The Road to Peace Between Saudi Arabia and Yemen: The Aman Framework

A practical pathway from war to security, dignity, and economic recovery

Peace Begins With Safety, Not Trust

“Peace does not begin when enemies start trusting each other. It begins when they discover that peace is safer than war.”

---

---

— By Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

How Does the Killing Stop?

There comes a moment in every prolonged conflict when one has to ask a question that is more difficult than, “Who is right?”

The question is

How does the killing stop?

I have been thinking about that question in the context of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The conflict is often described through military maps, missiles, drones, borders, ports, and geopolitical alliances. But behind every one of those words are ordinary human beings.

• A Saudi family wants to know whether it is safe to sleep at night.
• A Yemeni family wants to know whether its home will still be standing in the morning.
• A seafarer crossing the Red Sea wants to return to his family.
• A Yemeni worker wants a salary instead of another promise.

And somewhere beneath all the political arguments is a simple human desire:

People want their lives back.

The Present Crisis Has Become Particularly Dangerous

The present crisis has become particularly dangerous. The United Nations has warned of renewed large-scale conflict, while fighting and attacks have increasingly affected Yemen’s western coast and the approaches to Bab el-Mandeb. Cross-border attacks and humanitarian pressures have added to the danger. At the same time, attacks on commercial shipping have turned the Red Sea into a matter of international concern because the consequences reach far beyond Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

But I do not believe that another cycle of military escalation can provide a lasting answer.

Nor do I believe that a peace agreement can simply begin with the words:

“Trust each other.”

That would be asking human beings to do something that years of conflict have made extraordinarily difficult.

What If Peace Did Not Require Trust at the Beginning?

So I began with a different question.

What if peace did not require trust at the beginning?

What if it required something more practical?

• Reciprocity.
• Verification.
• Accountability.
• Incentives to continue.

That thought led me to what I call the AMAN Framework.

Aman means safety.

And safety, in my view, is where this peace process must begin.

The Conflict Is Not Simply Saudi Arabia Versus Yemen

One of the first mistakes we can make is to describe this as a straightforward war between two countries.

It is not.

Yemen itself is politically and militarily fragmented. Ansar Allah/Houthi authorities control substantial territory and possess significant military capabilities, while internationally recognized Yemeni authorities and other political, regional, and local actors remain part of the wider conflict.

So I see three overlapping conflicts.

Any serious peace architecture has to recognize all three.

A Ceasefire Is Not Peace

A ceasefire may reduce violence.

But a ceasefire alone is not peace.

A ceasefire is the door through which peace must enter.

The United Nations’ experience after the 2022 truce illustrates this distinction. Violence was significantly reduced, and practical improvements followed, but the political process needed to transform that reduction in violence into a comprehensive settlement did not fully mature.

That is an important lesson.

We should not repeat the mistake of treating temporary calm as the destination.

It is only the beginning.

The Human Mind Is Another Battlefield

When diplomats discuss Yemen, they naturally discuss territory, missiles, drones, ports, oil, and shipping lanes.

All of these are important.

But there is another battlefield that rarely appears on a map.

The human mind.

Imagine being a Saudi parent living with the fear of another cross-border attack.

The question is not complicated:

“If we reduce military pressure, what prevents another attack?”

Now imagine being a Yemeni parent.

The question may be equally simple:

“If another agreement is signed, will the fighting really stop—or will our lives once again be decided by forces outside our control?”

These fears cannot be negotiated away with speeches.

They have to be built into the architecture of the agreement itself.

That is why I do not propose beginning with trust.

I propose beginning with a mechanism that allows both sides to say:

“I do not have to trust you. I have to trust the system that verifies what you do.”

That distinction may be the key to unlocking the door.

What Saudi Arabia Needs to Hear

For Saudi Arabia, the question of Yemen is not merely geopolitical.

At its most basic level, it is a question of security.

If Saudi Arabia reduces military pressure, what guarantees that its territory and critical infrastructure will not become more vulnerable?

The answer cannot simply be

“Trust the other side.”

A more realistic answer is

“You do not have to trust the other side. You have to trust the verification mechanism.”

That means any agreement must contain:

• Reciprocal security assurances.
• Protection for civilian infrastructure.
• An emergency communication channel.
• Independent investigation of incidents.
• Agreed consequences for verified violations.
• The continued ability to protect civilians through lawful defensive measures.

