The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine

The Most Revolutionary Act

STUDY: Natural Soil Bacteria Combo Completely Eradicates Tumors Across Multiple Human Cancer Types in Mice

A-gyo and UN-gyo achieved 100% complete tumor regression in animal models of human colorectal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer, with no observable systemic toxicity.

***

A remarkable study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reports 100% complete tumor regression in mouse models of human colorectal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer using a naturally occurring bacterial combination.

Researchers at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) demonstrated that two highly synergistic soil- and water-associated bacterial species could fully eliminate established tumors, even in mice with severely compromised immune systems.

The results were extraordinary across the tested human cancer xenograft models:

  • Colorectal cancer: 100% tumor elimination
  • Ovarian cancer: 100% tumor elimination
  • Pancreatic cancer: 100% tumor elimination

Two Naturally Occurring Bacteria Working Together

See this video.

Two intravenous doses of a bacterial combination consisting of Proteus mirabilis and Rhodopseudomonas palustris produced complete tumor regression in the experimental groups.

The researchers named this combination AUN, consisting of two complementary bacterial strains that perform distinct biological functions.

1. Proteus mirabilis (A-gyo): The Primary Tumor Destroyer

A-gyo is the principal tumor-destroying component of the combination. After administration, the bacteria selectively accumulate and proliferate inside tumor tissue, where they contribute to the destruction of tumor blood vessels, extensive tissue necrosis, and cancer-cell death.

Remarkably, the bacterial combination induces localized thrombosis, disrupting the blood supply that tumors depend on for continued growth:

See this video.

A-gyo also undergoes structural changes that increase its ability to move through and penetrate cancerous tissue:

2. Rhodopseudomonas palustris (UN-gyo): The Protective Synergistic Partner

UN-gyo suppresses A-gyo’s potentially harmful biological activity while promoting its transformation into highly motile, tumor-penetrating forms.

The researchers found that the presence of UN-gyo moderates bacterial activity, reduces hemolytic effects, and enhances cancer-specific activity.

The combination initially consists of approximately 3% A-gyo and 97% UN-gyo, illustrating how a relatively small population of tumor-destroying bacteria can operate alongside a larger population of regulatory bacteria.

Complete Tumor Regression Without Observable Systemic Toxicity

Despite its extraordinary anticancer activity, the bacterial combination demonstrated a favorable safety profile at the tested therapeutic doses in mice.

Researchers reported no observable systemic toxicity or cytokine release syndrome, and long-term histological examinations conducted 150 days after treatment revealed no apparent tissue damage in major organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys.

Importantly, safety depended on the precise bacterial ratio and dosing regimen. Excessive doses or improperly proportioned bacterial mixtures caused fatal reactions in mice, highlighting the importance of maintaining the naturally occurring 3:97 ratio of A-gyo to UN-gyo.

Conclusion 

The central discovery is remarkable: two naturally occurring bacterial species, working synergistically, eliminated established tumors in multiple experimental cancer models while demonstrating favorable tolerability at the tested therapeutic regimen.

Nevertheless, this remains preclinical research. Human safety, optimal dosing, and clinical efficacy have not yet been established. Further research on this promising bacterial combo is urgently needed as cancer rates continue to climb.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-natural-soil-bacteria-combo-completely-eradicates-tumors-across-multiple-human-cancer-types-mice/5944730

Finland and Norway Reach Out to Putin as Peace Talks Loom

On October 27, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the request of Helsinki and Oslo, they discussed ways to end the war in Ukraine, planned trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi in November involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, and security issues in the Baltic Sea and northern Europe. According to the Kremlin, the sides also agreed to maintain direct phone contact.

Immediately afterward, Stubb and Støre called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who thanked them for their active support. The Finnish and Norwegian leaders emphasized that they spoke as representatives of their countries, not on Europe’s behalf. Stubb described the discussion as frank and substantive, noting that the war’s outcome will directly affect Nordic and broader European security and that ending it requires direct dialogue. Støre stressed the importance of de-escalation.

