The Facts Behind Aidarus Al-Zubaidi’s Absence from the Saudi-Led Dialogue

 

The Facts Behind Aidarus Al-Zubaidi’s Absence from the Saudi-Led Dialogue

In recent media coverage, a misleading narrative has circulated claiming that President Aidarus Qassem Al-Zubaidi caused the failure of the Saudi-led dialogue by choosing not to attend.

This claim ignores a critical and undeniable fact: Al-Zubaidi’s convoy was bombed before he could travel to Aden airport.

This was not a political maneuver, a tactical delay, or a withdrawal from dialogue. It was a direct attack and a clear assassination attempt that fundamentally changed the security situation on the ground.

When a political leader’s convoy is targeted, the issue ceases to be about attendance or political intent. Bombings end safe mobility, not political will. Any attempt to frame such an incident as a “political boycott” is a distortion of reality.

President Al-Zubaidi’s decision to remain after the attack was not an act of retreat. It was a deliberat choice to stand firm under threat, ensuring stability and safeguarding leadership and institutions at a moment of extreme risk. Leaving under fire might have been safer on a personal level, but staying was a demonstration of responsibility toward his people.

It is important to state clearly: no credible dialogue — including one sponsored by Saudi Arabia — can be conducted while convoys of political leaders are being targeted. Security is not a secondary detail; it is a foundational requirement for any serious political process.

Those who carry out or enable such attacks forfeit the moral authority to speak about dialogue, trust, or guarantees. Dialogue cannot coexist with assassination attempts. Trust cannot be built under bombardment.

Labeling Al-Zubaidi’s absence as a “withdrawal” misrepresents what actually occurred. The reality was not disengagement from talks, but a sudden and violent disruption that made safe participation impossible.

True leadership is not measured by attending meetings under fire, but by making responsible decisions after an attack. In this case, the priority shifted — rightly — to protecting lives, leadership, and institutional stability.