I am only aware of GCC diplomats privately acknowledging the fact that military victory is out of reach in 2018 but the realization certainly came far sooner. Ultimately, the purpose of continuing military operations was to not look weak. So why did Western powers keep supporting this endeavor? One obvious answer is that if victory would have propelled Mohammad bin Salman and Saudi Arabia to historical greatness, failure could have been equally discrediting regionally and dangerous for the credibility of the bin Saud clan inside Saudi Arabia when MbS was first taking charge.

The conflict that Western arms sales and emboldening had wrought now became a potential threat and Yemen had to pay the price just to buy time before confessing failure. Other such disasters are often blamed on the neglect of world powers or their infighting. This was enabled by world powers at every point. The fact that three veto-wielding Western powers who promote themselves as guardians of human rights and sponsors of the region’s stability continued to support this medieval siege and grizzly air campaign for so long is a moral failing that is hard to understand. This also reflects many of the problems in U.S. national security decision making from clientitis and enabling hardline forces to the failure of Congress to oversee foreign policy. As the U.S. Naval Academy scholar Kevin Schwartz said “Yemen has become a graveyard of myths for understanding Middle East politics and U.S. foreign policy aims.” Washington will either treat this as an inflection point or be doomed to repeating it.

Alireza Ahmadi is a researcher and analyst focused on U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. His work has been published by the National Interest, The Hill, and Al-Monitor. Follow him on Twitter @AliAhmadi_Iran.

Image: Reuters.