I see: Iranian officials are not involved in directing the Houthis because the latter follow a different branch of Shiism. Indeed. Did such a difference, by the way, prevent these officials from taking over command and control in Syria? Or from playing host to members of Al-Qaeda who actually call for the extermination of all Shia? What sort of logic is this really?
And from where are the Houthis getting their arms?
Still, assuming that the Houthis defied Iran and took over Sanaa without permission or coordination, does that really argue against Iranian involvement in supporting them? Or does it simply tell us that Iran’s level of control over the Houthis is not as strong yet as her control over the Shiite death squads operating in Syria and Iraq? And that Saudi’s decision to get involved in the Yemeni conflict at this stage comes specifically to prevent Iran from establishing such control?
It seems to me here that someone is trying to whitewash Iran’s activities again to make her appear less meaning and troublesome when the time comes for Congress to consider a certain deal.
Of course, the entire report is based on statements made by unnamed official sources. In principle, I have nothing against quoting unnamed officials, that is, not until their statements contradict certain easily observable facts and evolving patterns on the ground. This is exactly what these new revelations do. Someone is lying to us again. Someone is manipulating public opinion again.