The call was unexpected, given that Stubb has previously made negative remarks not only about the Russian state but also about Russian culture, identity, and history. The timing is significant, though. In recent weeks, Stubb has emerged as one of the European figures most often mentioned as a possible mediator or channel for the European Union in any settlement process. Only days earlier, Zelensky publicly said he wanted the EU at the negotiating table.

European capitals increasingly recognize that an upcoming trilateral meeting among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and the US will likely produce major decisions about the war, leaving Europe on the sidelines. A direct channel would allow Helsinki and Oslo to bring European perspectives into the discussion. However, greater European involvement could complicate and delay the process, giving Zelensky more grounds to postpone or condition talks, while Europe continues its futile attempt to weaken Russia.

Moscow’s acceptance of the call is notable because Russian officials have repeatedly said they prefer to address core issues with the US, yet they were willing to engage with Stubb and Støre. This strengthens Stubb’s credentials as a potential European interlocutor in the eyes of other EU leaders and shows that the Kremlin is prepared to talk with him despite earlier rhetorical clashes.

Finland and Norway both border Russia. Finland has suffered particularly severe economic consequences from the anti-Russia sanctions: trade, energy, and logistics ties once vital to its economy have been severed. Norway, meanwhile, is an Arctic coastal state with a direct stake in the emerging Northern Sea Route and does not want to be left out.

The phone call immediately sparked a rare public split among the Nordic states. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “very skeptical” of the uncoordinated move and claimed Russia’s ongoing military pressure on Ukraine as evidence that Putin has no serious interest in peace. Frederiksen likened the call to earlier unilateral initiatives, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s visit to Moscow, and argued that Europeans have long insisted on acting together rather than allowing individual countries to open separate channels.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he believed everyone except Putin wants peace, that he had low expectations for direct talks of this kind, and that such discussions risk dividing Europe. He added that any talks that make Russia more willing to accept a decent peace on Ukraine’s terms would be welcome.

All four leaders were in Helsinki for a Nordic Council session when the news broke, underscoring how unusual this open disagreement is among countries that have otherwise remained closely aligned on Ukraine, sanctions, and military support.

Despite reactions in Copenhagen and Stockholm, Zelensky publicly defended Stubb and Støre, describing their relations as very good and noting that they have provided genuine practical help. He said Putin’s diplomatic isolation had already been broken by the Alaska meeting with Trump and that Europeans have maintained contact with Russia since then, though usually less openly. According to Zelensky, the Finnish-Norwegian call simply made the channel transparent.

There were also other European reactions beyond Denmark and Sweden. Italian officials were irritated as the call underscored the lack of an agreed European representative. A source in Rome warned that constantly changing formats and separate national initiatives weaken Europe’s influence, adding that Europe “cannot continue to act randomly.” The European Commission spokesperson simply noted that the call was bilateral and that negotiations were already underway in several formats involving the EU.

At the same time, European involvement in the peace process could mean that, within months, Putin and Zelensky may be dealing with different leaders, depending on election and coalition outcomes across the continent.

The Finnish-Norwegian call shows that Europe’s claim to a seat at the table still hinges on individual capitals acting alone. Brussels has not even identified a suitable interlocutor to open channels with Putin, so states will now act independently of the bloc to defend their interests, which have been ravaged by the boomerang effects of anti-Russia sanctions.

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/finland-norway-reach-out-putin-peace-talks-loom/5944808

Will Netanyahu’s Extremist Government Fall, or Will Israeli General Eisenkot Transform Israel Into a Moderate State?

There is no clear winner in the Israeli election as of October 29. The Netanyahu bloc received 53 seats, the Opposition Eisenkot bloc received 48 seats, and the Arab bloc received 19. If Eisenkot allies with the Arab bloc, Netanyahu’s extremist gol be out.

But, if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to remain in power, there will be significant implications for the future of the Middle East, shaping regional security, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His continued leadership may influence tensions with Iran, the prospects for peace, and efforts to establish a Palestinian state.

