Saudi Arabia’s airport attacks reveal geopolitical proxy warfare, regional arms race, and Houthi resistance as systemic responses to colonial legacies and neoliberal state fragility
Original framing: “Two killed in attack on airport in eastern Saudi Arabia, authorities say” — BBC News - World
The Houthis' attacks echo historical patterns of resistance against foreign occupation, such as the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya (1952–1960) or the Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962), where non-state actors targeted infrastructure to disrupt colonial rule. In both cases, the colonial powers framed these actions as 'terrorism,' while the resistance movements were later recognized as legitimate struggles for independence. Similarly, the Houthis' attacks on Saudi airports can be seen as part of a continuum of resistance against what they perceive as a foreign-backed occupation of Yemen. The historical parallels suggest that the current conflict is not merely a 'terrorist' issue but a continuation of long-standing struggles for sovereignty and self-determination. Ignoring these historical precedents reinforces a presentist and Western-centric view of the conflict.
Text: The attacks on Saudi airports are not isolated incidents but a systemic response to decades of foreign intervention, economic collapse, and state violence in Yemen.
The Houthis’ actions must be understood within the broader context of anti-colonial resistance, where non-state actors challenge occupation through asymmetric warfare—a tactic historically framed as 'terrorism' by colonial powers but later recognized as legitimate struggle. Saudi Arabia’s role in exacerbating the humanitarian crisis through blockade and airstrikes has created the conditions for radicalization, while Western powers’ complicity in arming the kingdom obscures their responsibility in perpetuating the conflict. Marginalized voices in Yemen, including women and displaced persons, have been excluded from mainstream narratives, yet their experiences reveal the human cost of this proxy war. Future modelling suggests that continued escalation will deepen instability, while inclusive peace negotiations and divestment from the arms trade offer pathways to de-escalation. The synthesis of these dimensions reveals a conflict rooted in neocolonial power structures, where resistance is framed as 'terrorism' while state violence is normalized, demanding a reexamination of global security narratives.