The first shipment of petroleum derivatives provided by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through the Saudi Development and Reconstruction Program for Yemen has arrived in Yemen's Socotra Archipelago. This shipment is part of a broader support package aimed at revitalizing the vital electricity sector, alleviating the humanitarian suffering of the Yemeni people, and ensuring the continuity of essential services that have been severely impacted by the country's ongoing crisis.

General context and ongoing Saudi support

This support comes within the framework of Saudi Arabia's ongoing efforts to assist Yemen in confronting the challenges posed by years of conflict, which have led to the deterioration of infrastructure and the decline of basic services, most notably the energy sector. This grant is part of a recently announced Saudi development and economic support package totaling 1.9 billion Saudi riyals, encompassing 28 vital development projects and initiatives. This grant is not the first of its kind; it follows successive oil grants provided by the Saudi Development and Reconstruction Program for Yemen in 2018 (US$180 million), 2021 (US$422 million), and 2022 (US$200 million), reflecting a firm Saudi commitment to supporting Yemen's stability.

Details of the grant and its direct impact

This initial shipment aims to power electricity stations in key districts of Socotra, including Hadibu, Qalansiyah, Muri, and Alama, ensuring a reliable power supply for residents and vital infrastructure in these areas. The current grant comprises 339 million liters of diesel and fuel oil, valued at US$81.2 million. Subsequent shipments are planned to cover more than 70 power generation stations across various Yemeni governorates, a step intended to achieve sustainable stability in the energy sector.

Economic and social importance

The anticipated impact of this grant extends far beyond simply providing electricity to homes; it encompasses all aspects of life. A stable electricity supply ensures the efficient operation of hospitals and medical centers, the continuity of education in schools, and the functioning of airports and seaports, which are vital arteries of the economy. Furthermore, the availability of electricity contributes to boosting commercial activity and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, thus laying the foundation for economic recovery. Strategically, these initiatives enhance the capacity of Yemeni government institutions to deliver services to their citizens. The grant agreement was signed with the Yemeni Ministry of Electricity and Energy, stipulating that petroleum derivatives will be purchased from the Yemeni company PetroMasila, thereby supporting national companies and contributing to the revitalization of the local economy.

In a move that will leave its mark on the global health landscape for years to come, the United States has confirmed its formal and final withdrawal from the World Health Organization. The decision, activated by presidential executive order, stems from what Washington described as the organization's "repeated failures" in its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The US indicated it will no longer participate in WHO meetings, even as an observer, and will instead address global public health issues directly with other countries.

A tense historical background: a decision that did not come out of nowhere

This decision was not entirely unexpected by observers, as it represents the culmination of years of escalating tension between Washington and the UN agency. The roots of the dispute can be traced back to the administration of former President Donald Trump, who sharply criticized the organization during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing it of bias toward China and of being slow to declare a global health emergency. In 2020, his administration had already begun the process of withdrawing from the WHO, a move that was later frozen and ultimately reversed by the Biden administration, which emphasized the importance of the US role in leading global health from within international organizations. Therefore, the current decision represents a strong resurgence of isolationist policies in the health sector, reflecting a deep division within US policy regarding the effectiveness of multilateral cooperation.

The consequences of withdrawal: a loss for America and the world

The withdrawal of the United States, the largest financial contributor to the organization's budget at nearly 18%, is a devastating blow to global health efforts. The financial repercussions are already being felt, with the organization facing a severe crisis that has led to staff reductions and a scaling back of its core programs, with a quarter of its staff expected to be laid off. This funding shortfall not only threatens the organization's ability to coordinate responses to future pandemics but also impacts its vital programs to combat diseases such as polio, malaria, and HIV/AIDS in developing countries, leaving a void that may prove difficult to fill.

On the other hand, experts believe the decision will harm American interests themselves. By withdrawing, Washington loses its seat at the table where global health decisions are made and isolates itself from the WHO's early warning and virus monitoring networks, which are considered the first line of defense against pandemics. As WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated, this withdrawal is "a loss for America and for the world," emphasizing that global health challenges can only be addressed through collective and coordinated action.

An uncertain future and financial disputes

Complicating matters further is the ongoing dispute over financial dues. Under the organization's rules, a withdrawing member state is obligated to settle its outstanding financial commitments, which in the case of the United States amount to approximately $260 million. While the organization maintains that Washington has not paid its contributions for 2024 and 2025, the US State Department denies that any legal requirement exists to make payments before the withdrawal is finalized. In a symbolic gesture, the American flag was removed from the organization's headquarters in Geneva, ushering in a new period of uncertainty surrounding the future of international health cooperation in a world facing escalating health threats.

Former US President Donald Trump announced, in a statement that sparked international concern, that a "large military force" was en route to Iran, emphasizing that he was monitoring developments in the region "very closely." These remarks further escalated tensions in the already strained relationship between Washington and Tehran, with Trump threatening harsh punitive and economic measures.

In his remarks to reporters, Trump explained that his administration would not hesitate to impose secondary tariffs on countries that continue their trade relations with Tehran, representing an escalation of the “maximum pressure” economic campaign. But the most serious threat was his linking of potential military action to the internal situation in Iran, warning that any execution of protesters would be met with a US military response that would make previous strikes “look like nothing,” a clear indication of his administration’s hardline policy toward the Iranian regime.

Background of ongoing tension

These threats come within a historical context of escalating hostility between the two countries during Trump's presidency. In 2018, Trump made the historic decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), signed in 2015, and reimposed crippling economic sanctions aimed at crippling the Iranian economy and forcing it to renegotiate its nuclear and missile programs and regional influence. This policy, known as the "maximum pressure campaign," significantly worsened relations and brought the region to the brink of military confrontation on several occasions.

The importance and impact of military movements

To lend credibility to his threats, Trump's statements coincided with confirmations from US Navy officials that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its accompanying strike group had deployed to the Indian Ocean after departing the South China Sea. Deploying an aircraft carrier to the region is a clear deterrent message, intended to project power and demonstrate readiness for any contingency. Such moves not only affect Iranian military calculations but also send signals to US allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and raise concerns among other international powers seeking to maintain stability in the Gulf region, vital to global energy supplies.

Brandishing the military option and linking it to internal human rights issues in Iran is a dangerous strategy that could have dire consequences. Regionally, any miscalculation by either side could trigger a wider conflict that might draw in other countries. Internationally, this escalation further complicates the diplomatic efforts of European countries, Russia, and China to salvage the nuclear agreement, and it threatens the stability of global oil markets, which are highly sensitive to any tension in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.