As the region continues to face political uncertainty and conflict, Netanyahu’s return to power raises important questions about whether the Middle East will move toward greater stability or experience further tensions and confrontation.

Journalist Steven Sahiounie interviewed Nizar Sadawi, a Palestinian journalist and Middle East correspondent for TRT World. Mr. Sadawi is giving his own personal analysis, and not representing the views of TRT World.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): How could the election results influence Israel’s policy towards Iran? Could they change the course of military confrontation?

Nizar Sadawi (NS): I believe the election results may change how Israel manages its confrontation with Iran, but not necessarily its strategic objectives. There is a broad consensus across Israel’s political and security establishment that Iran represents a major strategic threat.

The main difference lies in approach. Netanyahu has relied heavily on military pressure and confrontation, while Eisenkot, as a former military chief, may place greater emphasis on strategic calculations, coordination with Washington, and the political costs of military operations.

However, an Eisenkot-led government would not necessarily mean an end to military confrontation. Ultimately, US policy, regional dynamics, and the calculations of both Israel and Iran may prove more decisive than the identity of Israel’s next prime minister.

SS: What impact could the election results have on settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and on Palestinian statehood?

NS: A Netanyahu-led government, particularly one dependent on far-right parties, would likely continue expanding settlements and pursuing policies that further undermine the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

An Eisenkot-led government could adopt a more restrained approach towards settlement expansion and settler violence, particularly under international pressure. However, this should not be confused with a fundamental shift towards ending the occupation or recognising Palestinian statehood.

The fundamental problem is that much of Israel’s political debate concerns how to manage the occupation rather than how to end it.

In my view, changing the Israeli government alone will not revive the two-state solution. That requires concrete steps to end the occupation, halt settlement expansion, and recognize Palestinians’ right to self-determination and an independent, sovereign state.

SS: Could Netanyahu and Eisenkot form a national unity government despite their political rivalry?

NS: The election has created a complicated parliamentary situation, with neither camp securing a clear majority. Ironically, the Arab parties could hold the balance of power with their historic parliamentary representation, yet most major parties in both camps remain unwilling to rely on them to form a government.

I see two main scenarios. The first involves defections or political realignments within the opposition that could give Netanyahu the additional seats needed to reach a majority of 61.

The second is a national unity government, despite the deep mistrust between Netanyahu and Eisenkot.

Of course, these scenarios face significant political obstacles, particularly given Eisenkot’s previous resignation from Netanyahu’s war cabinet and their disagreements over the conduct of the war.

Ultimately, political necessity could push the two rivals towards an agreement, but even a unity government would not necessarily signal a fundamental change in Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.

SS: How could the election results shape the wider Middle East conflict, and what are the prospects for a political solution guaranteeing Palestinian rights?

NS: Israel’s election will undoubtedly influence regional dynamics, particularly given the growing interconnectedness of the Iranian, Lebanese, and Palestinian fronts. However, I believe it would be a serious mistake to treat the Palestinian question merely as an extension of the confrontation with Iran.

The Palestinian struggle predates these regional rivalries by decades. Its roots lie in occupation, displacement, and the denial of Palestinian national rights.

A change in Israeli leadership could create opportunities for diplomacy and de-escalation, but it would not automatically produce a meaningful peace process.

The experience of recent years has demonstrated that managing the conflict through military superiority and temporary security arrangements does not address its underlying causes.

In my view, lasting regional stability requires a political settlement based on ending the occupation, stopping settlement expansion, and guaranteeing Palestinians’ right to self-determination and an independent, viable state.

Without addressing these fundamental issues, any change in Israeli leadership risks becoming a change in tactics rather than a genuine turning point towards peace.

SS: What is the real disagreement between Netanyahu and Eisenkot over the wars in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it about their military objectives, or rather the timing of operations and their political costs?

NS: The disagreement is mainly about strategy, timing, and the political cost of military operations, rather than the objectives themselves. Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot share broadly similar security priorities, but differ on how to achieve them.

