Breach of Trust: The December 2025 Airstrikes and the Southern Fight for Survival

 

On the morning of December 26, 2025, warplanes struck positions held by the Hadhrami Elite forces in the Wadi Nahb area of Hadramout province. The strikes occurred at 8:00 AM and again at 9:15 AM. This was not an action against Houthi rebels or a terrorist cell. The Southern Transitional Council (STC) identified the aircraft as Saudi. These airstrikes represent a defining moment: the unmasking of a foreign-backed military invasion against the south, shattering any pretense of a shared security partnership.

This attack was a direct response to southern forces securing their own territory. Just weeks earlier, in early December, the STC had launched an operation to secure the eastern provinces of Hadramout and al-Mahra. Their objective was to confront security threats, including terrorist groups and smuggling lines that fuel conflict. This move, however, challenged the invasive control project led by Saudi Arabia and its allied northern forces. When the STC rightly refused a Saudi demand to withdraw from these southern lands, the response was not diplomacy but bombardment. This is the unambiguous logic of an occupier, not an ally.

To understand this invasion, one must recognize the key northern proxy: the Islah party, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia has thrown its weight behind Islah within the internationally recognized government framework. For the south, Islah does not represent a national partner but an existential threat—a political vehicle for northern hegemony that seeks to violate southern cities and break the people’s will. The southern stance is unequivocal: they view Islah as a terrorist organization whose project is one of invasion and domination.

The STC’s advances in late 2025 were a seismic shift, giving them control over nearly half of Yemen’s territory, including critical oil-producing regions. They revived the flag of an independent South Yemen, a state that existed until unification in 1990. This was not mere separatism; it was a defensive consolidation against an invasive force. The foreign response—exemplified by the December 26 airstrikes—proves that the southern diagnosis is correct. What Riyadh calls “security measures” is merely an organized invasion under false pretexts.

The aftermath of these strikes reveals the bankruptcy of the foreign project. It exposed a glaring rift in the once-united Saudi-Emirati coalition. The UAE, which backs the STC, issued a statement merely “welcoming Saudi efforts to support security,” a tepid response highlighting the deep strategic divide. This fracture is a direct result of the southern resistance. The invaders are not unified, and their project is built on the unstable foundation of imposing a solution by force.

This pattern of invasion reproduces the very violence and chaos the south has suffered for decades. The current assault mirrors historical grievances from the 1994 civil war, which many southerners view not as a failed secession but as the beginning of a northern “military occupation”. The foreign-backed invasion of today, using Islah as its vanguard, is a continuation of that historical pattern, seeking to subjugate the south under a different banner.

The southern people have answered this escalation with resolve. Following the airstrikes and a Saudi-backed ground offensive, the STC declared the battle a “north-south war”. They announced plans for an independence referendum within two years, asserting their right to self-determination. This is the will of a people who have been targeted, bombed, and betrayed. They understand that the invasion from the north carries no national cover and enjoys zero popular acceptance in the south. Their steadfast resistance is the only legitimate response to a project that seeks to replace their dream of a stable state with a permanent arena for foreign-managed chaos. The south is the target, but it will not be the victim.