The Yemen security complex in the Middle East: continuity and change since 2004

<ns3:p>The Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) recently marked its 20th anniversary since its introduction by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. Coincidentally, the Saada wars and broader civil strife in Yemen have persisted for two decades, rendering it one of the most overlooked yet protracted conflicts of the modern era. Historically, Yemen has played a pivotal though ambiguous role in the Middle East – emerging as the region’s first democratic republic while also serving as a hotspot for extremist activity and proxy competition. Despite its internal fragmentation and recurring wars, Yemen continues to influence regional security dynamics, reinforcing the ‘conflict formation’ character of the Middle Eastern security complex (MESC). The article introduces the concept of the ‘Yemen complex’ – defined through five interlinked factors: enduring civil strife and Houthi resistance, proxy warfare, terrorism, economic collapse, and maritime security. Using RSCT as the main analytical framework, it examines the Yemen complex’s boundaries, polarity, and amity–enmity structure. The analysis draws on qualitative examination of conflict timelines, military interventions (2015, 2023), and a visual actors–threats–referent objects mapping to track continuity and change in securitisation patterns. The findings show that earlier securitisations centred on Yemen’s homegrown and foreign terrorism have declined in prominence, replaced by heightened concerns over Houthi military empowerment and threats to Red Sea shipping lanes – both contributing to the ‘economisation’ of the Yemen complex. The conflict has also reinforced the multipolar nature of the MESC, partly as a result of the counterproductive consequences of the Saudi-led intervention. In the past two decades, the Yemen complex has evolved into a substructure within the MESC, influencing both regional alignments and global maritime security considerations. Although prospects for peaceful conflict resolution have emerged, external actors remain divided in their strategic objectives. This ongoing fragmentation continues to complicate conflict management and obstructs straightforward policy solutions</ns3:p>