yemen

Iran and Saudi Arabia, as two prominent countries in the region, initially engaged in mostly political rivalry prior to the Islamic Revolution—a competition in which each side sought to reduce the capabilities of the other. However, following the Islamic Revolution, particularly in recent years, this rivalry has taken on a predominantly security-oriented dimension. This has become a zero-sum game, wherein each side attempts to eliminate the other from its respective spheres of influence. Within this context, the present study seeks to answer the following question: what is the role of proxy wars in the regional competition between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and particularly in the Yemeni theater? The research is descriptive-analytical in nature and is based on the hypothesis that proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia, amid the intensification of competition in arenas such as Syria and Yemen, have served to prevent direct confrontation between the two actors. The study employs Stephen Walt’s “Balance of Threat Theory” as its theoretical framework. The findings demonstrate that the regional rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be characterized as sectarian (Sunni versus Shīʿī), ethnic (Arab versus Persian), ideological (pro-American allies versus anti-American forces), and geopolitical. Each country naturally regards itself not only as the leader of the Middle East but also of the entire Islamic world. This self-perception has escalated tensions and proxy warfare between Iran and Saudi Arabia to unprecedented levels in recent decades. Based on the assumptions of offensive realism, Saudi Arabia has adopted an aggressive foreign policy towards Iran due to regional chaos in the Middle East, uncertainty about Iran’s intentions and motives, and a positive self-assessment of its own offensive capabilities (political, economic, and military). Despite considerable differences in the foreign and regional policies of Saudi Arabia and Iran, the emergence of proxy wars has thus far prevented the outbreak of direct warfare between the two, keeping their competition confined to indirect confrontation.

Some speculations and analyzes after the escalation of the war crisis in Yemen were that this crisis will go in the direction where one of the conflicting parties will defeat the other party or a ceasefire will be concluded between the two parties; In such a way that the difference between them will be resolved and any kind of violent confrontation will end. But now the fire of war in Yemen has subsided and on the other hand the ceasefire period (April 13 to October 10, 2022) has been canceled and the country is in a state of neither war nor peace. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as a supporter of Ansarullah, seeks to identify the positive and negative consequences of the situation of neither war nor peace in Yemen and provide an appropriate strategy to Ansarallah.
Therefore, in this research, we decided to investigate and evaluate the consequences of the continuation of this situation in Yemen, to determine whether the policy of neither war nor peace and the continuation of the existing situation is in favor of Ansarullah or the Transitional Council and its supporters; Because if the continuation of the current procedure does not bring any achievements for Ansarullah, either during the ceasefire period or after, the officials of Ansarallah must decide to change tactics and leave the current situation to change the balance in their favor.

The aim of this study is to examine the Yemen crisis from the perspective of the international community with a focus on the United Nations Charter. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and the results indicate that, regardless of the objectives of Saudi Arabia and its allied states in attacking Yemen, and independent of whether the aggression against Yemen was legal under the rule prohibiting the use of force in international relations—which is the cornerstone of the formation of the United Nations—and irrespective of whether the Yemen conflict is classified as international, all parties involved in the Yemen war are bound by the treaties to which they are signatories. Based on this framework, and relying on extensive and legally admissible evidence, it can be concluded that the forces attacking Yemen have repeatedly committed three international crimes: "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", and "genocide." The perpetrators of these crimes must be pursued, tried, and punished according to existing treaties by competent judicial authorities. Furthermore, Yemen’s courts and the courts of the signatory states of the four Geneva Conventions (1949) are considered the most appropriate judicial bodies, given their universal jurisdiction.

With the formation of political developments inYemenregional and extraregional actors based on their interests and self-interests have adopted different orientationinrelation to this country, which has a special geopolitical and geostrategic importance in the MiddleEast, which tries to study the complexity of the country's situation, considering the positionThe strategic importance of Yemen and its importance for two regional rivals and the formation of intra-regional and international competition should answer the question of what effect Iran's role in the Yemen crisis has on the security of Saudi ArabiaThe research is based on the fact that Iran's foreign policy towards the crisis in Yemen is as a regional power against the former dependent system and the supporter of the people's movement to get rid of foreign domination and dependencies in this countryThe fall of the Saudi dependent system in Yemen and the role of the Shiitesand the revolutionariesrole in weakening Saudi Arabia and strengthening resistance and changing the balance of power to the detriment of this country and in favor of Iran to assert itself as the first power in the Middle East

