that September 21 Revolution cannot be reduced to an internal protest movement, but rather represents a strategic shift in the power equation in the region, shifting Yemen from a subordinate position to that of an independent actor.
Exposing the American-Israeli Connection and the Failure of Local Tools
The Leader asserts that the American-Israeli project sought by all means to penetrate and control Yemen, but the result was "they failed, they failed, and so did their regional tools and their local tools." This frequent repetition of the word "failure" is not merely rhetorical rhetoric; it reinforces the narrative of victory and dispels doubts about the enemies' ability to reimpose their guardianship.
The Leader exposes the reality of these local tools: "They have no project other than enabling foreign powers to occupy the country." All their political and media activity revolves around inciting sectarian, regional, and ethnic strife, serving a single goal: tearing apart the social fabric to pave the way for foreign control. This reading provides a strategic description of internal opponents, as mere agents without a national project, which places them in the category of "national illegitimacy."
The most prominent dimension in this paragraph is the connection between the Yemeni position and Palestine. Since Yemen declared its support for the Palestinian people in confronting the Israeli enemy, "they have become more exposed than ever, clearly appearing on the Israeli front." This statement represents a shift in rhetoric from exposing political dependence to a direct accusation of alignment with "Israel" against Yemen. This is not merely a convergence of interests, but a declared alignment manifested in:
Distorting and casting doubt on Yemen's position in support of Palestine
Publicly repeating "Israeli terms and positions."
Announcing readiness to fight alongside the entity.
Direct media contact with Zionist channels, to the point where one of them described the Israeli guest as "my honorable brother." Sayyed used this as a reference to the Quranic verse: "They say to their brothers who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture."
On a broader level, the Leader of the Revolution explains that "all the enemies' efforts at this stage are focused on eliminating the Yemeni front," because the presence of a Yemeni front supporting Palestine obstructs Israel's plan to control the region. Here, the geopolitical reading becomes clear: Yemen is not merely a local arena for conflict, but a strategic obstacle in the project to "change the Middle East," i.e., impose comprehensive Israeli hegemony.
In conclusion, this paragraph reveals three central facts:
The failure of the American-Israeli project to subjugate Yemen
The exposure of local tools as agents with no project other than empowering the enemy.
The rise of Yemen's position in support of Palestine to a strategic position, making it a primary target for American-Israeli liquidation attempts.
In this sense, the Leader of the Revolution is not only describing the reality, but also drawing a new equation: "The survival of a free and independent Yemen means the survival of Palestine, and the failure of Yemen means enabling Israel to control the entire nation."
The Israeli Enemy: The Complete Embodiment of Evil and the Equation of Violence
The Leader describes the Israeli enemy as having reached "the highest level of evil, criminality, hatred, and evil; therefore, it is the worst image of evil, the most complete image of criminality, and the most complete image of tyranny." This concise description is not merely based on moral considerations; it also draws a clear political equation: "Israel" represents the pinnacle of global evil and the most intense embodiment of the tyrannical approach against peoples, starting with Gaza and extending to the entire region.
The Leader of the Revolution points out that this enemy does not even respect those who work in its service: "It does not even recognize mercenaries; it does not recognize them as human beings at all," invoking the Quranic verse: " you love them, but they do not do so" Here, the intention is to reinforce the idea that any reliance on relations with "Israel" or America is a reliance on illusion; for the enemy respects neither allies nor subordinates, but rather views everyone as a temporary tool.
The focus of the speech goes to the broader dimension: every American-Israeli effort is focused on "stopping the Yemeni front that supports the Palestinian people... at the highest level, at the highest level," because this front represents an inspiring model for other peoples. According to this argument, Yemen is not merely a supporter of Palestine, but rather a "unique model that revives hope for other peoples" at a time when the official Islamic position has collapsed.
In another context, the Leader links the Israeli project to the concept of "changing the Middle East," which Netanyahu explicitly reiterates: "We are changing the Middle East." This change is not limited to Palestine, but rather targets the entire region: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, and even the Gulf states, including those that rely on their relations with Washington or the West. The message here is that "Israel" sees no exceptions, and that the "equation of violation" that Israel seeks to impose encompasses the entire nation, its sanctities, its resources, and its societies.
Strategically, the speech reaffirms the failure of any reliance on political and security agreements. The Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and even the understandings in Gaza are all examples that the enemy has violated despite American and international guarantees. The bottom line: "Israel" does not respect agreements; rather, it operates with the logic of absolute power, backed by full American cover.
In this context, the Leader recalls that American support is clearly evident: "The United States announced a very large arms deal, equivalent to five billion dollars. This means: to continue the aggression." Added to this is political support and the use of the veto to block any international resolution to stop the genocide in Gaza. The message here is clear: Washington is neither a mediator nor a guarantor, but rather a direct partner in the project of desecration.
In short, the Leader is redrawing the threat map as follows:
"Israel" is the pinnacle of global evil and the embodiment of tyranny.
Those associated with it are mere worthless tools, even to them.
The Zionist project is titled "Changing the Middle East," meaning desecrating the entire nation.
Any reliance on agreements or American protection is a deadly illusion
The Yemeni front represents the only bright spot obstructing this project, and therefore it is the primary target.
Arab Failure and the Paradox of Formal Positions
In the face of Zionist brutality, disregard for Arab dignity, and the absolute American and Western cover for the Israeli enemy, and "the enemies' efforts, at this stage and in this period, focused on eliminating the Yemeni front supporting Gaza by all means of targeting," paint a bleak picture of the official Arab scene: "This is met in reality by complete Arab inaction and the absence of any practical position." Even what is being promoted as political steps, such as seeking recognition by some European countries of a Palestinian state, is nothing more than "a very formal step, a mere media position" that changes nothing.
