Following decreased American support and China-brokered détente with Iran, Saudi Arabia appears to ready to give up on its war against the Tehran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. To this end, the Saudi ambassador to the country met with a Houthi leader last month. Oved Lobel ponders what will become of Yemen if Riyadh and its Arab allies decide to abandon it to Iranian proxies:

Much like the U.S. in its engagement with the Taliban, the Saudis have sidelined the Yemeni government and other Yemeni actors and are negotiating their withdrawal directly with the Houthis and [Tehran]. Among the range of possible outcomes, all bad, the least bad would be if the conflict were to be frozen indefinitely, with Saudi Arabia remaining militarily engaged to protect Marib and other areas loyal to the Yemeni government, and the Houthis inevitably launching missile and drone strikes but no new offensives to conquer territory.

But the most likely outcome, as in Afghanistan, is total Saudi disengagement from Yemen. . . . If the Saudis do unilaterally withdraw support for allies in Yemen, there are three potential scenarios for Yemen: Hizballah-ization, in which [Iran] pragmatically moves its local arm into politics—while retaining separate security forces and ultimate control—within the façade of a state; partition, in which the Houthis quickly conquer all areas held by the Yemeni government but at least temporarily do not attempt to conquer areas controlled by the United Arab Emirates’ proxies in the South; and Talibanization, in which the Houthis move to conquer the entire country immediately.

[W]hat is not in doubt . . . is that, for both Houthi leaders and their Iranian commanders, jihad is non-negotiable—particularly after they have begun to taste victory.

While the far left and the extreme right have responded with frenzied outrage to Israel’s attacks on Iran, middle-of-the-road, establishment types have expressed similar sentiments, only in more measured tones. These think-tankers and former officials generally believe that Israeli military action, rather than nuclear-armed murderous fanatics, is the worst possible outcome. Garry Kasparov examines this mode of thinking:

Now that the Islamic Republic is severely weakened, the alarmist foreign-policy commentariat is apprising us of the unacceptable risks, raising their well-worn red flags. (Or should I say white flags?) “Escalation!” “Global war!” And the ultimate enemy of the status quo: “regime change!”

Under President Obama, American officials frequently stared down the nastiest offenders in the international rogues’ gallery and insisted that there was “no military solution.” “No military solution” might sound nice to enlightened ears. Unfortunately, it’s a meaningless slogan. Tellingly, Russian officials repeat it all the time too. . . . But Russia does believe there are military solutions to its problems—ask any Ukrainian, Syrian, or Georgian. Yet too many in Washington remain determined to fight armed marauders with flowery words.

If you are worried about innocent people being killed, . . . spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or the scores of Argentine Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994 without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.

The Democratic Connecticut senator Chris Murphy was quick and confident in his pronouncement that Israel’s operation in Iran “risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America.” Maybe. But a regional war was already underway before Israel struck last week. Iran was already supporting the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Russia in Ukraine. Israel is simply moving things toward a more decisive conclusion.

Perhaps Murphy and his ilk dread most being proved wrong—which they will be if, in a few weeks’ time, their apocalyptic predictions haven’t come true, and the Middle East, though still troubled, is a safter place.