Saudi Arabia must be able to tell its citizens:

We did not abandon security. We created a different mechanism for achieving it.

And What Yemen Needs to Hear

The psychological equation in Yemen is different.

Years of war have created distrust, fragmentation, and economic exhaustion.

A peace proposal that sounds like a declaration of victory over Yemen will inevitably create resistance.

The message has to be different.

Peace is not surrender.

Yemen’s political future cannot simply be dictated from outside Yemen.

That does not mean every faction gets a veto.

It means that the eventual political settlement must belong to Yemenis.

The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized the need for an inclusive, Yemeni-owned political process.

That principle should be at the heart of the settlement.

There Is Also a Palestinian Dimension

There is another reality that cannot simply be ignored.

The Houthi movement has linked its Red Sea actions to the Palestinian cause. Whether one agrees with that strategy or not, the issue has political and emotional significance for its supporters.

A serious peace strategy cannot simply tell people:

“Stop caring about Palestine.”

That is unlikely to work.

A more realistic approach is to separate the cause from the method.

Yemen can support Palestinian humanitarian rights and international-law principles through diplomacy, humanitarian assistance, and international institutions without making Yemeni civilians bear the cost of another regional war.

That is not abandoning a political position.

It is changing the means through which that position is pursued.

And sometimes, meaningful compromise is precisely that.

This Is Where Aman Begins

I call the proposed system the

Aman Framework

The word itself is important.

It means safety.

But it also describes the four pillars of the proposal.

The philosophy is deliberately simple:

Do not build the first stage of peace on trust. Build it on verification.

Trust can come later.

The First 72 Hours

I would not begin by announcing:

“The war is over.”

That would be unrealistic.

I would begin with something much smaller.

Something almost modest.

I would call it

The First Breath

For 72 hours, both sides would agree to a reciprocal operational freeze covering specifically defined offensive actions.

Nobody would be required to surrender.

Nobody would be required to recognize the other’s ultimate political status.

Nobody would be required to forget history.

The message would simply be:

For seventy-two hours, let the guns be silent.

During those 72 hours, the United Nations and Oman could activate communication and verification mechanisms.

This would not require inventing an entirely new diplomatic architecture. The UN already has mechanisms involving military representatives from the Saudi-led Joint Forces Command, Ansar Allah, and the Yemeni government, including a Military Coordination Committee identified as a channel for de-escalation.

Sometimes diplomacy does not need another institution.

It needs the courage to use the institutions that already exist.

Aman 30: Thirty Days to Prove That Restraint Works

If the first 72 hours hold, I would move to the next stage:

Aman 30

A thirty-day monitored pilot.

The objective would not be to pretend that peace has suddenly arrived.

The objective would be to answer one practical question:

Can restraint work?

Five indicators could be monitored:

1. Cross-border attacks.
2. Attacks against commercial shipping.
3. Attacks against civilian infrastructure.
4. Humanitarian access.
5. Compliance with the verification mechanism.

At the end of those thirty days, the parties would have something that diplomatic declarations often lack:

Evidence.

Not rhetoric.

Not propaganda.

Evidence.

Replace Trust With Verification

Consider how a conventional ceasefire can collapse.

A report reaches Riyadh:

“They have violated the agreement.”

Almost simultaneously, another report reaches Houthi leadership:

“Saudi Arabia has violated the agreement.”

Each side believes its own information.

Neither believes the other.

And the ceasefire begins to unravel.

AMAN attempts to break that cycle through an:

Independent Verification Cell

Using appropriate and lawful sources—including satellite imagery, maritime AIS information, radar data, verified incident reports, port information, photographic evidence, and independently corroborated information—the mechanism would seek to establish one factual record.

Not:

“Saudi Arabia says…”

Not:

“The Houthis say…”

But:

“The verification mechanism has determined…”

That is a profound difference.

Green, Amber, and Red

Every alleged violation should fall into one of three categories.

This system would prevent every social media video, rumor, or political accusation from becoming an automatic trigger for military retaliation.

The principle is simple:

An allegation is not yet a fact.

Take Commercial Shipping Out of the War

There is one area where I believe the international community should be especially firm.

Commercial shipping must not become a bargaining chip.

