Saudi Arabia is waging a fierce war of aggression against the Yemeni people, while at the same time attempting to hide and withdraw from the forefront, pushing its dirty proxies to shoulder all its aggression against the country. Even its military spokesman, who appeared only a limited number of times during the latest escalation, disappeared from the scene in favor of statements issued by Riyadh’s proxies under the title of the “internationally recognized government forces.”

This shift in discourse and media narrative was not a matter of coincidence as much as it was the result of a carefully considered plan to reshape the narrative and escape, on the one hand, the stigma of failure and defeat, and on the other, international condemnation. It has specific objectives, foremost among them being to transform the image of the ongoing war from Saudi aggression against Yemen into a Yemeni-Yemeni war. For this reason, emphasis is placed on statements by the Saudi-backed Yemeni military spokesman, with Saudi statements issued in his name, so that the war appears to be an internal Yemeni conflict, while Riyadh presents itself merely as a supporter. In this way, its appearance as a direct actor in the aggression is reduced, transforming it from a principal party into a secondary one.

The Tactic of Retreating from the Forefront… Why Is Riyadh Hiding?

Here lies the central issue. When the spokesman is Saudi, Saudi Arabia appears clearly as a party to the war. But when the spokesman is Yemeni, the media image becomes closer to a war between Yemenis, even with Saudi support remaining present in the background. The difference between the two images is not a simple one, because changing the public face can change the way the public understands the nature of the conflict and the responsibilities associated with it.

On the other hand, Riyadh seeks to portray itself as having a “Yemeni partner,” rather than merely a subordinate, and this partner has its own decisions and institutions. It believes that this can erase the reality of mercenarism among all the Yemeni forces fighting for Saudi Arabia and its destructive projects in Yemen.

As for the international dimension, Saudi Arabia appears to need to present itself before the world and international public opinion as a state being subjected to attacks, rather than as an aggressor state waging a war on its own against a neighboring country for more than 12 years. To achieve this objective, it focuses in its discourse on defense, highlighting attacks on its positions, airports, and oil facilities, and publishing footage showing the arrival of missiles and the scale of destruction at bases and airports—something it had not previously done—in a departure from the circles of denial and concealment of losses, downplaying the significance of strikes, and mocking the missiles by referring to them as “projectiles.”

In reality, the Saudi front has not disappeared completely. On September 24, 2026, Saudi military spokesman Turki al-Maliki announced the interception of ballistic missiles and said that his forces “will deal firmly with the escalation.” He then issued another statement on September 26 regarding the interception of a missile heading toward Khamis Mushait. However, the existence of these statements does not negate another observation: the discourse concerning operations inside Yemen is increasingly appearing through a Yemeni entity presenting itself as “government forces.”

Even in international media coverage, the phrase “Saudi-backed government forces” is repeatedly used in contrast to those described as “Iran-backed Houthis,” making the scene appear, in part of the discourse, to be a conflict between two Yemeni parties, with regional support for each side. Reuters and other agencies have used the expression “Saudi-backed government forces versus Iran-backed Houthi fighters” in their descriptions of the escalation.

Lifting the Curtain… Saudi Arming and Mobilization

The description adopted by Saudi Arabia and its media raises an important question: Who truly possesses the military and political decision-making power?

The answer to this question should not depend on slogans or political descriptions, but rather on evidence relating to financing, armament, chains of command, operations rooms, official statements, and political and military agreements, in addition to the nature of the relationship between local forces and the states providing them with support.

If Saudi Arabia believes that merely changing the spokesman is enough to change the image of the war, then it is completely mistaken, because evidence has established that every aggressive military operation was Saudi. Mobilizations arrived through the Al-Wadiah border crossing, carrying hired personnel, weapons, and equipment transported on giant carriers before being targeted. The same applies to the ships that transported weapons shipments for the escalation in Mokha and the western coast, some of which were targeted along the coast or upon reaching the port.

Moreover, the many questions remain clear in their answers. For example: Where does the leadership of the so-called Presidential Leadership Council, which announces the escalation and issues threats and bluster, meet? Who leads it? Where is it located? Who finances it? Who supplies it with weapons? Who pays its salaries? And who holds influence over the decision of war and peace?

