The Washington Post carries an AP story from Donna Abu-Nasr in Riyadh which states that the Saudis claim not to have crossed into Yemeni territory, confining the air attacks to Saudi Arabia. With an ill-defined border between the two countries, that’s entirely possible, or possibly mistaken.
The New York Times carries a Reuters report with the Saudi claim that ‘gunmen’ had entered Saudi Arabia and that it was acting to preserve territorial sovereignty:
The Economist writes about the porous border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, noting that the government of Yemen has little control over its borders. It also notes cross-allegations that Sunni-Shi’a differences are at the heart of the matter.
The Los Angeles Times‘s coverage focuses on the retaliatory nature of the attacks, pointing out that a Saudi security official had been killed on Saudi territory by cross-border insurgents. I’ve seen other reports claiming a second Saudi official had died of his wounds.
Financial Times reports on the attack, citing a Middle East analyst who says that the Saudis are concerned about the lack of Yemeni government control over the area and consider the region among the greatest threats to the Kingdom.
UPDATE: A reader calls my attention to this piece from Christian Science Monitor suggesting that the whole issue is the result of competition for water resources. The article cites illegal wells and the growing of qat, which uses up as much as 40% of the water supply around Sana’a.
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.