The reason for this, according to what the Leader of the Revolution put forward, is that the simplest practical measure has not taken place: boycott. The economic, military, and intelligence boycott of the enemy represents the minimum for any serious position, but the reality reveals the opposite. Some Gulf and Arab regimes are "collaborating with the enemy:
They cooperate with it financially.
They cooperate with it economically.
They cooperate with it intelligence-wise.
They are hostile to the fronts that oppose it.
They openly embrace the issue of disarming the mujahideen in Gaza and disarming the mujahideen in Lebanon.
They adopt the same Israeli slogans against the Yemeni front.
They work with the Israeli enemy in providing material, intelligence, and other forms of support against the Yemeni front.
They cooperate with the Israeli enemy in any targeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
How can they not be encouraged to continue when they are assisting it in what ultimately poses a threat to them?!
If the Israeli enemy were to get rid of these fronts, by God, it would have moved on to target others, and they are prepared for complete defeat and total collapse.
The most dangerous thing in this scenario is that some of these regimes are openly adopting Israeli demands: "disarming the mujahideen in Gaza, disarming the resistance in Lebanon, and adopting the same Israeli slogans against the Yemeni front." This exposure exposes their identification with the Zionist project and renders Arab regimes tools that obstruct any Arab or Islamic renaissance.
From an analytical perspective, the Leader of the Revolution draws attention to a profound paradox: the positions of some Latin American and African countries (such as Colombia, Venezuela, and South Africa) are "more sophisticated than those of many Arab regimes." This comparison exposes Arab impotence and places it in an embarrassing international context, as geographically and religiously distant peoples have demonstrated greater moral commitment to Palestine than the "closest of relatives."
The strategic message at this point, raised by the Leader, is:
Arab inaction does not protect the regimes; rather, it sets them up for defeat, because Israel will spare no one.
Any bets on "American protection" or "security agreements" are illusory, as the military and political decisions of these regimes are "subject to American command."
The true interest lies in coordination with the resistance fronts, not in conspiring against them.
In the face of these paradoxes, the Leader proposes an important and necessary strategy to free themselves from American hegemony and Zionist excess: "What benefits all our peoples and our entire nation is: guidance from the Holy Quran, trust in God, and trust in His guidance. {Indeed, this Quran guides to that which is most upright.} . Look at what the Quran says about your enemies, about the correct path, the correct stance, and the correct direction for your stance toward that enemy: jihad in the cause of God, the movement our people are taking, and it is steadfast in its movement against the Israeli enemy."
This means that the Yemeni position is not merely a political choice, but a religious, instinctive, and strategic choice, and it alone ensures the nation's survival in the face of the "Greater Israel" project, which targets everyone without exception.
The Leader of the Revolution moves from describing reality and diagnosing risks to formulating a comprehensive, practical vision.
He clearly demonstrates Yemen's "complete readiness to coordinate with all members of our nation within the framework of this Quranic, logical, natural, and correct approach, in a way that serves this nation and strengthens its resilience against the Zionist Israeli threat and the Zionist plan, which is a plan targeting all of us. Listen to Netanyahu as he says: , , , —this means targeting everyone without exception."
Revolutionary Steadfastness and Building the Future
The Leader concludes his speech by affirming that "our people are steadfast in their position, and our revolutionary path continues to work to correct and reform the official situation, strive for economic renaissance, and confront our enemies." This concise phrase encapsulates the nature of the revolution as an ongoing movement, not a fleeting event, and places it within the framework of a long-term national project facing three overlapping challenges:
The legacy of corruption and plunder, whereby enormous wealth estimated at more than five hundred billion dollars from oil alone has been lost without the state building a solid economic foundation.
The blockade and external aggression, as an open battle with US, "Israel", and their regional proxies.
The dysfunctional structure of the previous state, founded on factional quotas and personal interests rather than the national interest.
In the face of this reality, the speech presents a vision for building a new Yemen:
A resistant economy, based on local production and strong agriculture.
A growing military capability, ensuring independence and sovereignty.
A solid social cohesion, rejecting all tools of sectarian, regional, and racist division.
A solid faith identity, believing in holding fast to the rope of God and adhering to the truth.
But the most important dimension is the insistence that this people—despite the challenges—is capable of transforming adversity into opportunities and building a "pioneering civilization based on its faith-based identity and religious affiliation." This vision links the Yemeni future to the liberation revolution, granting it a foundational role in building the state and civilization, rather than merely a temporary political function.
The strategic dimension also appears in linking the internal renaissance with the external stance: “steadfastness in supporting Palestine and confronting the Zionist scheme, as it is the battle of the entire nation.” Here, a comprehensive equation becomes clear: internal strength—militarily, economically, and socially—is a prerequisite for fulfilling the regional role in confronting “Israel” and its projects.
In conclusion, the Leader of the Revolution’s speech frames September 21 Revolution as a comprehensive civilizational project that transcends the confines of politics to build a future based on freedom, pride, and dignity. In doing so, he presents the people with a roadmap that confirms that the revolutionary path is not only a means of liberation from tutelage, but also the foundation for the economic, social, and civilizational renaissance of the new Yemen.
#The_Zionist_enemy #The_American_British_aggression_against_Yemen
#US_is_the_mother_of_terrorism
#Al_Aqsa_flood
