From Patron to Victim: Saleh as Narrated by Al Arabiya

Yemen Monitor/ special Writings:

On Saturday evening, Al Arabiya channel broadcast a documentary titled “Ali Abdullah Saleh: The Last Battle,” in which the narrative of the former president’s death appeared as part of a larger story, going beyond mere documentation to rewrite history from a new angle.

The film presented Saleh as the primary patron of the Houthi group, rather than their stubborn adversary as depicted in the literature of the General People’s Congress party. It did not merely condemn the late alliance Saleh forged with the Houthis in 2014 but went further, holding him responsible for the group’s initial emergence in the 1980s.

From Patron to Victim

The film adopted a traditional linear structure in presenting events, from the founding of the Houthi group to Saleh’s death in December 2017. However, it was not neutral, portraying Saleh as the hidden architect of the Houthis’ rise, driven by his desire to weaken his political rivals, specifically the Islah party.

The message seems to point to Saleh’s “original sin”: transforming a small sectarian group into an effective armed entity simply to settle political scores. It’s as if the documentary is saying: “He created a monster, and then the monster devoured him.”

The film placed what it called the dangerous effects of Saleh’s war with the Houthis in Saada within a context that negatively impacted his rule, including the February 2011 revolution. At that point, Saleh appeared to have lost all his cards at once; he relinquished power but retained a network of influence and institutions that remained loyal to him.

Ignoring the Gulf Initiative

Although the film relied on a chronological order of events, upon reaching 2011, it quickly jumped to the scene of “demonstrations demanding Saleh’s resignation,” without mentioning the Gulf Initiative. This initiative, sponsored by the Gulf states (except for Qatar, which later withdrew), was the basis for the transfer of power and granted Saleh immunity. Some believe this immunity encouraged him to ally with the Houthis, as he felt secure from any legal or political prosecution.

Apparently, the film intended to shift the responsibility for Yemen’s collapse away from the regional players who shaped that phase and towards Saleh himself, who chose to ally with the Houthis, thus leading the country to explosion.

Necessity or Revenge?

The film clearly documented how the alliance between Saleh and the Houthis gradually evolved, with Saleh providing them political cover and paving their way to Sana’a through a network of loyal tribal leaders and Republican Guard officers. This was done to settle scores with his adversaries who had rebelled against him: Ali Mohsen Al-Ahmar, Islah, and the sons of Sheikh Al-Ahmar.

In this context, Madyan Saleh speaks for the first time in a filmed interview, offering a defense of his father: “The alliance with the Houthis was a fait accompli after their control, and it was necessary to adapt to the situation, especially after Hadi destroyed the army and dismissed thousands of Republican Guard personnel.”

Thus, Madyan attempted to shift responsibility from his father to his political rival, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, accusing him of opening the way for the Houthis.

When the Son Contradicts the Narrative

The most shocking moments in the film came in the final section, where Madyan Saleh revealed a completely different narrative of his father’s death.

Contrary to the widely circulated story for seven years, which states that Saleh was killed inside his home in Al-Thaniyah after a heroic fight, Madyan says his father left the house heading towards his hometown, Sanhan. There, he fell into a Houthi ambush in the village of Beit Al-Jahashi.

This narrative weakens the traditional heroic account but does not deny Saleh’s courage; rather, it shows him as someone who tried to survive, not flee, given the imbalance of power and the absence of any hope of survival at his location inside Sana’a. However, what is dangerous about it is that it completely contradicts what Tariq Saleh, the president’s nephew, had previously stated, claiming he was with him until the last moment in the house. Madyan, on the other hand, did not mention Tariq at all, which opens a wide door for questions: Was Tariq somewhere else? Did he leave early? This ambiguity raises sensitive questions about the truth of what happened and re-generates doubts about the credibility of some accounts from those who supported Saleh after his death. This could also be a political message to Tariq driven by regional anger amidst the competition between influential allies in Yemen.

Madyan’s narrative not only re-raised questions about the moment of his father’s assassination but also cast doubts on the fate of Aref Al-Zouka, the Secretary-General of the General People’s Congress.

While the widely circulated story says Al-Zouka was captured inside Saleh’s house and executed in the hospital, Madyan asserts that he was with his father on the trip to Sanhan. This reopens a file that was closed for years and revives doubts about the accuracy of the official narrative.

Did the film intend to dismantle the myth of Saleh as a “fighting president until the last moment”? Perhaps.

But what is certain is that the documentary “The Last Battle” was not merely a presentation of the details of the end but a reformation of the man’s entire image, from his political birth to his resounding fall.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the film is not what was said, but who said it; for a new narrative to come from the president’s own son is not just a testimony but an alternative narrative that possesses the legitimacy of blood. It raises an obvious question: Who holds the truth? And are we witnessing the beginning of the dismantling of Saleh’s legend from within his own family?