The Red Sea is not merely a regional waterway. It is an international commercial artery.

The IMO has warned that attacks on shipping threaten seafarers and global supply chains, and recent attacks have resulted in seafarer deaths.

I therefore propose the following:

Red Sea Civilian Maritime Safety Compact

The parties should commit to:

• No deliberate attacks on merchant vessels.
• No deliberate attacks on humanitarian vessels.
• No arbitrary seizure of civilian ships.
• No deliberate interference with civilian navigation.
• No deployment of new maritime mines within protected civilian corridors.

The existing maritime-security infrastructure involving Yemen could be connected directly to the wider peace-verification system.

The Red Sea should not become another battlefield.

It should become one of the first places where the peace can be measured.

Protect Civilian Infrastructure

Any agreement should establish an explicit protected civilian list.

• Hospitals.
• Medical facilities.
• Airports.
• Schools.
• Water systems.
• Desalination plants.
• Electricity infrastructure.
• Food-storage facilities.
• Humanitarian facilities.
• Civilian ports.
• Merchant vessels.

Political disagreements may continue.

Military calculations may continue.

But civilians should not remain on the battlefield.

The Clause That May Save the Agreement: No Humiliation

There is one provision I consider particularly important.

It should become an actual clause of the agreement:

Neither party shall describe implementation of the agreement as surrender, capitulation, or defeat of the other party.

Why?

Because international agreements do not exist only inside negotiating rooms.

Leaders eventually have to explain them to their own people.

If peace becomes synonymous with humiliation, those who oppose the agreement can portray compromise as weakness.

Saudi Arabia must be able to say:

“We protected our people and secured our borders.”

Yemeni actors must be able to say:

“We stopped the war without surrendering Yemen’s dignity.”

Those two statements can coexist.

In fact, they may have to coexist if the agreement is going to survive.

No Collective Blame

There must also be a clear distinction between armed organizations and civilian populations.

A Yemeni civilian is not the enemy because of where he lives.

A Saudi civilian is not the enemy because of the actions of his government.

Collective blame destroys the possibility of reconciliation.

Peace requires us to recognize something very basic:

Governments, armed organizations, and ordinary citizens are not interchangeable.

Keep the Political Question from Destroying the Security Question

There is a question that cannot be avoided forever:

Who ultimately governs Yemen?

But should that question have to be answered before the shooting stops?

I do not think so.

That is why I propose the following:

Political-Status Firewall

The initial security agreement should not prejudge Yemen’s final constitutional structure, the permanent status of political factions, the distribution of political power, or the ultimate organization of Yemen’s security forces.

Those questions belong to the political settlement.

First:

Security.

Then:

Political settlement.

That is not avoidance.

It is sequencing.

Three Tables Instead of One Impossible Table

I would divide the negotiations into three interconnected tracks.

Table One: Security

Saudi Arabia, Houthi representatives, relevant Yemeni representatives, Oman, and the United Nations.

The subjects would include:

• ceasefire;
• border security;
• missiles and drones;
• maritime security;
• incident verification.

Table Two: Yemen’s Political Future

Yemeni political and social constituencies.

The subjects would include:

• governance;
• constitutional arrangements;
• decentralization;
• political participation;
• regional grievances;
• elections.

Table Three: Economics

The subjects would include:

• salaries;
• oil;
• currency;
• ports;
• electricity;
• reconstruction;
• trade.

This separation matters.

A disagreement over constitutional arrangements should not be allowed to destroy an agreement that is delivering food to civilians.

Make Peace Visible in People’s Lives

This, perhaps, is where the entire proposal becomes practical.

A peace agreement cannot remain an elite document.

Ordinary people must experience its benefits.

I propose a:

Yemen Peace Dividend Fund

Potential contributors could include Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, international donors, development institutions, and other willing partners.

But the money should not become unrestricted political finance.

Instead:

Verified peace should produce verified benefits.

Imagine what happens psychologically when people begin to see:

• Peace → food.
• Peace → salary.
• Peace → electricity.
• Peace → medicine.

That is when peace begins to acquire a constituency.

Oil Should Finance Recovery, Not Another War

Yemen’s natural resources must eventually become part of the solution.

If oil exports resume, revenues should be handled through a transparent and independently audited arrangement.

