As was the situation in both Tunisia and Egypt, with the protest movement taking to the streets, finding solutions in both Yemen and Libya seems difficult, between regimes that have lost all credibility over decades of being in power, and opposition movements that have been through hell and lost all trust in these regimes. The slogan “the people want to overthrow the regime” reflects the crisis of finding a solution much more than it does an alternative governance plan. This leaves the situation in both Yemen and Libya open to an internal war, the outcome of which seems disastrous at the humanitarian, economic as well as political levels. This stands in contrast with what took place in Tunisia and Egypt, where the regime “left” within days, sparing the people the bitter experience currently being witnessed in both Libya and Yemen. The Arabs took a neutral position in Tunisia and Egypt – that is if some of them were not leaning towards the former regime. The speed of the departure resulted from the clear and definite messages coming from the United States, which held great influence in both countries. It seemed that such a departure would take place, meeting the demand of the protest movement and also under US pressures of various forms and aims. It also seemed, in both cases, that inasmuch as the departure took place quickly, internal affairs would be rearranged, and the violence which had begun to appear would thus be avoided. And at a time when those in power in Egypt and Tunisia resorted to the use of force against the protesters, then returned to buying time by taking measures that no longer guaranteed any solution with them, direct and definite US pressure contributed to hastening their departure. Thus both countries recorded peaceful and civil change, even if the outcome of such change has not yet become entirely clear. Unlike those two experiences in which peaceful change took place and a war that would be waged by a regime clinging to power against its people was avoided, after decades of tyranny, mismanagement, oppression, political and economic repression as well as corruption, it is noteworthy that security escalation in both Yemen and Libya has nearly coincided with mixed messages from the US regarding the regime in both countries. Indeed, until the evening of two days ago, there were no clear and candid words from the US Administration defining its stance on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime. In fact, there were signals from Washington that spoke of the danger of chaos in Libya and of the possibility of Al-Qaeda gaining a foothold in this country, which coincides with the Libyan regime's stance. And while the United States approved of sanctions against the Libyan regime, it did not exercise its powerful influence in order to push for a UN decision to impose a no-fly zone. The result of such hesitation and ambiguity, over several days, was enabling Gaddafi's regime to regain some initiative on the ground, especially by using the air force. Gaddafi took advantage of Washington's hesitation and ambivalence, and made use of it to increase military pressure on the National Transitional Council, by resorting to the air force and heavy artillery – which he would not have dared to do had he not known that it would pass without severe punishment. At the same time, US messages in Sanaa's direction have been no less ambiguous and ambivalent – to such an extent that some of its advice to the protest movement involved calls to accept what the regime offered, instead of exerting pressures to drive it to abstain from making use of violence as a means of dialogue. This is what had led and continues to lead to confrontations on the ground, reaching the use of tear gas in order to disperse the protesters yesterday morning. And on the background of sporadic, but ongoing, clashes with Yemeni government forces, the escalation of defiance and the descent into a cycle of violence, it is not unlikely for Yemen's situation to slip into a civil war that would erupt in the whole country. Indeed, the regime, which is still receiving mixed messages as well as political and financial support from Washington, even if it accuses it, along with Israel in its propaganda, of being behind the people's demands, still finds space to maneuver. Moreover, it does not find itself forced to take the initiative that would end the danger of civil war, i.e. to leave.