The West Asian region is known as one of the geopolitical areas at the global level, where the actors of this regional system always experience relations with tension, crisis and conflict. It has been institutionalized in the form of deep and comprehensive conflicts. Iran, having its own security system, is one of the important players in this regional environment. By playing an active and dynamic role, it has always adopted a collective, constructive and restorative approach in order to create maximum stability and comprehensive peace, while respecting the interests and accepting the role of other actors, which is placed in the form of a game with a positive and double sum. In contrast to the two actors of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime in Qallab, a very complex and non-constructive cooperation, with maximum coordination and alignment, have adjusted and redesigned their actions in order to eliminate the interests and strategic role of Iran. The confrontational approach of these two The country is placed in the form of a game with a negative and zero sum. Yemen plays a balancing role in the security system of Iran as a strategic ally in front of the two countries. which guarantees the presence and stabilizes the strategic survival of Iran in the strategic environment and the course of modern regional developments (from the Islamic awakening to the Al-Aqsa storm)

The Zionist regime, as an agent of the domination system in order to monitor the Middle East region and manage the regional governments, was attacked by Hamas in the south of the occupied territories during the Al-Aqsa storm operation. Relying on the comprehensive support of the United States and several European countries caused the crisis to be transferred beyond the borders of occupied Palestine and the formation of an unwritten regional alliance between the axes of resistance against Israel to end the dominance of the West in the Middle East and to unite the resistance groups in the region in defense of the people's freedom struggles. In the meantime, Yemen's official intervention in the war in the form of naval operations against Zionist vessels or carrying goods and items belonging to the Zionists is considered a very important turning point from a military and geopolitical point of view. And it is overcoming distances, but also a kind of territorial power expansion, geopolitics of Islamic resistance in the face of the hegemonic power of the domination system.This research uses Wallerstein's world system theory and analytical-descriptive method in order to answer the question, "What is the effect of Yemen's Ansarullah's military actions against Israel in the Gaza crisis?"

Iran's Islamic Revolution has played a significant role in finding Shiism as a geopolitical center in the world, raising the intellectual level and political vision of Shiites in the region. The ideology of this revolution and the presence of the leadership of Imam Khomeini led Shiites, including the Shiites of Yemen, to become fascinated by this revolution. In this article, in response to the main question, what role did the Islamic Revolution of Iran play in the formation and activities of the Yemeni Ansarullah movement? It was determined that the Iranian Islamic Revolution, through teachings such as anti-authoritarianism, anti-arrogance, popular participation, seeking independence and gaining identity, played an inspiring role in the emergence of the Ansarullah movement in Yemen and the role of providing cohesion and creating a popular resistance strategy in the fight against the authoritarian system and foreign intervention. Is. For this purpose, by using the conceptual literature of the system theory that shows the new aspect of this issue, and by using the descriptive-analytical method and library tools, the influence of the Ansarullah movement on the Iranian Islamic Revolution was analyzed. As a result of the impact of Ansarullah movement on concepts, identity, values and revolutionary and Islamic norms of Iran, it has played an important role in shaping the goals and behavior of this movement.

With the onset of what is known as the Arab Spring, it was inevitable for Iran and Saudi Arabia to play a role. These two important countries in the region took completely different positions regarding the current developments in the crisis-affected countries, including Yemen. After Iran's support for Ansarullah, Saudi Arabia launched a military attack on Yemen in April 2014. After 6 years of war, Saudi Arabia shifted towards engaging in political dialogue with the Yemeni side. The main issue of this article is why this change occurred. In response to this problem, using the explanatory-analytical method, it is argued that factors at three levels of analysis - domestic (Saudi Arabia), regional, and international - led to the Saudi military attack on Yemen and subsequent changes at these three levels. It is mentioned that this caused Saudi Arabia to opt for diplomacy. Meanwhile, Iran's role is examined at the regional level of analysis.

Powerful countries always consider themselves the right to intervene in crises to prevent threats against their interests and gain more benefits. The West Asian region has an important place in the equations of great powers such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran and West Asia's relationships with these actors includes a long history of mutual actions and reactions. Yemen has always been the arena of competition between regional and trans-regional powers and countries have tried to increase their influence in Yemen to ensure their survival. Today, Yemen is one of the active centers of the crisis in West Asia and many actors at the internal, regional and trans-regional levels have played a role in its developments in order to obtain good results. Governments have a wide role in the direction of domestic and foreign policy and always portray hypothetical enemies against their territorial integrity and such an attitude will be an important factor in increasing the political and military tension in the relations between governments. The developments in the West Asian region have not been excluded from this logic.Research question: The main question is: what are the similarities and differences between the threat-oriented foreign policy of Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia regarding the Yemen crisis and how it is evaluated.