The exact distribution must be negotiated by Yemenis.

But the principle should be clear:

Yemen’s resources should finance Yemen’s recovery—not the next round of war.

Priority should be given to civilian salaries, essential services, reconstruction, local development, and economic stabilization.

The United Nations has identified salaries, currency, trade, revenues, transportation, and essential services as central to a durable settlement, while also pointing to the potential importance of resuming oil exports under appropriate security guarantees.

Turn the Border into a Peace Belt

The Saudi-Yemeni border should gradually become more than a security line.

At first, it could focus on:

• secure crossings;
• humanitarian movement;
• medical access;
• anti-smuggling cooperation.

Later, it could expand into:

• regulated trade;
• agricultural markets;
• legitimate employment;
• infrastructure cooperation.

There is a simple strategic idea behind this:

Give the communities living closest to the conflict the greatest economic interest in preventing its return.

Peace Cannot Be Made Only by Generals

Military leaders can stop battles.

They cannot, by themselves, heal societies.

The broader peace process should therefore include appropriate representatives of local communities, tribal mediation structures, women, business communities, civil society, religious and community leaders, displaced people, and local authorities.

These groups do not necessarily need veto power.

Their role is different.

They make peace socially sustainable.

The Information War Must Also End

Modern conflicts are not fought only with missiles.

They are fought with narratives.

One side says:

“They violated the ceasefire.”

The other responds:

“They are lying.”

Within hours, public anger rises.

Within days, the political space for compromise disappears.

AMAN therefore proposes an:

Information De-escalation Protocol

The parties should distinguish allegations from verified facts, use the verification mechanism for disputed incidents, avoid collective demonization, avoid deliberate incitement against civilians, and avoid declaring victory on the basis of unverified claims.

This is not censorship.

It is conflict containment.

Make Peace Measurable

I would also introduce a public:

AMAN Peace Dashboard

It could show:

• Days without a verified major violation: ___
• Commercial vessels safely transiting: ___
• Humanitarian shipments delivered: ___
• Civil-service salaries paid: ___%
• Roads reopened: ___
• Medical access cases facilitated: ___
• Peace Dividend released: $___

Why?

Because peace should not exist only in diplomatic communiqués.

People should be able to see whether peace is working.

What Happens When Someone Violates the Agreement?

This may be the most important question of all.

A violation occurs.

The other side retaliates.

The first side retaliates again.

And suddenly the ceasefire is gone.

AMAN therefore requires consequences—but consequences that do not automatically restart the war.

A minor violation could trigger:

• Investigation and corrective action.

A serious verified violation could trigger:

• Temporary suspension of specified benefits and emergency consultations.

Repeated serious violations could trigger:

• International diplomatic measures.

A major attack could trigger:

• Emergency consideration by appropriate international institutions and lawful defensive measures where applicable.

The principle is

A violation must have consequences—but it must not automatically restart the war.

The First 30 Days

The sequence could therefore look like this.

Days 1–3: The First Breath

• 72-hour reciprocal freeze.
• Hotline.
• Verification.
• Civilian protection.

Days 4–7: Maritime Protection

• Commercial shipping protocol.
• Incident reporting.
• Protected civilian navigation.

Days 8–14: Humanitarian Dividend

• Food.
• Fuel.
• Medicine.
• Medical access.

Days 15–30: Political Bridge

Three negotiation tables:

• Security.
• Politics.
• Economics.

And on Day 30, the parties ask:

Not—

“Who made the strongest speech?”

But—

“What does the evidence show?”

From AMAN 30 to Six Months

If the thirty-day pilot succeeds, the parties could move into a:

Six-Month Security and Economic Compact

That compact could address:

• broader ceasefire arrangements;
• border security;
• maritime guarantees;
• civilian protection;
• salaries;
• revenues;
• humanitarian access;
• economic stabilization;
• political negotiations.

The lesson of the 2022 truce is important here. Reduced violence created practical openings for fuel access, commercial flights, and humanitarian improvements. But the truce was never supposed to become a substitute for a comprehensive political settlement.

That distinction must remain clear.

Six to Twelve Months: The Real Destination

The ultimate objective cannot simply be

“Saudi Arabia stops bombing.”

Nor can it simply be

“The Houthis stop attacking.”

That would be a ceasefire.

