The US Senate votes against the permanence of American soldiers in Yemen

The Senate of the United States, where the majority is Republican, has approved, with 63 votes in favor and 37 against, a provision that provides for the withdrawal of American troops from the Yemen war scenario. US soldiers support the Sunni coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which fights Shiite rebels backed by Iran. For Trump it is an important defeat, because it signals a cross malaise concerning the American political class towards the alliance with the Saudi monarchy. For the US president, the relationship with Riyadh is a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East, especially against Iranian power. Trump's change of policy towards Teheran after his election, he needed to strengthen the connection with Saudi Arabia, after relations with the Obama presidency had deteriorated due to the Iranian nuclear agreement and Saudi support for terrorist groups. Trump has never considered too much the contiguity of the Saudi regime with Sunni terrorism, as he did not take into due consideration the systematic violation of human rights perpetrated by Riyadh. The common reasons against Tehran have exceeded every objection from the US political class. The anxiety of senators and deputies has grown with the repeated massacres of civilians that were carried out by the Saudi air forces, but the fact that it made the protest explode was the barbaric killing of the Saudi journalist in Turkey, operated by members of the secret services , commanded by the crown prince. With the majority of Democrats in the House, it seems obvious that the proposal to withdraw American troops from Yemen is approved, which could take about thirty days. The administration of the White House, faced with the decision of the Senate, seems to have been taken aback: in fact the statements of the Secretary of State seemed inconsistent. The lack of certainty of the connection between the murder of the journalist and the crown prince, appears a worthless excuse, as well as the motivation that, without the American presence in Yemen, national security could be compromised, an explanation of circumstance appears, functional only to Trump's reasons. It must be specified, however, that in the position of the current American president was also found Obama, when Congress had authorized US citizens to form a civil action against Saudi Arabia for the damage caused by the attack on September 11, recognizing implicitly the direct responsibility of Riyadh in the terrorist action against the twin towers. The most important aspect of the story is the great distance between the legislative and administrative political class, on a subject as delicate as that which concerns an alliance so close to a country like Saudi Arabia, which has highlighted more sometimes serious shortcomings against the United States. Trump's attitude seems to be dictated solely by the need to safeguard against Iran, without any consideration for the international situation that has arisen around the Saudi kingdom. If, on the one hand, the obvious fact is to be noted, that there have not been any important official positions, apart from very few exceptions, it is also true that the United States is still the first ally of the Arab country and a different official position from the current one could potentially have favored a different attitude on the part of Riyadh. The question, however, is that the United States of Trump supports the war in Yemen, with all the massacres and the unsustainable situation for civilians, sharing the position and methods of the Saudis. Now the great distance that is created with this provision could further undermine the already poor international credibility of an American president who is less and less able to represent the first world power.