Research hypothesis: 

The hypothesis is that all three seek to increase their regional influence, reduce threats and balance with a threat-oriented attitude but these common goals have led to the adoption of different policies. While Iran has formed an alliance with Ansarullah and supported the Houthis, Saudi Arabia has opposed this action in order to neutralize Iran's influence and maintain its hegemony by preventing the waves of the Arab revolution from spreading to its borders with the aim of controlling the Strait of Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea. Meanwhile, Russia has decided to mediate, be neutral and maintain good relations with the conflicting parties and by being present in the south of Yemen and prevent conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is looking for its economic interests in order to maintain its Eurasian mission.

Methodology and theoretical framework: 

Based on the theory of balance of threats, Stephen Walt believes that countries are able to analyze external threats or act on threats. Therefore, countries often try to balance against other countries from which they feel threatened. The threat perception, whether correct or incorrect, provides the factors of fear and concern of the governments and affects the relations of the governments. According to Stephen Walt, the balance of threats can be a better indicator for predicting the formation of alliances and is able to gradually make changes in the foreign policy goals of countries. Therefore, Yemen can be considered an ideal example of the conditions in the balance of threats. This theory is based on the fact that the determining factor of countries' security is the power of each country to detect threats and understand and deal with them.The purpose of this research is to examine the similarities and differences of the threat-oriented foreign policy of Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Yemen crisis, using a descriptive-analytical approach based on the comparative qualitative method and the use of library sources.

In terms of economy, politics and security, the West Asian region has a special place in the equations of countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran and the relationship between West Asia and these actors includes an ancient history of actions and reactions. Today, Yemen is one of the active centers of crisis in West Asia and many actors at different levels play a role in it to achieve their desired goals. Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia have also tried to increase regional power, reduce threats, balance, maintain stability and increase their regional influence and have adopted different policies to deal with threats. Yemen's political developments are the main factor in judging whether Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia's sphere of influence will decrease or increase especially in a situation where Yemen is considered a suitable environment for the escalation of internal and external conflicts between regional players. Based on this, the behavior of these countries can be analyzed with components such as interests and gaining more points, considering different levels of power and ability to act in crises, based on the "balance of threat" theory. After the Arab uprisings, the West Asian countries look at the crises of the region with a geopolitical perspective and conduct their regional policy based on their interests and threats, and play a zero-sum game to strengthen their influence and prevent further influence and intervention of foreigners in the region.

While Iran has made an alliance with Ansarullah and has supported Yemen and maintained its influence in the region, Saudi Arabia has acted to counter Ansarallah and neutralize Iran's influence and help stabilize its hegemony. On the other hand, Russia has tried to mediate and strengthen its role by being neutral and maintain good relations with the conflicting parties with the aim of controlling the Strait of Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea to ensure the preservation of its Eurasian mission by being present in the south of Yemen and increasing its bargaining power.

Although Yemen was mainly without a single state until 1990, the gradual dissolution of the country's territorial integrity concerned the international community and turned into the world's worst humanitarian crisis in recent years. In the meantime, many humanitarian organizations have directly and indirectly sent their aid to this country to alleviate the suffering of Yemeni civilians. One of these humanitarian organizations was the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This descriptive-analytical study aims to address the crisis in Yemen, find out why humanitarian organizations are attracted to this country, and discuss the organization's performance in reducing human and non-human damages caused by internal crises. The primary research's concern is the performance of the ICRC in dealing with the Yemen crisis. This descriptive-analytical study argues that the activities of the ICRC have led to the expansion of security and the reduction of damages to civilians, women, and children during the Yemen crisis. This study used a bibliographic technique for data collection.