The destination has to be

A Yemeni-Led Political Settlement

That settlement must eventually confront the difficult questions:

• constitutional arrangements;
• political representation;
• regional grievances;
• decentralization;
• revenue sharing;
• security institutions;
• elections;
• the future of armed groups;
• accountability;
• reconstruction.

The United Nations has repeatedly emphasized that an inclusive, Yemeni-led political process is necessary to address the underlying conflict comprehensively.

The battlefield cannot ultimately decide Yemen’s political future.

Yemenis must.

What About Justice?

This is perhaps the most painful question.

Thousands of people have suffered death, injury, displacement, detention, and destruction.

Can we simply say:

“Forget the past.”

No.

But there is also a question of sequence.

First:

• Stop the killing.

Then:

• Protect civilians.

Then:

• Restore institutions.

Then:

• Address detainees and missing persons.

Then:

• Truth, accountability, and compensation.

Justice must ultimately be part of peace.

But if every historical grievance becomes a precondition for the first ceasefire, the parties may never reach the first ceasefire.

Sometimes the first act of justice is preventing the next death.

The Objections Are Real

I do not pretend that AMAN eliminates the difficulties.

Someone will say:

“The Houthis cannot be trusted.”

Perhaps.

But AMAN does not require blind trust.

It requires verification.

Someone else will say:

“Saudi Arabia cannot lower its guard.”

It should not have to.

The proposal is based on suspending defined offensive actions while preserving lawful defensive capability.

Another objection will be

“This rewards attacks.”

Not automatically.

Benefits would be conditional upon verified compliance.

Another concern:

“The Yemeni government will be bypassed.”

It should not be.

That is precisely why the political track must exist separately from the Saudi-Houthi security channel.

Another concern:

“Iran could interfere.”

That is a genuine risk and would require a parallel regional diplomatic track.

Others will ask:

“What about the other Yemeni groups?”

That is precisely why the eventual political process must be inclusive.

And then comes perhaps the most obvious objection:

“Ceasefires have failed before.”

Yes.

And that is exactly why AMAN is not intended to be merely another ceasefire.

It connects:

• verification + economic incentives + maritime protection + civilian protection + social participation + political sequencing.

What Is Actually New About AMAN?

The individual ingredients are not revolutionary.

• Ceasefires already exist.
• UN mediation already exists.
• Economic incentives already exist.
• Maritime monitoring already exists.
• Humanitarian mechanisms already exist.

The difference lies in the architecture.

AMAN connects them.

The chain is

• Security compliance
• ↓
• Independent verification
• ↓
• Civilian and economic benefit
• ↓
• Greater incentive for continued compliance
• ↓
• Expanded political space

That is the central idea.

Peace must become not merely morally desirable.

It must become structurally rational.

My Message to Saudi Arabia

If I were speaking directly to Saudi Arabia, I would say this:

You are not being asked to choose between security and peace.

The purpose of this framework is to make peace a mechanism of security.

You do not have to trust the other side blindly.

You should be able to verify compliance.

You should be able to respond to verified violations.

You should be able to protect your citizens.

And you should be able to leave an open-ended war without creating the perception that you have abandoned your security.

My Message to Yemen

And if I were speaking directly to Yemenis, I would say:

Peace is not surrender.

Yemen’s sovereignty and political future should not be reduced to the outcome of a battlefield.

Political differences can continue to be debated.

But they should be debated around a table rather than settled by missiles.

The objective is not to erase Yemen’s political identity.

It is to give Yemen the opportunity to rebuild it.

And My Message to Ordinary Families Is Even Simpler

You do not have to agree with each other to stop killing each other.

You do not have to forget the past.

You do not have to surrender your beliefs.

But your children should not have to inherit your war.

Conclusion: The Road Does Not Begin With Trust

I have deliberately tried not to write another romantic appeal for peace.

The Middle East has seen too many declarations that sounded beautiful when they were signed and collapsed when the first serious test arrived.

The real challenge is much harder.

How do you construct peace between people who do not trust one another?

My answer is

• Do not begin with trust.
  Begin with reciprocity.
• Do not begin with political surrender.
  Begin with mutual security.
• Do not begin by asking people to forget the past.
  Begin by stopping the next tragedy.
• Do not make peace an abstract promise.
  Give it an economic dividend.
• Do not allow every allegation to become a military response.
  Create independent verification.
• Do not force the parties to resolve every constitutional question on the first day.
  Sequence the negotiations.
• And above all, do not humiliate either population.