In Gaza, Eisenkot has criticized Netanyahu for prolonging military operations without a clear political strategy.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/netanyahu-extremist-government-fall-eisenkot-transform-israel-moderate-state/5944827

Millions of Children About to Fill Halloween Bags With Arsenic-Contaminated Candy

As millions of American children prepare to go trick-or-treating this Halloween, troubling findings from the Florida Department of Health are raising serious concerns about toxic contaminants in some of the nation’s most recognizable candy brands.

Through its Healthy Florida First initiative, Florida tested 46 popular candy products and reported detectable arsenic in 28—over 60% of those tested:

I joined Finnerty on NEWSMAX to discuss these alarming findings and the potential health risks associated with arsenic exposure, particularly among children. Dr. Kelly Victory also joined the discussion to explain how arsenic can enter candy through contaminated ingredients and food-processing practices.

.

Click here to watch the video

Inorganic arsenic is an established human carcinogen and a systemic toxicant capable of damaging multiple organ systems, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and nervous system.

Particularly concerning are Florida’s extraordinarily low estimated annual consumption limits for certain candies.

How Much Candy Can Children Consume Per Year?

According to Florida’s published calculations, the following are the approximate annual consumption amounts for children before exceeding the state’s estimated arsenic exposure safety limit:

  • Hershey’s Cookies ‘N’ Creme: 1.2 bars per year
  • Kit Kat: 2.4 pieces per year
  • Snickers: 2.4 pieces per year
  • 3 Musketeers: 2.4 pieces per year
  • SweeTarts Ropes: 3 ropes per year
  • Laffy Taffy Banana: 4 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Strawberry: 4 pieces per year
  • Jolly Rancher Sour Apple: 6 pieces per year
  • Jolly Rancher Strawberry: 6 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Cherry: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Rolls: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Roll Vanilla: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Fruit Chew Lime: 8 pieces per year
  • Swedish Fish: 8 pieces per year
  • Trolli Sour Brite Crawlers: 12 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Watermelon: 12 pieces per year
  • Dots: 12 pieces per year
  • Black Forest Gummy Bears: 16 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Watermelon: 18 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Tropical: 18 pieces per year
  • Nerds Gummy Clusters: 24 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Original: 36 pieces per year
  • SweeTarts Original: 48 pieces per year
  • Original Skittles: 48 pieces per year
  • Nerds Grape: 96 individual pieces per year
  • Nerds Strawberry: 96 individual pieces per year
  • SmartSweets Caramel: 1 bag per year
  • SmartSweets Sweet Fish: 1 bag per year

Which Candies Had No Arsenic Detected?

Thankfully, several recognizable candies had no arsenic detected in the tested samples, including:

  • Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups
  • Hershey’s Milk Chocolate
  • M&M’s
  • Twix
  • Milky Way
  • Whoppers

Conclusion

It is deeply concerning that arsenic, a toxic element whose inorganic forms are established human carcinogens, was detected in so many popular candies consumed by children.

With Halloween approaching, parents would be well advised to avoid the specific candy products flagged in Florida’s testing until their arsenic levels and potential health risks are independently clarified.

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/millions-children-fill-halloween-bags-arsenic-contaminated-candy/5944872

Pope Leo XIV first pope to vote in US elections

Al Mayadeen English

Pope Leo XIV has become the first pontiff in history known to have voted in a US general election, casting a mail-in ballot in Illinois ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Via https://t.me/almayadeenenglish/26588

Why Is Media Ignoring Stunning New Trump-Epstein Allegations?

Donald Trump and future wife Melania pose with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. (Davidoff Studios / Getty Images)

Elie v. U.S. / October 30, 2026

In this week’s Elie v. U.S., our justice correspondent asks why the media is obsessing over Obama’s Cheesecake Factory joke while largely ignoring allegations of Trump’s sexual assaults.

