استراتيجية ردع ثلاثية الأبعاد

The state, by its nature, is territorial. Any state is protective of the integrity of its territories, concerned about its sovereignty and the independence of its decisions. The legitimacy of any state's government, after being a product of the will of its people, is based on its ability to protect the integrity of its territories from any enemy, whether from within or outside. Therefore, we find in the constitutions of all states the necessity for the symbols of government, in the three powers of the state (the government), to work to defend the safety and unity of the homeland.

National security of the state is not treated as a potential threat, but rather as a clear and imminent strategic danger at any time. In any international system, the commitment of states to membership in it depends on acknowledging the right of the state to defend itself against any external threat, by taking all necessary measures to protect its national security and the integrity and unity of its territory. In all cases, the state works to develop effective deterrent tools in anticipation of any attempt to threaten its national security, deterring any external party from even thinking about harming the unity and safety of its territory.

National security is a supreme value that may necessitate resorting to force to protect the borders and interests of states. However, this is not absolute; it is resorted to only after exhausting all peaceful means to deal with disputes between states, to avoid their escalation to the stage of resorting to arms. Wise, effective, and efficient policy to defend national security and the interests of the state requires starting with peaceful means to resolve disputes, but in the background, there is always an effective deterrent force, with the will to use it, ready to intervene to put an end to the threat, once and for all.

This is exactly what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did in the Yemen crisis, which some are trying to ignite as a threat to the national security of the Kingdom. Here, Riyadh realized that there was no longer any option but to rise up to confront the imminent security threat, extending across land and water, around the Arabian Peninsula, and on the borders of the Kingdom on the other side of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, and even the countries of the African coast.

Thus, Riyadh decided that the threshold had been reached regarding the implementation of plans targeting the security of the Kingdom, and there was no longer any room to deal with them except with the saying: the last remedy is cauterization. From the beginning, the crisis of instability on our southern borders developed since the early 1960s, which was governed by the Taif Agreement of 1934, until the signing of the Jeddah Agreement in 2000, delineating the borders between the Kingdom and Yemen, and this agreement was indeed implemented, with border markers placed between the Kingdom and Yemen. However, crises of instability in Yemen continued with a dangerous trajectory, almost threatening the state in Yemen, when the events of what is known as the Arab Spring (January 2011) swept through the unity of Yemen, leading to non-state militias taking control of governance in Yemen... Consequently, there was a possibility of the sparks of these events reaching across the southern borders of the Kingdom with Yemen, especially since among those formed into the coalition to support legitimacy, to restore the state in Yemen, they worked to exploit these events to harm the national security of the Kingdom.

On the fourth of December last, elements from the Southern Transitional Council decided to separate and rebel, which burdened the Arab coalition that was formed primarily to support the legitimacy of the state, keeping Yemen united, as the most important strategic guarantee for the stability of Yemen, and consequently the stability of the region.

With the entry of the Transitional Council (separatist) forces into the provinces of Hadramaut and Al-Mahra, the issue was no longer about rebuilding a state in southern Yemen, but rather a threat to the security of the Kingdom, and a return to the scenario of the first Wadi'ah War (November 27 - December 6, 1969), when the newly independent state of South Yemen attempted to enter the Saudi center of Wadi'ah, and they were repelled by the forces of the Saudi Arabian Army, in a decisive Saudi victory, affirming the Saudi army's will to maintain the security of the country.

Today, there was an attempt to repeat the scene as if those lurking around the security of the Kingdom had not yet tested the determination and resolve of Saudi Arabia to defend its national security, as the matter did not stop at the recovery of the provinces of Hadramaut and Al-Mahra... Riyadh has drawn its new security boundaries not only on land with Yemen, but has extended beyond the Arabian Sea, reaching the Horn of Africa, and beyond the western borders of the Red Sea, and even to the countries of the coast south of the Sahara.

All of this would not have happened without effective political management of the crisis, with high efficiency, combining effective and active diplomacy with a traditional three-dimensional deterrent military force (land, sea, and air) supported by a vast and extraordinary intelligence capability, in a harmonious coordination recognized by the world... This confirmed its extended regional influence and active international presence. Through this deterrent strategy, it also delineated its new national security boundaries, to the south and west, beyond land, extending across the width of the Arabian Sea to the south, reaching the Horn of Africa and the coastal countries, and reclaiming the Red Sea, starting from its southern entrance, and up to its convergence with the Mediterranean Sea to the north, reflecting the vital (geopolitical) nature and history of this sea, as a purely Arab lake.