Because humiliation can destroy a peace that diplomacy has spent years constructing.

The AMAN Framework: A Simple Proposition

The AMAN Framework therefore rests on a simple proposition:

• Saudi Arabia should be able to become safer without Yemen being humiliated.
• Yemen should be able to regain stability without Saudi Arabia being made insecure.
• The Red Sea should remain open without turning Yemen into the battlefield for every regional dispute.
• And the political future of Yemen should ultimately be determined through a genuinely Yemeni-led process.

I do not claim that AMAN can solve every problem in Yemen.

No document can.

A good peace proposal does not have to solve everything on Day One.

It has to create the conditions in which the next problem can be solved without returning to war.

That is the purpose of AMAN.

• Not to decide who won.
• Not to erase history.
• Not to demand surrender.
• But to create an off-ramp from escalation.

Perhaps the First Victory Should Be Human

Perhaps the first victory should therefore not be territorial.

Perhaps it should be something much more human.

• A Saudi child sleeps without hearing the sound of an incoming attack.
• A Yemeni child wakes without wondering whether another airstrike will destroy the family home.
• A seafarer crosses the Red Sea and returns to his family.
• A Yemeni worker receives a salary instead of a promise.
• And a political disagreement is finally allowed to remain a political disagreement.

That, to me, is what the road to peace should look like.

Need Experienced Legal Guidance? Speak Directly With Adv. Tarun Choudhury

When a legal issue involves constitutional law, international legal questions, human rights, public policy, complex disputes, or matters requiring experienced legal analysis, the first step is often to speak with someone who understands both the law and the larger implications of the issue.

Adv. Tarun Choudhury, Supreme Court Advocate with 25+ years of legal experience, provides experienced legal consultation and professional guidance for individuals, organizations, and those seeking clarity on complex legal matters.

Do not leave an important legal question unanswered. A timely conversation can help you understand your legal position, identify the issues that matter, and determine the appropriate course of action.

📞 Speak With Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
📞 Call: 9891244487
💬 WhatsApp: 9891244487

For serious legal questions, experienced legal guidance can make the difference between uncertainty and clarity.

Contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury today for a professional consultation.

Experienced Legal Guidance • Supreme Court Advocacy • 25+ Years of Legal Experience

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What Is the AMAN Framework for Peace Between Saudi Arabia and Yemen?

The AMAN Framework is a proposed practical peace architecture designed to help reduce conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen while addressing security, humanitarian, economic, and political concerns. AMAN stands for Assurance, Mutual Restraint, Accountability, and Normalization. The framework proposes reciprocal security assurances, independent verification of violations, humanitarian and economic incentives, maritime protection, and a gradual transition toward an inclusive, Yemeni-led political settlement.

2. How Can Saudi Arabia and Yemen Achieve Lasting Peace Without Relying on Mutual Trust?

The AMAN Framework proposes that the initial peace process should be based on verification rather than blind trust. It recommends a reciprocal operational freeze, independent monitoring of alleged violations, emergency communication channels, and predetermined consequences for verified breaches. The objective is to create a system in which both sides can reduce military escalation while maintaining appropriate security safeguards.

3. What Is the 72-Hour Ceasefire Proposal Under the AMAN Framework?

The proposed 72-hour reciprocal operational freeze, described as “The First Breath,” is intended as the first practical step toward de-escalation. Under the proposal, Saudi Arabia would suspend defined offensive operations while Houthi authorities would suspend defined cross-border attacks and attacks against commercial shipping. The 72-hour period would allow communication, verification, and civilian-protection mechanisms to begin operating before moving to the proposed 30-day AMAN pilot.

4. How Would the AMAN Framework Protect Red Sea Shipping and Civilian Vessels?

The proposal calls for a Red Sea Civilian Maritime Safety Compact under which commercial and humanitarian vessels would be protected from deliberate attacks, arbitrary seizure, and deliberate interference with civilian navigation. The framework also proposes connecting existing maritime security and information-sharing mechanisms with the wider peace-verification system.

