By Abdikarim H. Abdi Buh

Riyadh condemns Houthi missiles and drones crossing into Saudi territory, yet Yemen’s civilian suffering raises a fundamental question: why should the destruction inflicted by a powerful state receive a different standard of scrutiny from attacks carried out by its adversaries?

Saudi Arabia’s renewed military confrontation with Yemen’s Houthi movement exposes the central contradiction of a war that has devastated civilian life, damaged critical infrastructure and failed to deliver a lasting political settlement. Riyadh presents its military campaign as a response to security threats, while the Houthis portray their attacks on Saudi territory as retaliation and self-defence. Yet behind these competing narratives lies a fundamental question of justice: can a state claim the right to protect its citizens while its military operations contribute to the suffering of another country’s population?

The latest escalation has disrupted Saudi aviation, heightened security fears and placed civilian infrastructure at risk on both sides of the border. Reports of missile and drone attacks against Saudi airports have been accompanied by renewed airstrikes against Houthi-held areas of Yemen. Human Rights Watch has documented the dangers to civilians from attacks on both Yemeni and Saudi infrastructure, warning that the conflict must not return to a cycle of unlawful strikes and retaliation.

But the present crisis cannot be understood without examining the longer history of Saudi intervention in Yemen.

A powerful state, a devastated neighbour

Saudi Arabia led a military coalition that intervened in Yemen in March 2015 to support the internationally recognised government after the Houthis seized the capital, Sana’a, and expanded their territorial control. The intervention was presented as a campaign to restore the recognised government and contain a movement Riyadh considers a security threat.

More than a decade later, however, the war has produced neither a decisive military victory nor a durable political settlement. Instead, Yemen has endured widespread destruction, displacement, economic collapse and a humanitarian emergency that has left millions of people dependent on assistance.

Human Rights Watch has documented coalition airstrikes that struck homes, markets, hospitals, schools and other civilian sites. It has also reported on the use of US support, including aerial refuelling and targeting intelligence, during earlier phases of the conflict. These findings raise serious questions about the responsibilities of Saudi Arabia and the foreign governments that enabled its military campaign.

The issue is not whether Saudi Arabia has legitimate security concerns. Every state has a responsibility to protect its population. The issue is whether that responsibility can justify military operations that cause disproportionate civilian harm or damage infrastructure essential to ordinary life.

Under international humanitarian law, civilians and civilian objects must be protected. Attacks must distinguish between military targets and civilian objects, and the expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. These obligations apply to every party, regardless of its military strength or political alliances.

Sana’a airport and the credibility of the ceasefire

The attack on Sana’a International Airport illustrates how quickly fragile restraint can collapse.

On July 13, 2026, forces of Yemen’s internationally recognised government, operating in coalition with Saudi Arabia, struck the airport runway to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing. Human Rights Watch examined satellite imagery and reported that at least five munitions were used, three of which struck the airport’s only operational runway. The organisation noted that the airport was a critical gateway for international travel and humanitarian access to Houthi-controlled territory. It also described the strikes as the first such coalition attacks since the UN-brokered truce began in April 2022.

The Houthis subsequently launched missiles and drones towards Saudi Arabia, describing their actions as retaliation. Saudi authorities reported intercepting a ballistic missile threat, while the Houthis announced attacks against Saudi targets.

The sequence matters. An attack on infrastructure serving millions of civilians can have consequences far beyond its immediate military objective. Sana’a airport is not simply a runway: it is a route for patients seeking medical treatment abroad, humanitarian personnel, essential supplies and families separated by war.

If the objective was to prevent a particular aircraft from landing, the question remains whether the means employed adequately protected civilian needs and complied with international law. The presence of a disputed aircraft does not automatically remove the protections owed to civilian infrastructure.

At the same time, the Houthis’ subsequent attacks on Saudi territory cannot be declared lawful merely because they were described as retaliation. The legality of each attack depends on its target, circumstances and compliance with international humanitarian law. Civilians in Riyadh and elsewhere have the same right to protection as civilians in Sana’a.

The Western role cannot be ignored

Saudi Arabia has benefited from military relationships with Western governments, including arms supplies and, during earlier stages of the war, US aerial refuelling and intelligence support. Such assistance helped sustain a campaign that international human rights organisations repeatedly criticised over civilian casualties and damage to protected infrastructure.

These relationships raise a question that Washington and European capitals cannot avoid: what responsibility do external partners bear when their assistance enables military operations that may violate the laws of war?

Arms sales, refuelling and intelligence cooperation are not automatically unlawful. But neither should they be treated as politically neutral when credible evidence points to serious civilian harm. Governments supplying military assistance should assess the risk that their support could facilitate violations and take appropriate measures to prevent or address that risk.

The same scrutiny must apply to assistance provided to the Houthis. No armed movement should receive a free pass because it opposes a powerful neighbour. The principle is universal: military objectives do not erase civilian rights.

Can Saudi Arabia win this war?

The central strategic mistake may be the belief that superior air power can force the Houthis into submission. A movement that has survived years of bombardment, retained control over substantial territory and developed the capacity to strike across borders is unlikely to be defeated simply by increasing the number of airstrikes.

The latest escalation has also demonstrated that Saudi Arabia’s own infrastructure remains vulnerable. Missile and drone attacks have disrupted aviation and raised concerns about the security of important economic facilities. Reuters reported on October 12 that renewed Houthi attacks had severely disrupted Saudi aviation, while Saudi Arabia responded with further military action in Yemen.

This is the strategic paradox of the conflict: the greater the destruction inflicted on Yemen, the greater the danger that the war will generate further retaliation rather than lasting security.

The Houthis may ultimately emerge from the conflict with greater political leverage if they continue to withstand military pressure. But claiming that their victory is inevitable would be premature. Their long-term position will depend not only on military resilience but also on Yemen’s internal politics, regional diplomacy and their ability to address the needs of the population under their control.

What is clear is that neither side can bomb its way to a sustainable peace.

The alternative is accountability and negotiation

Saudi Arabia has legitimate security interests, and attacks that kill or endanger its civilians deserve condemnation. But those interests cannot justify indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks against Yemen. Likewise, the Houthis cannot invoke self-defence to excuse unlawful strikes against Saudi civilians or civilian infrastructure.

The way forward requires renewed diplomatic engagement, meaningful guarantees against cross-border attacks, protection for humanitarian access and credible investigations into alleged violations by all parties. External powers must use their influence to encourage restraint rather than enable another cycle of escalation.

Yemen’s civilians have paid an intolerable price for a war shaped by domestic rivalries and regional competition. Their suffering should not be treated as collateral to the security ambitions of Saudi Arabia, the strategic calculations of Western governments or the military objectives of the Houthis.

Saudi Arabia may possess superior air power, but military superiority is not the same as political victory. If Riyadh continues to rely on bombardment while failing to secure a lasting settlement, it risks prolonging the very insecurity it says it wants to end. The Houthis may survive and gain leverage, but the greatest measure of success should be whether Yemen’s people can live without fear of the next airstrike, missile or drone.

A durable peace will require something that years of warfare have failed to deliver: accountability, mutual restraint and a political settlement that recognises the rights and security of civilians on both sides of the border.

Abdikarim H. Abdi Buh
Email: abdikarimshak@gmail.com