Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strong denunciation following recent airstrikes on the main airport and civilian infrastructure in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, underscoring heightened tensions as international forces target sites used by Iranian-backed Houthi militants. The condemnation, broadcast through official spokesman channels, framed the events as violations of international law and attacks on humanitarian assets, amid persistent allegations that the Houthis are repurposing civilian infrastructure for military operations.
The Sanaa International Airport incident exemplifies the broader strategic challenge posed by Iran’s so-called ‘Axis of Resistance.’ Since the Houthi takeover of northern Yemen in 2014, the airport has been tightly controlled by the group, who receive direct support from Tehran. Regional intelligence reports indicate repeated patterns of dual-use by the Houthis, including weapons transit, drone assembly, and as a base for launching attacks against civilian and commercial targets across the Arabian Peninsula and, more recently, into the Red Sea and beyond.
International humanitarian law stipulates that civilian infrastructure is protected so long as it is not used for hostile purposes. When such sites become tools of terror—for smuggling arms, storing missiles, or logistical coordination—those protections can be legally jeopardized. Western security analysts and Israeli defense officials cite a systematic Iranian proxy strategy: deliberately embedding military assets within sites such as airports, schools, and hospitals, knowing that retaliatory strikes invite condemnation and media scrutiny. These claims are corroborated by field evidence found in previous coalition and Israeli operations in Gaza and Lebanon, where similar dual-purpose usage has been meticulously documented.
The October 7, 2023 massacre—perpetrated by Hamas terrorists, with explicit Iranian direction and logistical support—exposed the human cost of this strategy. Over 1,200 Israeli civilians were murdered and more than 200 were forcibly abducted to Gaza during the attack, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust. Hamas, like their Houthi counterparts, has consistently used civilian structures for military ends, provoking Israeli responses that are then manipulated in global media to falsely equate Israel’s sovereign defense with terror aggression.
In the latest incidents, Israeli and Western coalition partners have emphasized intelligence indicating the use of Sanaa airport not only for civilian flights but as a conduit for Iranian weapons trafficking and staging of attacks on international shipping. These operations—targeting coalition and Israeli interests in the Red Sea—have prompted increased international naval and air responses, with the intent to restore security to strategic maritime routes that are vital for global trade.
Iran’s selective invocation of international law is further undermined by its silence regarding attacks on Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport and other civilian infrastructure. Iranian-backed proxies have repeatedly targeted these sites, endangering thousands of travelers and civilians. During major escalations, rocket and drone barrages from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have forced the diversion and grounding of flights at Ben Gurion, disrupting the lifeline of Israeli commerce and international connectivity.
The dual-use dilemma remains a persistent flashpoint in Middle East conflict. Human rights organizations have repeatedly highlighted evidence of Iranian-sponsored groups using protected sites for military operations. Yet international condemnation tends to focus disproportionately on coalition responses, rather than the original violations by the terror groups. Israeli officials argue this skews global coverage and erodes the ability of law-abiding nations to defend their populations while upholding the spirit—if not the letter—of the laws of war.
Yemen’s crisis has grown into a test case for this broader regional pattern. The Houthi campaign—expanded under Iranian stewardship—now threatens maritime security far beyond Yemen’s borders, echoing the rocket wars against Israel and sabotage in the Gulf. International counter-terror coalitions have responded with targeted strikes, aiming to degrade Houthi capabilities while navigating the legal and moral complexities of distinguishing true civilian targets from camouflaged military positions.
The controversy over the Sanaa airport strikes forces renewed scrutiny of how Iranian proxies systematically undermine the civilian-military distinction as a tool of regional war, weaponizing both legal norms and human suffering. The international community faces a critical challenge: ensuring accurate attribution, holding terror groups accountable for violations, and upholding the right of sovereign states like Israel to defend their people—while minimizing harm to innocent civilians and restoring the credibility of international law.
The ongoing war, triggered by Iran and its regional proxies, continues to shape the realities across the Middle East. Only by confronting the moral and strategic truth behind such attacks—refusing to accept false equivalencies or propaganda—can responsible actors ensure the integrity of international humanitarian norms and the security of lawful states targeted by terror.