5. How Would the AMAN Framework Create a Long-Term Political Settlement in Yemen?

The AMAN Framework proposes moving from an initial security arrangement toward a Yemeni-led political settlement. It separates immediate security issues from longer-term questions concerning Yemen’s constitutional structure, political representation, decentralization, elections, revenue sharing, security institutions, accountability, and reconstruction. The proposal also recommends three interconnected negotiating tracks covering security, Yemen’s political future, and economics so that political disagreements do not prevent humanitarian and security progress.

Editorial Note

Editorial Note: This is a policy proposal by the author. It does not represent the official position of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ansar Allah, Oman, the United Nations, or any other government or institution. Current-event claims are distinguished from the proposed AMAN Framework and are based on the sources identified in the underlying article.

Key Takeaways: Saudi Arabia–Yemen Peace and the AMAN Framework

• The AMAN Framework is a proposed practical pathway for achieving peace between Saudi Arabia and Yemen through security assurances, reciprocal restraint, independent verification, and gradual normalization.
• AMAN stands for Assurance, Mutual Restraint, Accountability, and Normalization, creating a structured framework designed to reduce military escalation while building conditions for long-term peace.
• The proposal argues that Saudi Arabia and Yemen do not need to begin the peace process with mutual trust. Instead, the first stage should rely on reciprocity, independent verification, and clearly defined consequences for violations.
• The proposed 72-hour reciprocal operational freeze, called “The First Breath,” would provide an initial opportunity to stop defined offensive actions, activate communication channels, and establish verification mechanisms.
• AMAN 30 proposes a 30-day monitored pilot measuring cross-border attacks, attacks on commercial shipping, civilian infrastructure, humanitarian access, and compliance with verification procedures.
• The framework proposes an Independent Verification Cell using appropriate evidence such as satellite imagery, maritime AIS information, radar data, verified incident reports, and independently corroborated evidence to establish a common factual record.
• The proposal recommends a green, amber, and red system for alleged violations, helping distinguish between no verified material violation, credible allegations requiring investigation, and independently verified material violations.
• Red Sea maritime security is a central part of the proposal. The proposed Red Sea Civilian Maritime Safety Compact would seek to protect commercial and humanitarian vessels from deliberate attacks, arbitrary seizure, and interference with civilian navigation.
• The framework calls for explicit protection of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, airports, water systems, electricity infrastructure, humanitarian facilities, and civilian ports.
• A proposed “No-Humiliation Clause” would prevent either side from portraying the implementation of the agreement as surrender, capitulation, or defeat, recognizing the importance of domestic political acceptance for sustaining peace.
• The proposal separates immediate security questions from Yemen’s ultimate political status through a political-status firewall, allowing violence reduction to proceed without prematurely deciding on Yemen’s constitutional or political future.
• AMAN proposes three interconnected negotiating tables covering security, Yemen’s political future, and economics, allowing humanitarian and security progress to continue even while difficult constitutional and political questions remain unresolved.
• A proposed Yemen Peace Dividend Fund would connect verified compliance with tangible benefits such as humanitarian assistance, food, fuel, medical support, salaries, infrastructure, and eventual economic normalization.
• The framework argues that Yemen’s natural-resource revenues should support civilian salaries, essential services, reconstruction, and economic stabilization, rather than contribute to another cycle of conflict.
• The proposed long-term destination is not merely a ceasefire but an inclusive, Yemeni-led political settlement addressing governance, constitutional arrangements, political representation, decentralization, revenue sharing, elections, security institutions, accountability and reconstruction.

Summary

The AMAN Framework proposes a step-by-step Saudi Arabia–Yemen peace process based on reciprocity rather than blind trust: a 72-hour operational freeze, a 30-day monitored pilot, independent verification, Red Sea maritime protection, humanitarian and economic incentives, political dialogue, and ultimately an inclusive Yemeni-led political settlement.

• Borders vs. Humanity? A Comparative Study of Immigration Policy in Advanced Economies
• The Gaza crisis and the United Nations: Testing the limits of international law and collective responsibility
• VVIP Security in Saudi Arabia: Guardianship of Power, Faith, and the State
• The Enduring Crown: How Saudi Arabia Selects Its Leaders
• Why the U.S. Cannot Exit the Iran Conflict: Strategic Trap, Petrodollar Risk & Global Power Shift