Case in Point: Israel’s Bombing of Sana’a Airport
From a strategic standpoint, targeting Yemen’s airport was a miscalculation. Why? Because in an asymmetric conflict, the value of assets—and the consequences of losing them—are not equal.
Yemen vs. Israel: Unequal Stakes
Yemen is already under blockade. Its airports hold little to no strategic or economic value at this point.
Israel, on the other hand, relies heavily on its air infrastructure:
90% of international travel flows through its airports
$7 billion in annual tourism revenue
85% of high-value imports like medical and tech equipment
Economic Vulnerability
Shutting down Israeli airspace for just 72 hours could cost the economy over $300 million. Add to that the risk of airline insurance premiums surging—as they did during the Ukraine crisis—and the economic pressure escalates rapidly.
Yemen’s Counterstrategy
Yemen doesn’t need airports to fight this war. It’s already proven capable of striking Israel’s key infrastructure:
Ben Gurion Airport has been hit
Haifa Port may be next
The Bottom Line
In a cost-benefit analysis:
Yemen has little to lose
Israel has everything to protect
By escalating in a domain where it’s vulnerable, Israel has handed Yemen a strategic advantage. This is how modern asymmetric warfare works—it’s not about firepower, but leverage.
Why This Isn’t Taught
Unfortunately, institutions like IITs, IIMs, elite international schools, and mainstream think tanks often avoid teaching such uncomfortable truths. Why? Because acknowledging the real dynamics of power, resistance, and strategy threatens the very hierarchies these institutions uphold. A well-informed public is harder to control, and so, critical thinking is sidelined in favor of obedience and conformity.
Until education aligns with reality, power will remain with the few—and ignorance with the many.
— CKO, PNCDNC
No comments:
Post a Comment