[…]

The president of the United States of America has been accused of rape. Again. The president of the United States has been accused of rape in a report issued by the Democrats of the House Judiciary Committee, as part of their ongoing investigation of Donald Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The president has been accused of raping two women, one when she was as young as 13, and sexually assaulting three more. They are among 11 women who provided evidence or testimony that Trump “abused, assaulted, and even raped numerous women alongside, and in coordination with, the most infamous sex trafficker in history.”

I have been made to understand that many people do not know about the Judiciary Comittee report—and the fact that five women have accused Trump of sexual assault while in or near the presence of noted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. I have been made to understand that this is because the mainstream media finds former president Barack Obama’s comments about the [checks notes] Cheesecake Factory more worthy of their attention than the current president’s abuse of multiple women.

If asked, mainstream media types would no doubt argue that the lack of coverage of these latest rape allegations stems from the fact that previous rape allegations failed to “move the needle.” Trump’s sexual misconduct (both alleged and litigated) is “baked in” to people’s understanding of the man. People either won’t believe the charges or won’t care—or else they do believe the women and do care and vote accordingly—but everybody knows what he’s been accused of, generally speaking at least.

I find this line of argument unadulterated bollocks that reveals the deep failure of our mainstream media. It is news when the president is credibly accused of rape. It is important news. While I, too, don’t think these latest sexual assault accusations will materially change the national conversation about Trump or his presidency, that is not an excuse for ignoring, downplaying, or skipping over brutal allegations that he repeatedly assaulted women, including minors.

Journalists cannot decide what other people think is important. Their job is to illuminate what they think is in the public interest. I think reporting on rape allegations levied against the president of the United States is in the public interest. And since I think that, it really doesn’t matter if the public agrees with me.

With that in mind, I, unlike people who work for Bari Weiss, read the Judiciary report. Here are some of the allegations:

  • Beatrice Keul, a former Miss Switzerland, accuses Trump of raping her at the Plaza Hotel in November 1993. She describes the rape as “brutal.”
  • Stacey Williams says that Trump groped her at Trump Tower while standing next to Jeffrey Epstein.
  • Jill Harth claims that Trump forcibly kissed her at Mar-a-Lago; her allegations are corroborated by her former spouse. Harth also claims that Trump assaulted another woman, Lauren Petrella.
  • “Katie Johnson,” not her real name, claims that Trump and Epstein repeatedly raped her at Epstein’s New York residence in 1994, when she was just 13.
  • An unnamed Jane Doe claims Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1980s, when she was 13. She says Trump forcibly moved her head to his exposed penis and hit her when she resisted his assault. She reported these allegations to the FBI.

[…]

Via https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/newsletter-why-is-the-media-ignoring-the-stunning-new-trump-epstein-allegations/

Questioning Your Doctor Now Considered Psychological Problem

US War Department seeks emergency clearance for sublingual ketamine wafers to treat battlefield casualties

The Cradle

According to a report by Politico, the US War Department is fast-tracking the procurement of sublingual ketamine wafers for battlefield trauma management, pushing for emergency regulatory clearance to bypass standard Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval cycles.

The move follows a $41 million sole-source development contract awarded earlier this year to Singapore-based iX Biopharma to produce “Wafermine”—a fast-dissolving sublingual wafer designed to deliver high-potency ketamine directly into the bloodstream through the oral mucous membrane.

The rapid push toward emergency authorization stems from a September declaration by War Secretary Pete Hegseth, who formally cited a heightened risk of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear) attacks and high-intensity combat scenarios capable of causing mass casualty events.

Under the federal declaration, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. determined that emergency conditions exist to justify the deployment of unapproved, specialized analgesics to prevent severe shock and hemodynamic instability among wounded combat personnel.

The Pentagon’s shift toward sublingual ketamine underscores an evolving tactical medicine strategy that prioritizes rapid, non-opioid pain management in extreme combat environments where intravenous administration is impractical.

However, the program faces immediate logistical and regulatory hurdles following reports that iX Biopharma’s primary domestic manufacturing partner currently lacks the required state licensing in Nevada to operate, drawing increased scrutiny from federal lawmakers over the expedited sole-source procurement process.