The developments known as the Arab Spring began in 2011 with the popular uprising of Tunisia in the Horn of Africa and quickly spread to other countries in the region and led to dramatic changes in the political and social structures of some countries in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. In the meantime, in particular, the country of Saudi Arabia, which has a closed system of the royal type, considered its existence to be seriously exposed to the damage caused by this wave of transformation in both domestic and foreign spheres. As Umm al-Qari, the Islamic world has defined the continuity, expansion of its presence and influence in the region, and specifically "Syria and Yemen" in line with the strategic interests of Iran, as a result of which the emotional and non-constructive reaction in It appeared before the This country, which is known for adopting conservative policies in its foreign policy, has tried to protect its interests, expand its influence in the region and maintain its position as the leader of the Islamic world by adopting an aggressive approach. In this article, the author tries to is to compare the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia in the crisis of Yemen and Syria by using the approach of aggressive realism. The findings of the research show that: "The two countries of Syria and Yemen are the focus of strategic competition between the two countries, Saudi Arabia by transferring terrorist groups "Takfiri to Syria and direct attack on Yemen has appeared in the role of an actor in the atmosphere of conflict, and with an aggressive dynamic approach, it is acting in maximum conflict with the strategic interests of J.A. Iran".Middle East developments

Due to its special geopolitical and geostrategic position, Yemen has always been the subject of interference by regional and extra-regional powers. Bringing Yemen in a crisis, the formation of the Arab uprisings and then the intervention of regional and international powers turned this country into a domestic and foreign battlefield. This article seeks to answer the question of what geopolitical interests four important regional actors, namely the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Zionist regime, pursue in the Yemen crisis. The findings of the research show that despite the political and ideological motivations of all these actors, most of their basic goals in this crisis are aimed at the geopolitical and geostrategic advantages of Yemen.
In addition to its ideological goals of helping the oppressed, Iran views this crisis as an arena for expanding the geopolitical depth of the axis of resistance. And, as the most important regional actor involved in the Yemen crisis, Saudi Arabia sees this country essential to advance its regional and international ambitions, as well as to draw a veil over its geopolitical problems. The United Arab Emirates, which has based its foreign policy on sea and strait diplomacy, considers Yemen's geopolitics as the backbone of its policies in order to play a more effective role in the region, and the Zionist regime, which is known as one of the beneficiary political actors in the Red Sea, considers the geopolitical position of Yemen important for providing shipping security and improving its deterrence power against the resistance front.
With the emergence (occurrence) of the Arab uprisings, Yemen, like previous decades, suffered internal crisis and chaos and; as a result, many regional and extra-regional actors entered this crisis in order to benefit from Yemen's geopolitical gifts.
Due to its unique geopolitical and geostrategic position, Yemen is significant for regional and trans-regional actors; therefore, each of the regional powers, especially the four main influential actors in the Yemen crisis, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Zionist regime, consider some interests for themselves in this country. Despite the political, economic, ideological and military interests, the biggest factor that has drawn these actors towards Yemen crisis is the geopolitical and geostrategic advantages of this country which include political, economic and other advantages.
In addition to political and ideological interests, the Yemen crisis and the promotion of Ansarullah from a sub-national to a national and even regional power have had geopolitical benefits for Tehran.
having not very peaceful relations with Iran during the era of Ali Abdullah Saleh and Mansour Hadi, yemen, with the outbreak of its crisis and the presence of Ansarullah in this country, was added to the circle of Iranian friends in the region and expanded the strategic depth of Iran to the Red Sea and the strategic strait of Bab al-Mandab.
With such an opportunity, in addition to prompting the geopolitical weight of the axis of resistance and itself, Iran can increase its deterrenc power against its most important regional enemy, the Zionist regime, and its most important regional rival, Saudi Arabia.  Iran can also prevent the political, military and economic strategies of the West, especially the United States, to isolate Iran and exclude it from the transit corridors.  The result of such developments can be an increase in Iran's national security factor.
The second and probably the most important foreign actor involved in the Yemen crisis is Saudi Arabia. The Yemen crisis, in general, imposed many political, economic, military and geopolitical costs on Saudi Arabia, because with the occurrence of Islamic awakening and the emergence of such actors as Ansarullah, Riyadh's influence in Sana'a was reduced and this country faced many challenges. However, the geopolitical interests of Saudi Arabia, such as reducing the geopolitical risk of Yemen for Riyadh, the connection with the high seas through the control of Yemen's strategic ports, as well as the stability of the Arabian Peninsula in order to continue its ambitious approaches at the regional and international levels, led Riyadh to maximize its presence in the Yemen crisis.
The third regional actor involved in the Yemen crisis is the United Arab Emirates, whose interests in Yemen can be considered completely geopolitical. With its maritime and strait diplomacy, the UAE seeks to dominate the international waterways and ports and strategic islands of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and by the way, the Yemen crisis made this strategy of the UAE a reality. During the last decade, the UAE has been able to make capital investments in many ports and islands in the south of Yemen and to have a significant military presence there.
Therefore, the interests of the UAE, unlike Saudi Arabia, are the division of Yemen and the support of the Southern Transitional Council in order to guarantee its decisive influence in the south of Yemen and the geostrategic regions of this country and achieve its ambitious goals in order to become the economic and tourism hub of the Middle East.
The fourth influential but shadowy regional actor in the Yemen crisis is the Zionist regime. The regime , which has experienced the loss of access to the Red Sea in the 1973 war (Yom Kippur), knows that the loss of the Red Sea can endanger its foundation.
Therefore, the developments of all the countries of the Red Sea and especially Yemen, which owns the Strait of Bab al-Mandeb in addition to being located in the Red Sea, is important for the Zionist regime.
The Yemen crisis is important for the Zionist regime since it has been  able to bring together reactionary Arab countries and the Jewish state and also to advance the balkanization of the Middle East one step further.
But the most important benefit of the Zionist regime from the crisis in Yemen can be seen in the connection of this regime with the Southern Transitional Council and its hidden presence in the south of Yemen and the strategic islands of this country, creating many opportunities for.
However, the emergence of Ansarullah is the most important challenge for the Zionist regime in the Yemen crisis, which can not only neutralize all these political and geopolitical opportunities resulting from the crisis, but also creates numerous threats to the regime in the Red Sea.

