Trump Answers Saudi's Call on Sudan, Not Yemen's Famine
Al-Monitor reports that then-President Trump pledged to 'work on' the conflict in Sudan at the explicit request of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). This remarkable diplomatic engagement occurred during an investment conference, rather than, say, a humanitarian summit. One might wonder about the timing, and indeed the historical precedent, for US intervention based solely on Saudi
preference. After all, the devastating war and famine in Yemen, largely fueled by Saudi-led coalition actions, received a far different, and far more delayed, response—if it received one at all. While MBS's request for intervention in Sudan gets a swift affirmation, the plight of millions facing starvation in Yemen, directly linked to Saudi military blockades, apparently doesn't merit the same
urgent, public assurance from a sitting US president. The selective outrage, and the selective use of American influence, suggests that 'humanitarian intervention' is less about human lives and more about geopolitical chess moves dictated by oil money. How much 'humanitarian concern' is simply a price tag?