Via https://t.me/thecradlemedia/70279

IRGC dismantles foreign intelligence cell in western Iran, seizes arms and satellite equipment

Ministry of Intelligence: Enemy mercenary cells dismantled in several ...
The Cradle

31 Oct 2026

Iranian security forces have dismantled a two-member espionage cell linked to foreign intelligence services in the western province of Kermanshah, according to Mehr News Agency.

The targeted intelligence operation was executed by units of the “Ansar al-Rasul” Commando Brigade of the IRGC Ground Forces in the city of Javanrud, successfully neutralizing the network before it could execute planned subversion operations.

During the raids, IRGC commandos seized a substantial cache of military hardware and specialized communications equipment, including ten Starlink satellite internet terminals, ten Kalashnikov assault rifles, and 5,000 rounds of live ammunition.

Iranian defense officials confirmed that the suspects had been recruited through encrypted social media platforms and messaging applications to build local operational networks and facilitate covert communications channels bypassing state infrastructure.

The dismantling of the Kermanshah cell comes amid a wider security crackdown across Iran’s border provinces, where state security apparatuses have intensified counter-espionage operations against US and Israeli-linked intelligence networks.

Via https://t.me/thecradlemedia/70298

UAE Secretly Helping Ansarallah Fight Saudi Arabia in Yemen

A fighter loyal to Yemen’s Saud-backed internationally-recognized government fires a turret from the back of a pickup truck at a position along the frontlines against Ansarallah around Mount al-Midan in Yemen’s western Taiz province on October 26, 2026. Photo by Ahmad AL-BASHA / AFP via Getty Images.

In an extraordinary move, the UAE has been covertly sharing targeting assistance with the Iranian-aligned Ansarallah in its conflict against Saudi-backed forces inside Yemen.

The United Arab Emirates, a key American and Israeli ally in the Gulf, has been quietly assisting Ansarallah in its conflict against Saudi-backed forces inside Yemen, four sources with knowledge of the situation told Drop Site News.

Specifically, various UAE-aligned Yemeni forces have been providing targeting assistance to Ansarallah in their battle against Saudi-backed government forces in Yemen while Abu Dhabi has looked the other way, the sources said.

According to two sources with knowledge of the covert arrangement, the UAE’s assistance has also included direct sharing of intelligence by the UAE itself to Ansarallah for the purpose of targeting Saudi-backed forces.

A Yemeni source familiar with the Ansarallah backchannel confirmed that “the UAE has passed a significant amount of intelligence to the Sana’a-based government; the line of communication between the two sides remains open.” The Yemeni source told Drop Site that Ansarallah “established their own channels of communication internally with military commanders” who remain loyal to the UAE. The sources required anonymity as they are not authorized to speak publicly about the arrangement.

That the UAE is directly aiding one of its chief regional opponents is extraordinary. The UAE and Ansarallah are fierce ideological enemies with geopolitical goals that are in direct opposition to one another. The UAE is a close ally of Israel and the United States while Ansarallah is a close ally of Iran. However, when it comes to Yemen, their interests have come to overlap to some extent, producing a classic enemy-of-my enemy situation. The UAE was sidelined in Yemen earlier this year by Saudi Arabia, and stands to regain a strategic foothold in Yemen in the current conflict.

The assistance to Ansarallah from the UAE, some of the sources said, does not include help with intelligence and targeting inside Saudi Arabia, but is limited to help with targeting and intelligence inside Yemen. Ansarallah’s attacks on Saudi Arabia included strikes on Saudi’s main airport, one of which killed 12 people and wounded more than 300 others—and led to the cancellation of the Future Investment Initiative conference, otherwise known as the “Davos in the Desert.”

Recently, according to one source, a senior American official warned the Emirates that the U.S. had learned of the covert assistance being provided and urged that it be ended. Sources indicated the intelligence assistance was ongoing. UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba did not respond to requests for comment.

