The bombing of Yemen led by Saudi Arabia has continued for about two months despite a short ceasefire. This is the first time that a regional power in the area has launched a bombing campaign against another country in the region since Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait a couple of decades ago. Whatever the reasons for the bombing of Yemen, it sets an extremely dangerous example for the turbulent region known as the Middle East.

In a way, the Saudi-Arabia-led military intervention signals the end of the dormancy of regional powers in the Middle East that began with the Gulf War in 1991. After that conflict, regional countries grew used to asking external powers, particularly the United States, to address regional problems with military action.

The historical consequences of the Gulf War were not limited to the re-establishment of regional order by driving Saddam Hussein's forces back to Iraq, but also included the establishment of the dominant role of the U.S. in the region as an external power. The Gulf War arguably inaugurated intervention by an external power, particularly through military means, as a pattern of regional governance in the Middle East.

The U.S. established various military bases in the Gulf and other parts of the Middle East for the purposes of containing Iraq and Iran. It also established a no-fly zone protecting Kurds in Iraq when it launched the Iraq war that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003. Most recently, it has dominated the process of the Iran nuclear negotiations, participated in the conflict that toppled Muammar Qaddafi's regime in Libya in 2011, and reluctantly intervened in Syria's domestic crisis in a limited way since 2011.

However, the last few years have witnessed growing U.S. reluctance to get deeply involved in regional affairs. Despite pressures from Gulf countries, the U.S. has been unwilling to intervene militarily in Syria and has called for a negotiated solution to the Iran nuclear issue rather than a military one. These stances can be partly attributed to the U.S.'s declining role in the region as a result of its decreasing dependence on Middle Eastern oil, its relative decline in overall power, its strategy of pivoting toward the Asia-Pacific region and its frustration with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

By choosing to bomb Yemen to intervene in its domestic affairs, regional powers have demonstrated their willingness to address issues affecting the region through their own means and their own power. This response is likely the result of their awareness that the U.S. can no longer be persuaded to invest strategic resources in regional issues and that regional powers will therefore have to do something on their own.

It is true that the bombing of Yemen might signal the arrival of the era of activism by regional powers, in which these powers will likely take on the responsibility of managing regional affairs. However, beyond that, the Yemen bombing actually does not have any other positive implications.

As is evident, external military intervention has not solved problems in the past several decades and has in fact caused more problems. The Gulf War targeted a conventional threat and was untaken for a limited purpose: to drive back an invasion. The success of the Gulf War does not mean that its model can be applied to dealing with non-conventional threats. Even overthrowing regimes by military means has proven to be too high a target.

It is also evident that non-military intervention can likewise cause problems. Political and material support for the Syrian opposition from several outside parties and states only intensified tensions, which in turn produced more humanitarian problems.

European militaries overthrew Libya's Muammar Qaddafi four years ago, but since then they have had to deal with refugees pouring into European countries via the Mediterranean. The radicalization of these immigrants has also become a serious threat in Europe. Lurid media reports of the Bashar al-Assad regime's persecution of Syrian Sunni Muslims in 2011-2012 encouraged Sunni Muslims from all over the world, particularly from Europe, to go to Syria to fight with the opposition, but these fighters later became the backbone of the Islamic State group.

All in all, intervention by external powers has caused more problems than it has solved, while intervention in the name of humanitarian concerns has produced more humanitarian crises.

Regional powers do need to take more responsibility in tackling regional issues. It is believed that the lack of regionalism, which is defined by a strong role for regional powers, is actually one of the reasons behind turmoil in the Middle East. But regional powers' intervention into the domestic affairs of other regional countries will prove to be just as disastrous as intervention by external powers.

The Middle East has already become turbulent enough as ISIS grows in strength and refugees spread across borders. It is reasonable to assume that as tensions in Yemen grow, more refugees will flee beyond their country's borders. The bombing of Yemen will therefore only add oil to the flames.

One negative implication of the bombing of Yemen is that other regional powers might also learn from this example of solving problems with military means. If so, the region will become more dangerous. The region is full of not only sectarian and tribal conflicts but also of competition for spheres of influence. This bombing will likely encourage countries in the region to strengthen their military capabilities and even to use military means to address their problems and concerns. That is not good news for the region.

To sum up, the Middle East does need a kind of regionalism, one in which regional powers take on the responsibility of managing regional affairs in a negotiated, diplomatic, coordinated and peaceful way. Militarization will only exacerbate rather than solve the region's problems.

Source of documents：China.org.cn