Yemen ' s maritime blockade began with the presence of Saudi Arabia led coalition naval forces in 2 0 1 5 in the waters of Yemen and continues to these days . The prohibition of arriving the humanitarian aid, the lack of medicines and medical facilities , the lack of fuel, the severe starvation , the spread of illnesses , including cholera, and finally the destruction of thousands of Yemeni civilians as a consequence of this naval blockade , need to investigate the legality or illegality of the blockade under international law . The present topic has sought by descriptive-analytical method and with regard to collecting mainly qualitative research information by library method and in the form of using documents, books, authoritative articles and related websites. The legal studies state that armed conflict between the Yemeni government or the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia with the Ansarallah Movement People's Committees and parts of the Yemeni army is non-international armed conflict and so, the blockade is illegal. In addition to the blockade breaches the international humanitarian law, such as the San Remo instruction and the Second Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

For nearly seven years, Saudi Arabia and its allies have waged a war on Yemen, resulting in massive civilian casualties, especially among children, and widespread damage to educational facilities in the country. According to the principles of international law, targeting educational facilities as part of cultural property constitutes a violation of humanitarian law, including the four Geneva Conventions. However, the extent to which this violation entails the international liability of the Saudi-backed coalition in the global arena and whether the foreign actors intervening in Yemen are liable for targeting educational facilities or not are the main questions of this research, which have been investigated based on the norms of international law. The research findings suggest that since international liability law is derived from the notion of equal sovereignty of states and the nature of the international legal system, it seems that the issue of third-state liability for aiding or abetting or otherwise participating in an internationally wrongful act is a well-established concept in international law. Therefore, the Saudi-backed coalition bears international liability for destroying educational facilities and should be held accountable for their wrongful acts according to international mechanisms.

The possible agreement between Saudi Arabia and Yemen’s Ansarullah and the conflicts of Saudi-UAE interests in Yemen has put the peace agreement in this country in a fragile state. Despite the extensive efforts and movements for peace in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are competing for influence in southern Yemen, which is of great geostrategic importance for both countries. The UAE, which was the main member of the military coalition against Yemen at the beginning of the Saudi military invasion of Yemen, currently has no role in the dialogues and negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Ansarullah. It is likely that the dynamics of competition between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi will continue in southern Yemen, and even after the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Ansarullah, it will cause more tensions in southern Yemen. Considering the current fragile peace situation, the main question of the research is that in the Saudi-Yemen peace, what will be the situation of the Yemeni islands under the occupation of the UAE? It seems that if this trend continues, we will witness the escalation of the conflict between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