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior Ansarallah official, denied that the UAE was assisting Ansarallah but insisted the Emirates were committed to neutrality. “The UAE has not provided any form of support to Yemen—neither against Saudi Arabia nor against its proxies within Yemen,” he told Drop Site. “According to our information, the UAE remains committed to neutrality and has refused to become re-involved in the aggression against Yemen alongside Saudi Arabia, despite persistent efforts by [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed] bin Salman to persuade it to join.”

Last month, the Iran-backed Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis, launched a blitz to the Red Sea coast that stunned the region, routed Saudi-backed forces, and left Ansarallah in control of the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and an important alternative to the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. Saudi efforts to regain territory have largely been repelled. Since then, Saudi Arabia has increasingly bombed Sana’a and other Ansarallah-controlled areas, while Ansarallah have conducted multiple strikes on Saudi Arabia.

Beginning in 2015, the Emirates were allied with Saudi Arabia as part of a coalition backing the Yemeni government, after Ansarallah swept south from its stronghold in the northern highlands and took over Sana’a in 2014. The Yemeni government is commonly referred to as the internationally recognized government, or IRG, and it remains largely based in Riyadh. But, early in the conflict, the UAE’s aims and ambitions were at odds with the Saudis, causing division in the anti-Ansarallah side. In December of last year, that friction resulted in clashes between UAE-backed forces and Saudi-backed military units in the south and the UAE was effectively expelled from Yemen by force.

Earlier this month, The Guardian reported that the UAE was re-entering the Yemeni conflict on the side of Saudi Arabia by agreeing to resume some payments to some of the forces it had backed.

That backing would most likely come through supporting the Giants “Al Amaliqah” Brigades, a predominantly Salafi militia ideologically opposed to the Houthis with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 largely southern fighters. The Southern Giants are currently battling for control of the Kahboub mountain range overlooking the Bab al-Mandab.

This potential support has not been reflected on the battlefield, the Yemeni source said. Many commanders within the Giants Brigades have deceived the Saudi-backed forces, the source said, repeatedly abandoning their positions without any engagement or confrontation.

The source also told Drop Site that military unit commanders affiliated with the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) have refrained from fighting the Houthis, effectively stalling battlefronts—particularly in the southern governorates of Al-Dhale, and Lahj—bordering Taiz governorate, and frequently withdraw from their positions.

A UAE-based senior official categorically stated to Drop Site that “the STC has no channels of communication with the Houthis” and denied that STC were refusing to fight Ansarallah in the south. “The STC has publicly and consistently maintained that the Southern Armed Forces will not participate in military operations in the North,” Amr al-Beidh, special representative of the president of the STC, told Drop Site. “This should not be confused with an unwillingness to confront the Houthis. Quite the opposite. Any Houthi advance towards the South will be met with resistance.”

“It is important to distinguish between our policy of not engaging in military operations in the north and our firm commitment to defending the South against the Houthis,” he added.

The White House and a spokesperson for the Saudi-led coalition did not respond to requests for comment.

More than 250,000 people have been displaced by the escalating violence since August 1, according to the International Organization for Migration. Almost half of those have fled Taiz governorate, which encompasses some of Yemen’s highest mountains and a large stretch of the western Red Sea coastal plain approaching the Bab al-Mandab, including the strategic port of Mokha. Aid agencies cannot reach more than 600,000 people in Taiz—where the capital city is currently besieged by Ansarallah—who depend on humanitarian assistance, according to the UN’s World Food Program (WFP), including more than 200,000 women and children.

A Web of War

The UAE is Israel’s closest ally in the Gulf, and was previously allied with Saudi Arabia in its war against Ansarallah in Yemen. But the UAE’s interests in Yemen diverge from both Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s.

As early as 2015 it became apparent that the Emirates’ priority in Yemen was to counter the perceived threat from the Muslim Brotherhood over and above the conflict with Ansarallah. The Islah Party—Yemen’s political Islamist party that includes factions of the Muslim Brotherhood—emerged as the UAE’s primary target despite their role within the IRG.