These questions are more precise than simply relying on political descriptions, because they move the discussion from describing individuals and forces to examining the relationships of command, financing, armament, and decision-making, exposing the reality of the Saudi leadership role, its leading position, and its hostile role.

The same applies to the aggressive airstrikes on a number of provinces by Saudi aircraft, which the armed forces have sought to expose through near-daily military statements focusing on the types of aircraft—F-15s and Typhoons—their points of departure and landing, and, at times, additional details concerning the duration of their flights and their movement to carry out operations between Taiz and Al-Jawf.

These details and related information have been turned into a documented file containing the date and location of each operation, the type of weapon used, the party that announced it, and the party to which its execution was attributed, along with field photographs and the human and material losses.

With this information available in such detail and on a regular basis, it becomes difficult for Riyadh to hide or conceal its malicious and aggressive role. Changing the spokesman becomes less capable of changing the reality of the picture or the accuracy of the narrative, because responsibility becomes linked to a record of facts, dates, and evidence rather than depending merely on media discourse circulating at a particular moment.

The Victory on the Western Coast… Documents Bring Down Riyadh’s Curtain

In this context, the footage and documentary evidence revealed by the war media in Mokha constitute a comprehensive field-level dismantling of the policy of retreating from the forefront. The footage showed, beyond any doubt, the nature of the direct Saudi presence through command-and-control centers and operations rooms, and how it fully managed operations involving military decision-making and field control through management and direction.

This also included the secret infrastructure, the secret airfields that were uncovered, naval bases, and military fortifications fully equipped by Saudi forces, as well as the evidence and footage documenting images of Saudi commanders, the names of officers responsible for managing the fronts, and the identities and official documents found inside those headquarters.

All these living field testimonies provide a conclusive answer to the question: Who is actually managing the war on the ground?

What makes the matter even clearer is the downing of a Saudi aircraft in Marib in mid-September 2026, reinforced by footage and images of the aircraft, as well as Saudi messages through intermediaries seeking information about its pilots.

When the masks fall before field documentation from inside the operations rooms and existing airfields, it becomes impossible to promote the narrative of an “internal conflict.” Press statements then become merely a formal cover whose value collapses before the reality of the documented operations rooms and command structures, and the Saudi leadership structure documented through names, faces, and locations.

Riyadh’s Alliances Have Gone Beyond the Local Framework

In parallel with this media retreat, Riyadh is moving rapidly through broader strategic efforts, represented by reaching defense agreements and holding meetings of chiefs of staff between Riyadh and both Turkey and Pakistan to coordinate “defense cooperation” and exchange information.

These moves confirm that, for Riyadh, the issue has gone beyond Yemen’s geography to intersect with regional security systems under the headings of energy security and international navigation. It is working to mobilize the international community through a campaign of fear over navigation and the Bab al-Mandab, or through invoking the Kaaba and claims that attempts have been made to target it, while seeking support and protection from near and far. Britain even announced the deployment of tanker aircraft to support Saudi aerial operations against Yemen.

In the same context came the intensive contacts by Khalid bin Salman with defense ministers of countries around the world. These do not provide evidence of the strength of diplomacy, but rather give a clear indication of a deep predicament and confusion in search of a way out. The relentless effort to build new allies and seek military support to gain strength against Yemen is nothing but an implicit acknowledgment of defeat and the failure of previous alliances that were undermined by Mohammed bin Salman’s recklessness, when he moved to monopolize the Yemeni scene after removing his partners and marginalizing them.

Today, he realizes that every new alliance being built is nothing more than an official testimony to the collapse of what came before it.

Accordingly, the wider the understandings and regional and international roles behind the scenes become, the greater Riyadh’s need to tighten the fictitious narrative and highlight local headlines to conceal the complex military coordination network it is desperately pursuing.

In the End

The battlefield is what reveals the truth, no matter how much the media attempts to change names or conceal personalities. Saudi Arabia is the one managing the war, financing it, and deploying its weapons, and the appearance of a Yemeni spokesman on the screen does not change this reality in any way.

The documents, the military rooms that have been uncovered, and the secret airfields clearly establish who bears primary and ultimate responsibility for everything taking place in Yemen.