The present research concerns the relation between the fragile state in Yemen and the spread of Salafism in the country. The method of the research is descriptive and analytic. The findings indicate that since fragile governments fail to accomplish their vital tasks, such as exercise of authority and provision of services, they lack adequate legitimacy and are incapable of exploiting the resources of the country. As a result, they face a crisis of national solidarity and national identity. Overall, as a consequence of the fragility of the government of Yemen due to the disruption of its authority and legitimacy, and ultimately, the incapacity of the government, non-governmental actors, particularly Islamist groups, do the governmental tasks. Given the regional support of Salafism, particularly by Saudi Arabia, as well as the political act of international actors and instrumental deployment of Jihadi Salafists, these groups enjoy an ideological potential and the power to provide services in regions in which the government lacks authority and legitimacy. This has led to the spread of Salafist groups in the region. However, this is not to ignore the impact of other factors on the growth or decline of Salafist groups

 The creation and destruction of "tribal order" in Yemen is a decisive component in the analysis of the development process of this country. In this research, we answer the main question that what role did ethnic and tribal characteristics and components play in the popular uprising and revolutionary changes in Yemen from 2011 to 2022.

 The method of research is descriptive-analytical by using library and internet sources.

 One of the important and fundamental cultural and social features of Yemen, which has been the source of political developments throughout history, is the functioning of ethnic and tribal structures. This component in the Yemen popular uprising in 2011 has also been a vital component in rearranging the political framework of this country and current developments; After a long period of accompanying the tribal leaders in Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government, which led to the strengthening of the wealth and influence of some sheikhs and the weakening of some of their ties with the tribe, at the beginning of the crisis in 2011, we witnessed the multi-faceted performance and rearrangement of tribal forces. As a result, the position of tribes changed.

 The research findings show; during the revolutionary developments in Yemen, the traditional determining position of the tribes has gradually lost its coherence and their role in determining the current developments is decreasing

In this article, using the descriptive-analytical method, we are looking for an answer to the question, what effect does the reconstruction of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have on the peace in Yemen? In this regard, using the three variables of Rosna's theory, that is; The type of political system and perception of its role (Islamic Republic system and Saudi political system), the role of decision makers (Iranian and Saudi foreign policy decision makers) and environmental variables in the field of the international system (the role of America, China and Europe) support this hypothesis. We proposed that one of the areas where the confrontation between the politics of Iran and Saudi Arabia can be observed is Yemen, and the different views of Iran and Saudi Arabia on the Houthi Shiites and the role of environmental variables have caused different reactions of these two countries, which today is due to the approach Unlike Biden, the common interests of the two countries in order to stabilize regional power in line with their values and the role of decision-makers in order to de-escalate and improve relations have a great impact on the end of the war in Yemen and the preservation of its territorial integrity. The findings of the research show that the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the conflict of interests of these two countries in the Yemen crisis had created a game with an algebraic sum of zero and the result of this game was nothing but conflict and conflict. In order to get out of this crisis, the two countries have started to negotiate about their areas of influence and improve their relations in order to promise peace and stability in Yemen and their regional security.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the extent of Saudi Arabia's adherence to the principles of international humanitarian law in the war with Yemen and the consequences of its breaking these principles for the oppressed people of Yemen. The research method used in this article is deductive-hypothetical. This means that the authors have investigated the proposed hypothesis by using the principles of international humanitarian law. The findings of this research show that in its military attack against Yemeni people, Saudi Arabia has broken the principles of international humanitarian law, including the principle of proportionality, caution and humane treatment of prisoners. In addition, Saudi Arabia has turned Yemen into one of the most critical countries in the world with its air, land and sea blockade. If the war continues, the situation in Yemen will worsen and even turn into a humanitarian disaster. In order to prevent the inhumane attacks of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, more attention of the international community, collective action and pressure against Saudi Arabia are needed.

The Middle East region experienced various revolutions and protests after the 2011 Tunisian revolution. The country of Yemen is one of these cases that experienced the phenomenon of revolution to some extent during the revolutions of Islamic countries. Yemen has a strategic position for the Islamic Republic of Iran due to its  geopolitic location and its large population of Shiites. In order to analyze and understand the Yemeni revolution more, it is necessary to deal with the events of 2011 in that country from the perspective of different theories. This research, with descriptive-analytical method and using library resources, seeks to answer the question: To what extent are the contexts and factors of the 2011 Yemeni revolution compatible with Chalmers Johnson's theory? The main hypothesis of this research is based on the fact that Chalmers Johnson's theory can help to understand some of the revolutionary factors of 2011 in Yemen. The findings of the research show that out of the three factors of the revolution from Johnson's point of view, only two factors, imbalance and acceleration-producing factors, are applicable to the revolutionary developments in Yemen.