In 2015, UAE forces and Yemeni fighters it trained and funded pushed Houthi forces—that at the time included loyalists of Yemen’s former president Ali Abdullah Saleh—out of the southern city of Aden. The UAE went on to consolidate its gains, establishing an array of fighting groups that they both funded and directed.

The STC represented the aspiration for renewed southern independence and animosity in the region toward being ruled by northern elites since the unification of Yemen in 1990. Unification resulted in land theft and the economic benefits of the south’s natural resources being captured by Saleh and his cronies. Islah was also viewed by southerners as part of this exploitative northern rule.

The UAE capitalized on this animosity and desire for self-determination, supporting the creation in May 2017 of the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) led by Aidarous al-Zubaidi. Islah was a common enemy.

Between 2015 and 2018 at least 160 assassinations were carried out in southern Yemen. The majority of those assassinated were members of Islah, many of them were imams, creating a climate of fear and paranoia in Aden and across the south. Widely held suspicion that the UAE was behind the deaths was confirmed in 2018 when American mercenaries told a BuzzFeed journalist (and, later, the BBC) that they had carried out assassinations on behalf of the UAE and trained Yemeni forces to carry on the killings.

Ansaf Ali Mayo, an Islah parliamentarian, survived an attempt on his life by the American assassins. Earlier this year he filed a lawsuit against the two former U.S. special forces operators in a federal court in San Diego along with the Israeli-Hungarian founder of the private security firm Spear Operations Group that hired them.

The UAE’s hiring of foreign mercenaries didn’t stop at U.S. veterans. Thousands of Sudanese Rapid Support Force (RSF) were brought in by the UAE between 2015 and 2018 to help fight Ansarallah as the UAE-backed forces made gains up Yemen’s western Red Sea coast into the governorate of Hodeidah, home to Yemen’s second largest port and controlled by Ansarallah.

The rift between UAE-backed forces and those of the Saudi-backed IRG has not only considerably weakened efforts against the Houthis but, on several occasions over the past decade, spilled into direct infighting.

In August 2019, UAE fighter jets carried out up to 24 airstrikes against IRG and Islah-aligned government military units and positions in Aden, Abyan, and Marib in support of the STC as the competing factions vied for control. Al-Zubaidi was summoned to the Saudi capital and in November 2019, an agreement was signed between the Saudi-backed IRG and the STC.

The power-sharing deal, known as the Riyadh Agreement, should have meant an integration of STC forces into the IRG military in exchange for southern representation in a unity government. But implementation stalled.

The situation came to a head in December 2025 when STC forces swept east from their stronghold in Aden to take two large governorates bordering Saudi Arabia and Oman. Saudi Arabia responded by launching airstrikes targeting a large shipment of Emirati military equipment at the port of Mukalla and giving the UAE 24 hours to leave and end its “military or financial support to any party within Yemen.” The UAE heeded the warnings and STC forces were quickly routed by Yemeni government military units backed by Saudi air cover.

“Saudi Arabia was the one that forced the UAE out of the coalition waging war on Yemen in a humiliating manner, effectively shooting itself in the foot,” said al-Bukhaiti. “Given this experience, it is only natural that the UAE would refuse to rejoin the Saudi-led coalition in its aggression against Yemen [Ansarallah], despite pressure from Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Israel, particularly after Yemen demonstrated its remarkable ability to defend itself and impose a principle of blockade for blockade and escalation for escalation.”

Since this latest fissure between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen, not all of the formerly UAE-aligned forces have been fully integrated into the IRG military and security apparatus, partially because this process was disrupted due to the renewed fighting with Ansarallah. STC loyalists remain in the mountains of Al Dhale, the homeland of Al-Zubaidi who fled to the UAE in January. For months after the Saudi pushback in December 2025, surveillance drones were a constant presence and Saudi airstrikes killed at least six civilians in Al Dhale in January.

[…]

Via https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/uae-yemen-ansarallah-houthis-saudi-arabia-covert